Mill Hill, Shoreham Incident

[Robin Colbourne]

BEB, I appreciate what you are saying about the close proximity of the approach path to the hill, however a hill is not the same as an ordinary field; good ones are few and far between. Evidently a satisfactory working arrangement has been in place between the model flyers and the regular airfield users for many years. In this case a visiting pilot was unaware of the arrangement and the incident occurred. Airfields such as Popham have offset approaches, so its wouldn't be a precedent if Shoreham did.

If Mill Hill is closed to model flyers as a result of this incident, then by the same logic, Shoreham Airport should be closed for the safety of those using the A27 as a result of the Hunter crash.

Air users have enough NIMBYs out to stop their activities without infighting between ourselves.

To paraphrase Martin Niemoller:

When they came for the drone flyers,
I remained silent;
I was not a drone flyer.

When they grounded the model flyers,
I remained silent;
I was not a model flyer.

When they came for the microlighters,
I did not speak out;
I was not a microlighter.

When they came for the glider pilots,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a glider pilot.

When they came for general aviation,
there was no one left to speak out.

Edited By Robin Colbourne on 15/01/2016 22:59:48

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Hi Robin,

please don't get me wrong - I was not advocating closure - I know precious little about sloping and wouldn't presume. I think I was really making the point that "I acknowledge it has been taking place for some time and I'm personally surprised by that given the location" and two I suppose I'm suggesting that the problem could be solved by the relatively simple expedient of telling ATC. And again I'm surprised that given the glider pilots have been so close for so long that isn't done - given as I say I'd do it under similar circumstances from much further away! That's all.

I really wasn't trying to "dump our gliding friends in it" - to butcher another quote "I personally am not enthused by your gliding - but I'd fight to the death for your right to do it!" (with apologies to Voltaire!)

BEB

[Robin Colbourne]

TigerOC, It would be well worth contacting whoever is in charge of flight operations at your local military airfield. A visit and a chat will be good for both parties. You might even be able to persuade them to come and give a talk to the club.

Military flyers don't want the danger of a collision anymore than you do. The likelihood is you will get a phone number which you can call at the start and end of flying each day, so they can make at least make a note of your presence. Military flight operations get notifications of all sorts of activities which would either be disrupted by, or present a danger to low flying. Its not a cast iron guarantee that you won't be overflown, but at least you've done what you can.

Its also worth bearing in mind that people in the military move every two or three years, so expect to visit and discuss your club's activities each time a new person comes into the job.

[Dave Hopkin]

If you are dealing with Army Aviation you will need to contact:

Air Operations Officer

HQ AAC Middle Wallop
Stockbridge Hampshire
SO20 8DY

[Robin Colbourne]

BEB, Glad to see you are supportive! I'm not a local, but have relatives in Shoreham and flew at Mill Hill from the late 1970s onwards when visiting them. As I recall, there were already agreements in place then, so local model and  full-size pilots appear to have been liaising for quite some time.

 

Edited By Robin Colbourne on 15/01/2016 23:41:51

[Dave Bran]

BEB et al..........

I fly there frequently. Have done for many years. I would not do so if there were serious issues. The incident in question took place as a result of a full size pilot considerably short cutting in conjunction with dropping in early very very close to hill, a nature reserve car park, a road, and where many locals walk their dogs. The glider flying site is not on circuit if the charts are followed. The full size would normally have been in the valley away from slope much earlier.

We all know Shoreham after the Hunter crash if we didn't before. It's an old/historic (depending on point of view, I'm in the latter camp) very tight site with housing, two extremely busy main roads right up against the boundary , A27 and A259, a major junction (A27/A283) a main line double railway line on an embankment one end very close to master T/O runway end. The A27 is often queued beyond and before the point that the Hunter went in. Incidentally, the hill is closed off completely during shows to ALL users as it is closely overflown by displaying aircraft flying as expected in an extremely abnormal manner. (last time I went the Dutch B25 nearly did a touch and go off the hill top followed by a wing over beyond vertical!)

I have been to three Airshows there in recent years (my first in the 1950's). There were serious crashes on two of them (and that does not include the Hunter as I was not there). This is fact, not said to bite back, but to put this incident in context. Had the full size pilot involved in this incident followed the chart approach pattern he would have been well clear of the glider and been much more visible for far longer before he got close. He chose not to, as it is reported he was not forced to .

Shoreham ATC have always maintained that they do not NEED telephoning before flight, they can easily SEE people on the hill by direct line of sight, and of course they know the limited conditions when there would BE anyone, SSW to WSW, 10mph plus. THAT is why it was not being done. Locals are used to doing exactly the ATC contact process for flying "The Trundle" overlooking Goodwood Airport. This location though is not clear line of sight to the tower.

I fail to understand how the new and current owner was not aware of the model flying, assuming (tongue in cheek) that he/she is not partially sighted and lacking the nouse to check their overall operational situation. (there was even a long standing arrangement for model flight ON the airport after its closing time to full size in the summer).

I personally have spoken to offenders on the height and power requirements at the Mill Hill site. You will never ever legislate against stupid. One day there I had to try to stop a local club flyer flying 3D Helicopter close to dog walkers heads, for heavens sake. He was there because he was too lazy to go to his club's Heli Only flying field!! He did not even OWN a glider. His attitude was that he didn't care what happened about permissions, he'd just go somewhere else. And this is an experienced BMFA member!!

ATC have and do send the Police to site if they see unacceptable actions taking place. That they had not that day speaks for the validity of what the glider pilot was doing.

