Possible serious misinformation in the RCM&E Autumn issue

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Apologies if I've missed this being aired or events have overtaken the current issue of CAP658 available from the CAA but I've just got round to reading the Autumn Special in detail and I've noticed what I believe to be an error which could result in serious repercussions in the event of an incident.

It's stated in an article that the restriction to flying models over 7kg does not apply to pure gliders. As far as I'm aware, the latest issue of CAP658 removed any distinction between powered and non-powered models and the 400 foot height limit outside controlled airspace applies to all models over 7kg.

Unless anyone has more recent information that counters my information, could I suggest that the magazine publishes the correct information prominently as soon as possible!

[Frank Skilbeck]

Martin, as far as I am aware you are correct the 400ft limit applies to all models over 7kg, quite usual at a glider aerotow to have a NOTAM to remove this restriction

One thing to note is that on aerotow the tug and glider can weigh upto 7kg each, but if one of them weighs over 7kg then the max height on tow is 400ft.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I'm a little surprised that no-one from the magazine has commented on this thread. I also tried emailing the editor but without any response yet.

Am I over-reacting perhaps? I'd be quite happy to be proved wrong on this...

Is no-one else concerned that information published in a national magazine might lead someone into flying a >7 kg model illegally with the possibility of endangering a full size aircraft? Quite apart from endangering life, we really don't need any self-inflicted adverse publicity in these days of sensationalist Drone v Airbus stories...

[Pete B]

I'd have surely thought a letter to the editor via 'AllWrite' would be the normal way of highlighting an editorial mistake in the magazine, Martin?

Not every reader would be a member of the forum, so the magazine would be the correct place to publish any correction.

Pete

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

In the case of a minor technical error, yes, I'd agree. But given the potential seriousness of the situation, I felt this was the quickest way to get the error highlighted to the model flying public with hopefully a well placed magazine announcement at the earliest opportunity - which might well be a couple of months or more away, depending on publishing schedules.