Flying a Micro RC in Parks

[Jayakrishnan Radhakrishnan]

Hi All,

I am new to RC planes. Currently I am trying out in RC Simuators on my phone. I am planning to purchase HobbyZone Duet - RTF plane to start with.

I live in Reading, UK. For micro RC planes, do I need to be a member of a flying club ? Is it illegal to fly without insurance.

[John Tee]

Hi. I can't speak for Reading area but a lot of local authority run parks have byelaws that either ban or limit model flying, so check with your local council. It's not necessary to be in a club but you miss out on a lot of free advice and freindship. Again it is not against the law to fly without insurance but you need to bear in mind that if you hit someone or damage property you could face a very high bill for repairs or legal fees. Some household policies might cover you for nthird party risks but joining the BMFA at £27 a year gives you coverage for any legal site you fly at.

Hope this helps.

John

[The Wright Stuff]

To be honest, while it would be preferable to buy insurance, and certainly highly recommended for anything bigger or heavier, I for one have to say that it is up to your own judgement, and degree to which you are prepared to take responsibility, should anything unintended happen. It depends on how big the park is, and how many people are in it at the time. It is not illegal to fly without insurance.

At the risk of writing something controversial, for the very smallest and slowest of micro-models, you could probably inflict much more damage to person and property by chucking frisbees and booting balls about... and parks are full of reckless souls who do that without insurance!!!

But there will always be people who discriminate against model fliers just because it is seen as a non-mainstream activity. If someone is hit in the face by a football, they will likely let it go. If they get hit by a model, even if it does less damage, there is more likelihood of retribution. Not fair, and not logical, but my gut feeling!

Edited By The Wright Stuff on 30/04/2014 16:40:21

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

No insurance is not a legal requirement. But I would say that to fly models in a public place without insurance would be highly ill-advised. Model flying is not an inherently dangerous activity - but sadly accidents do happen - people have been seriously injured - in very rare cases even killed

Before you say "Hang on - its only a little model it couldn't really hurt anyone" - bear this in mind, the largest pay out from the BMFA insurance scheme so far (I believe £4M) was for an accident involving a small chuck glider. I understand the damages were awarded when a young girl lost the sight in one eye when hit in the face. So small models are not, in my view, a reason for ignoring insurance!

Put it simply - if you have a spare £4M lying about that you don't mind handing over - fine go and fly in the park uninsured. But let's assume that you don't have that sort of money, then ask yourself this very simple question - if you have a similar accident (and remember the person who was involved in that case did not set out to have an accident!) where are you going to find the money that a court may well award against you in damages?

Get the insurance - its £32 pounds per year for, I believe, £25M in third party liability cover - the peace of mind is worth every penny! The cap of £25M on the cover might also give you some clue as what your liability could be!

BEB

[Mr.B.]

Were abouts in Reading where you considering flying?

[Robin Kearney]

Hi, a call to the council parks department has previously furnished me a list of by-laws regarding flying in council parks. Might be worth trying that to see if any have specific regulations.

r.

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 30/04/2014 19:45:09:

Before you say "Hang on - its only a little model it couldn't really hurt anyone" - bear this in mind, the largest pay out from the BMFA insurance scheme so far (I believe £4M) was for an accident involving a small chuck glider. I understand the damages were awarded when a young girl lost the sight in one eye when hit in the face. So small models are not, in my view, a reason for ignoring insurance!

A totally valid point, but the undisputed fact that it has happened before doesn't make it a 'likely' occurrence. A line has to be drawn somewhere. If a toddler throws a paper aeroplane in a public place, do the parents need BMFA insurance? I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but I think the line is much harder to define these days with the plethora of ever smaller models and the border between a toy and a model becoming ever more blurred. £32 per year may not seem a lot to you or I, but for younger (potential) pilots, it could limit the number of people coming into the hobby. I think the OP was asking which side of 'the line' the Micro RC stuff fell, so I'm not sure the insistence "just get insurance, just get insurance, just get insurance" is quite in the spirit in which the question was asked.

[GONZO]

Here, Here! Lots of small planes weigh a lot less and travell considerably slower than so called "sports" projectiles seen used in parks or on our streets; 1/2M*V^2 is the important equation.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Of course you have a valid point TWS, the probability is very small. The problem though is that its well known that our intuitive judgement of risk in the context of very small probabilities is flawed. There is a famous illustration of this effect known as "the shoebox scenario" it runs like this:

You are presented with a pile of one million identical shoe-boxes, from the outside there is absolutely no way of distinguishing one shoe-box from another. 999,999 of the boxes contain £1. If you select a box it will be opened and you get to keep the pound.