The "notice" to prospective model flyers about model flying on site the last time I was there (December 2015) was the existing small print, buried in Bylaws, piece of text in a small sign located in a direction from the car park that flyers do not go and easily obstructed by parked cars. This I understand had been raised several times with the site owners (Council) to no effect.

The only change to the site in the last eight years has been that the car park entrance has been partially obstructed by large metal posts forcing a tight turn to prevent Travellers from entering. One so poorly designed and arranged that the multitude of car paint scrapes left on the posts gives clear evidence of its unsuitability for purpose.

Offering "experience" advice when you have no experience or knowledge of the local situation is unhelpful.

Information, Respect..........sadly lacking ....... try the first half of.....................

**LINK**

[TigerOC]

Posted by Robin Colbourne on 15/01/2016 23:20:28:

TigerOC, It would be well worth contacting whoever is in charge of flight operations at your local military airfield. A visit and a chat will be good for both parties. You might even be able to persuade them to come and give a talk to the club.

Military flyers don't want the danger of a collision anymore than you do. The likelihood is you will get a phone number which you can call at the start and end of flying each day, so they can make at least make a note of your presence. Military flight operations get notifications of all sorts of activities which would either be disrupted by, or present a danger to low flying. Its not a cast iron guarantee that you won't be overflown, but at least you've done what you can.

Its also worth bearing in mind that people in the military move every two or three years, so expect to visit and discuss your club's activities each time a new person comes into the job.

There are no military airfields in the area. The C130 would have come in from Wales. The Lynx was likely operating out of Plymouth. These activities mainly involve Royal Marines but we also have a wide range of troops operating from the military camp in Okehampton including EU countries.

The interactions we have had on the slopes on Dartmoor with RM's NCO's has been less than co-operative. They usually tell us to "do one" when the Sea Kings are flying around. They have begun to be more aggressive since drones appeared.

Have any of you seen **LINK**

Note in this document it says that operators are limited to 400ft which according to memory is not correct.

Rob

[Dave Bran]

There are lots of errors in that document, not the least of which is telling Police Officers more than once that anyone wearing FPV goggles is breaking the law (with no qualification at all stated as to circumstances, use of spotter, etc).

[Robin Colbourne]

Hi Dave, Thank you for clarifying the local agreements in place at Mill Hill. It does make the whole situation a lot clearer for the rest of us.

I agree that to add model flying sites to 1:500,000 charts would be impractical as they are already congested enough. however most pilots actively involved in low flying would be operating from a 1:250,000 chart which already show hang gliding sites, winching operations and so on. Military helicopter pilots even have charts which show most power lines.

Its unlikely the French pilot at Shoreham would have been using a 1:250,000 chart, as he was probably relying on his 1:500,000 chart plus Pooley's guide, but for the incidents TigerOC describes it might have helped.

When I was hang gliding our winching sites were marked on 1:250,000 charts even though use of the land was often only a word of mouth agreement with a farmer and the sites were used only a handful of times a year.

 

 

 

Edited By Robin Colbourne on 16/01/2016 12:57:56

[Piers Bowlan]

I have flown slope soarers from Mill Hill, Shoreham, since 1985. What a pity one avoidable incident could lose an excellent flying site. I thought the CAA report was well balanced if a little generous on behalf of the (French) DR400 pilot but then I would say that! The Robin pilot stated that he was at 600-800 feet amsl when he collided with the model glider but the CAA considered 400-500 feet was nearer the mark. (450 feet would have put him on the RW20 4.5 degree PAPI at a range of one mile from touch down) He was also twenty five degrees displaced left of the extended RW centreline at one mile from touchdown, therefore clearing the brow of the hill and the car park by appx. 100 to150 feet? Aircraft landing on RW 20 are usually further north when they cross the ridge affording them better terrain clearance and putting them further away and higher than the slope soarers. The pilot might have displayed better airmanship by doing so even if he wasn't a regular visitor to Shoreham Airport and unaware of the model gliders presence.

When I first started flying from Mill Hill I was told by other flyers that you were not allowed to fly higher than fifty feet above the brow of the hill. This seemed very sensible advice considering the proximity of the approach to RW20 at Shoreham and it wasn't an issue in any event as most of the flying was done out in front of the hill rather than above it. I did think it odd that there weren't any signs in the nature reserve car park referring to the height restriction but I think it was because it was an agreement with a local model flying club rather than a by-law. I was unaware of the 4kg weight restriction until reading this thread but none of my gliders get anywhere near that and most of those flying at Mill hill are light weight Wild Things or Zagi types. There was a note prohibiting powered flying buried amongst the many bylaws along with not starting camp fires and taking your dog litter away with you. In any event the model restriction was probably due to the fact that the site is a nature reserve rather than powered model aircraft presenting an increased risk to low flying full sized aircraft!

As the model glider was less than 7kg (.615Kg apparently) there was no requirement to obtain permission from ATC for operating in the Shoreham ATZ but the CAA did mention CAP 658 'Model Aircraft : A guide to safe flying' which recommends a call to ATC. In the past I have phoned ATC Shoreham to get a surface wind check and advise them of my intention to slope soar from Mill Hill but they seemed ambivalent or disinterested so it is not something I have done in recent years. How many people have heard of CAP 658 least of all read it?

Mill Hill is in the South Downs National Park and part of their remit is to promote leisure activities within the park. They might prove to be a useful ally, however, if the airfield operator and the Adur District Council have set against model gliding from Mill Hill, sadly I think it's days are numbered.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 17/01/2016 05:23:04

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 17/01/2016 05:27:11