Erfolg Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 On page 5 of the latest BMFA News, under Thinking About Failsafes, Manny Williams states The requirements as set out in CAP 658 stipulates that where a failsafe facility is available (and it is on pretty much any modern R/C set) the failsafe must be utilised whatever the weight of the aircraft. What it actually says is:- Failsafes Any powered model aircraft fitted with a receiver capable of operating in failsafe mode should have the failsafe set, as a minimum, to reduce the engine(s) speed to idle on loss or corruption of signal. There is all the world of difference in "must" and "should" In my opinion it is the BMFA function to represent us modellers who pay the BMFA to work in our interest. I expect the BMFA to emphasise the should when dealing with all organisations. Whilst encouraging us the members to set the failsafe in an appropriate manner. It certainly should not be publicly adopting a position which appears to work against the interest of any member, if an incident should occur. I am very disappointed. Edited By Erfolg on 16/07/2012 21:24:13 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 For me Erfolg when a legal document says "should" as far as I'm concerned it reads "must". I wouldn't want to argue the semantics of this one standing in the dock faced with the CAA's lawyers! BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Marsh Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Easy to say the wrong word and get misunderstood. In this case asks one to fully comply, not recommending you to set the failsafe. Oh, well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I raised this point with Manny last year and it seems that it was the CAA that changed the wording and he was unable to establish their reasoning for the change from the previous "must". As CAP 658 is not actually a legal document, just a guide, the thinking is that compliance should be strongly encouraged by continuing to state the view that they must be used and the CAA are happy with this attitude. There is therefore no legal standing that failsafes have to be used but remember that all reasonable precautions have to be taken for safe flight, especially over 7kg, and I'd imagine it would be difficult for the BMFA to defend a member against a prosecution should failure to use one be a major contributing factor to an accident or incident. Edited By Martin Harris on 16/07/2012 21:40:36 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolstonFlyer Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Interesting because there is a an accepted difference.English lesson 101.Should=you don't have to do it.Must=you have to do it...no choice.Must is used to express obligation, necessesity, it is a certainty or extreme likelihood.Should only expresses probabilityIt reflects the severity of importance.Examples:You really SHOULD see a doctor about that sore throat.You MUST get your eyes tested if you want to keep your driving license. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Exactly why I felt it needed clarifying and raised it with the BMFA! Manny's explanation seemed most reasonable - I'd copy it to the forum but I don't think it would be quite right to do so - I hope I've paraphrased it accurately though. Edited By Martin Harris on 16/07/2012 21:47:57 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 CAP658 is legal document in the sense that the ultimate test of "reasonable precautions" in a court will almost certainly be seen as compliance with that text. In my book that makes it a legal document! BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Cantwell Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 On the basis of Mannies words in the BMFA news, please yourself if you set it or not, but harm someone with your recklessness, and ts highly likely that you could be sued you for everything you own, and then for the clothes you stand in, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 But you will not find a law anywhere on the statute book compelling you to use a failsafe, BEB. ...emiently sensible though it would be for your reasons above. And exactly why I believe the BMFA continue to promote the "compulsoriness" of their use. Edited By Martin Harris on 16/07/2012 22:37:55 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn K Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Should and Must are two seperate legal terms. My understanding is that... (from working on commercial contracts - I am not a lawyer) Must is a mandate, you MUST do it and it is legally binding. Should is advisory, you are advised to do it but it is not legally binding. However, if you are told you should do something and you don't then you will have to explain why you chose not to do it in the event of an inquiry and which I suspect would not help in a case where negligence may be an issue. The advise we were given was treat Should as Must unless you have a very good mitigating circumstance you can rely on. Martyn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Randall Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 The HSE has numerous Guidance Notes that explain H&S legislation. They are not legal documents, but, should you find yourself in court the judge will ask what you did to meet or surpass the recomendations. He will not say " they're not law so you can ignore what it says" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 I think we can all say we're in agreement with the BMFA policy then? Perhaps a little "nannyish" but I'd suggest it's in the best interests of the membership. Anyone is, of course, entitled to take the pedantic approach but they would need to bear in mind that it could be up to them to defend their position in a court of law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolstonFlyer Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 OK, my opinion and I don't have legal training but do deal with contracts.Ultimately you are responsible for your own actions. The CAA have produced a guide to safe model flying and the CAA are the specialist aviation regulator. While the guide is not law it represents the expert opinion of "best practice" to staying safe. You would need a very good reason not to be following the advice given even though it is not a legal requirement to follow that advice.That is why there are legal test cases.Best thing to do is treat the advice as if it was law, keep youself updated and follow it as closely as you can, and stay as safe as you can.But don't forget that this is a hobby and the aim is for it to be enjoyable! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Codename-John Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 out of the whole magazine you bring this up, really ? we all know its in our best interests to make our models as safe as possible, I see no reason for not setting a failsafe personally, but to argue over one misplaced word in a magazine, I know the weathers stopping people going out and having as much of a life but jeez dont you think its VERY pedantic ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Beeney Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 Maybe it’s possible that if there are two differing wordings of the same advice, and with what seems to be a considerable difference in the emphasis of possible legality, is it thus likely this could result in a considerable tangle between opposing parties in the event of an incident? Which version would the BMFA quote in court, for instance? I’d have personally thought that the word ‘statutory’ might have to appear somewhere to make it binding anyway. I’ve always been of the opinion that the legal profession would make mincemeat out of the BMFA’s definition of the word ‘failsafe’ in a very short time anyway. How many genuine failsafe systems are there in existence that can be programmed and modified by the operator? And indeed, be possibly forgotten or ignored? Having read the article very briefly, there also appears to be at least one other anomaly in there, but I’m not sure how important any of this really is. When I did a little straw poll at our club some time ago it seemed as though about four out of five members hardly even bothered to open the News. This came about because I asked a question about an article and I couldn’t find anyone that had read it. I can’t help but think this is pretty general overall. I invariably read it through, although for some strange reason that I can’t really put my finger on it always seems to leave me feeling slightly despondent and I often wonder why I bother anyway. Just out of interest, from some careful and lengthy study of the Electrical Regulations in the past, I came to the conclusion that Mandatory really only means that someone has said this is so. Statutory means that it’s a Law, and as such you can be prosecuted for breaking it. But, as my very legal flying friend says when we get into various discussions concerning these little foibles, all these things will only ever be settled in court if necessary, and that alone will be the final answer…… PB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeS Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 While I was the BMFA rep for my old club 18 months back I attended the London area meetings and this point was raised during one of them about failsafes. Even though the word "should" is used it was suggestted as has been in the article that we use failsafes without question to cover ourselves. It seems that from the BMFA 's point of view is that this something everybody must do. The CAA wording of the word "should" in my eyes means that you don't have to use failsafes but we advise that you do. Manny also states that in any investigation this is the first thing that is checked in the event of a claim. This is a concern as if we choose not to set anything in our models and a crash and claim where to happen would we be covered under the BMFA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Cantwell Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 And lets be clear here, like it or lump it, its ANY model, of ANY weight with ANY sort of failsafe incorparated in the model, but just how many of us actually ask for a demo of a failsafe shut down at our flying fields? i have never seen this at ours, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 We have a policy of one of our reasonably experienced members looking over new models when they're to be flown at our field - a policy which has saved many an embarrassing incident and is fully embraced by the membership. We have a checklist and one of the items is, of course, the failsafe. What I have noticed is a woeful lack of awareness of failsafes - especially since the widespread adoption of 2.4 GHz equipment where they are almost universal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i12fly Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 When I dealt with approval authorities relating to safety certification for gas appliances it was very clear, 'should' and 'must' mean the same thing , you comply with the statement or you fail, plain and simple. You could argue until blue in the face but the was the bottom line. Maybe in general conversation and common speech the interpretation is applied differently, but for regulations it is the same -just get on with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Having just re-read Erfolg's OP I think we might all be looking at it from a slightly different angle! I believe that rather than him being pedantic, he is trying to make the point that a prosecution would hold more weight if the BMFA advice states "must" when the CAA states "should". There have been reported issues of corruption (e.g. certain transmitters' stored programs being affected by mobile phones) and if, in the exceedingly unlikely event that it happened to you, could you actually prove that you had set it originally? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WolstonFlyer Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 That's the problem with a failsafe that can be user set (or not) and by that definition is not actually a failsafe! A failsafe should do exactly that, regardless of what the user has done. Remember we are not talking about certified avionics here, this is hobby grade RC equipment.The way I see it is that it is a safety feature of the RX but one that is user selectable, the CAA guidance is that it should be set because that is good safe practice. The wording "should" allows for the fact that it might not be set (for various reasons including external interference).Nobody will ever really know until it is tested in a court and a precedent is set. This is then used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.Set the "failsafe" RX feature on all of your models to at least zero throttle (why would you not want to do that anyway?) and then go and enjoy the hobby Edited By WolstonFlyer on 17/07/2012 09:50:22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vecchio Austriaco Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 If CAP 658 is not actually a legal document, just a guide, as said further up, then the word "must" is wrong and "shall" would be correct. A guide is an informative document and as such not legally binding. In any case - as we (or most of us) are not lawyers - we should switch on our common sense - no matter if there is any legally binding document or not and we should use the failsave as long as we clearly understand how to program it. VA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Posted by Vecchio Austriaco on 17/07/2012 10:57:19: If CAP 658 is not actually a legal document, just a guide, as said further up, then the word "must" is wrong and "shall" would be correct. A guide is an informative document and as such not legally binding. In any case - as we (or most of us) are not lawyers - we should switch on our common sense - no matter if there is any legally binding document or not and we should use the failsave as long as we clearly understand how to program it. VA Quite possibly the reason why the wording in CAP 658 was amended from "must" to "should" (which I believe is more correct than "shall" which infers a compulsory action to be performed at a future time) - but I thoroughly concur with the second paragraph! P.S. Have you ever tried getting a definitive answer from a lawyer? In my experience the waters are normally muddier after talking to one! Edited By Martin Harris on 17/07/2012 13:00:16 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Cotsford Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Posted by Martin Harris on 17/07/2012 12:57:24: P.S. Have you ever tried getting a definitive answer from a lawyer? In my experience the waters are normally muddier after talking to one! Edited By Martin Harris on 17/07/2012 13:00:16 Obviously you're not paying them enough! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 The longer they waffle and the more complex they can make things the more they can charge...!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.