The catch is that the millionth box doesn't contain £1, it contains a bomb! If you open that box the bomb will explode and you will certainly be killed.

You are not allowed to shake or rattle the boxes before selecting them!

So, the $64,000 dollar question,....how many boxes are you going to open?

Traditionally, it is argued that the "correct" answer to that question is - you should open no boxes. The reasoning for that runs like this: you have a high probably of gaining £1, but that is a very small reward. However, whilst the probability of you picking the "wrong box" is very small, the consequences are horrific - game over! So, high probably of a very small gain, low probability of total disaster. Its not worth opening the boxes.

The situation we are interested is statistically very similar. High probability of a successful flight (a relatively small reward!) versus a small probably of a life changing disaster.

I don't think your analogy of the child throwing a paper aeroplane actually works. Children making paper planes would be seen as a perfectly normal mainstream activity - if something went wrong people would simply see that as "part of everyday life - a tragic accident". But a child being hit by an R/C model flown by an adult would not be viewed the same way by society, or by the courts I suspect. You make this point yourself above, and I totally agree, it isn't fair or logical, but it is a reality.

BEB

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by GONZO on 01/05/2014 09:06:25:

Here, Here! Lots of small planes weigh a lot less and travell considerably slower than so called "sports" projectiles seen used in parks or on our streets; 1/2M*V^2 is the important equation.

Chuck gliders don't have much potential energy either Gonzo.

BEB

[Rob Jones 2]

I often fly in my local park. I don't have insurance and know how to fly. Dog walkers also use the park- if I were ever challenged, I would ask how many deaths and injuries are cause by dogs each year, compared with model planes!(probably no deaths in UK from model planes, about 10 deaths and hundreds of disfiguring injuries by dogs).

[John F]

With insurance, the argument is; can you afford a claim against you for personal injury? If you can, fine, fly without inusrance, if you cannot afford a claim that could total the equivalent of two or more mortgages then insurance is something to consider. No-one has said "just get insurance, just get insurance, just get insurance" irrespective.

Sorry, The Wright Stuff, but how can you confidently state that it is an "undisputed fact that it has happened before doesn't make it a 'likley' occurence"? Of course it does, it has happend once and, by commonality of factors, (small plane, park, public around everywhere not aware of dangers, children running about) will probably happen again. With the increase in popularity of quad copters the chances are becoming stacked against not hearing of incidents.

Now I don't work in A&E but if I see these injuries in military medical centres with children and adults involved in model aircraft injuries at weekends and on those long slow summer evenings you can rest assured that it happens a lot more than you think everywhere else.

Deaths are, sadly, no longer an uncomon occurence: **LINK**, **LINK**,

The CAA has also issued guidance which recognises that the occurences, what you believe to be unlikely, are enough of a concern to warrant attention. **LINK**

As BEB says the chances are slim, but can be devastating and, sadly with the increase in cheap and fashionable quads and ARTF's the chances are getting slightly higher all the time. How can considering inurance be a bad thing?

If you were to compare injuries and deaths from one thing to another - models and dogs as per your example - it isn't exactly in the same league is it?  I mean there are an estimated 8.5% of UK population who are dog owners - 8.5 million people! http://www.pfma.org.uk/pet-population/  Meanwhile there is an guestimated 40,000 model aircraft users. The statistics are not exactly a fair comparison.

Edited By John F on 01/05/2014 09:50:00

[Rob Jones 2]

Of course there is a big difference between an electric plane being flown safely and discreetly, and a learner lobbing a noisy, barely-controlled , 5 pound i.c. lump of wood about.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I agree with John - no one is saying people must get insurance and its not "get insurance, get insurance, get insurance" - well not that I can see anyway! Of course its a personal choice - all I'm trying to explain is my reasoning about why, if I was the OP, I would choose to be insured, even when flying a very small model, in a public place. As I've implied - I don't have £4M to pay the compensation in the, admittedly small probability, that it will all go horribly wrong. And I don't want to lose my house/car/savings in an attempt to pay said £4M.

So far all of the argument against being insured have focused on the small probability of a serious accident. That the probably is small is not disputed - but it is the consequences of the that small probability (to the victim and the flyer) that have to weighed.

To those that say "I can fly a small model perfectly safely - I don't need insurance for that" - I would say this, go and visit the local A&E department - none of the people there got out of bed this morning saying "You know what, I think I'll go and have an accident today" - by their nature, accidents are what we don't intend to happen, and they can happen to any of us - no matter how skilful, careful or experienced we are.

BEB

[The Wright Stuff]

Hi,

I do feel slightly mis-respresented by the replies, but perhaps that is my fault for ambiguous wording. In fact, I agree with 99% of what BEB and John have said.

I didn't intend my 'toddler with a paper plane' example an an analogy, it was a rhetorical question: it is obvious that BMFA insurance is not applicable in that case. But it is the opposite end of a continuous scale to a 1/2 scale RC Lancaster Bomber! So in the intermediate scale, there must be a dividing line! I was interested to know where that line was considered to be!

As for the £1 boxes example, I like it. But the interpretation is based on context (and the fact that a million isn't actually that big a number when it comes to small probabilities). If the hundred billionth box contained a bomb, and I would starve to death without the £1 income to buy food, the answer might be different.

If we're going to give examples of highly improbable but highly devastating events. Via the Butterfly Effect, one too many outside loops could destroy the whole of Western civilisation. But I consider the probability to be sufficiently small that I won't bother insuring myself against it. Sorry if that's reckless!

But flippant analogies aside, I stand by my point that eventually, the probability gets small enough that the risk can be neglected, regardless of the outcome of that event. I'm not saying that applies to the OP, but that the line exists.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Of course the line exist TWS - I just think we'll have to accept that in this instance we disagree about where its drawn! Which is fair enough of course.

BEB

[avtur]

I understand where TWS is coming from. 

If walking in the park you may encounter someone with a small parkflyer, but you are more likely to encounter people playing football and people walking dogs. I’m sure that far more people are injured being hit by a stray football or being bitten by an unruly dog, than being hit by the parkflyer; are these risks covered? House insurance perhaps?

I can understand how people might come to the conclusion that on balance they don’t think the risk involved in flying a parkflyer is something to be insured against.

I’m not putting forward an argument for not being insured, but just think next time you walk in the park, what uninsured risks are you exposing yourself to?

Edited By avtur on 01/05/2014 10:53:15

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 01/05/2014 09:35:32:

So, the $64,000 dollar question,....how many boxes are you going to open?

108,475 at today's exchange rate!

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Don't you mean 37, 759?

BEB

[The Wright Stuff]

Oops. Yes!

[KingKade]

[Monz]

You can also get insurance from **LINK** Currently £4.05 for three months to end July. Then £7.95 for six months.

I'm a half decent RC pilot, but I also fly free flight, so it's a small price to pay for peace of mind.

[The Wright Stuff]

Posted by KingKade on 01/05/2014 12:48:23:

Indeed, though I resisted the temptation to edit my post, so what I lack in numeracy I make up for in integrity!

So that's why my 1/4 scale Spit was larger than life!

[Tomtom39]

Hello Jay,

Might also be an idea to any local by-laws. Our town council make it un-lawful to fly/use any mechanical operated/powered vehicles (inc aero models) on their land/parks. I have tried to speak to various council officials about it but have always been rebuffed.

[MMG]

Hi,

My son and I (33 and 68 respectively) regularly fly on Local Authority parks and open grounds. Before doing so we checked the local bye laws and found that only four out of dozens had a specific ban on flying 'model' planes; one of those site now has been built on so there are now only three. Upon contacting the LA we were asked to provide evidence of how we would fly safely, a sort of Health and Safety type of question and answer. We provided proof of insurance; BMFA, as well as quoting sections from the BMFA handbook. We fly only electric power including Wot 4, Acrowot, PA Addiction X and such like models, never ic.The granting of permission to fly was then given, but of course one could fly without the permission as it was not banned by specific bye laws anyway. During the course of flying we have attracted the attention of many passers by, and several of them have been good enough to join our flying club which we promoted at every opportunity. We fly one at a time with the other on 'look out'. We have noticed that several multi copters are now using the same LA sites as us and upon polite enquiries not one has any form of insurance or heard of BMFA guidelines or has any idea of potential problems they might cause.

just to let you know!