New Drone/Aerodrome Regulations - Is your club at risk?

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I'm slightly confused. If it isn't a protected aerodrome, don't normal rules apply i.e. 400' exemption to BMFA etc. members?

OK - full size are being operated from these locations but if agreement between the aircraft operators and model flyers can be obtained, endangerment is not an issue - in fact it's probably safer flying to just below normal transit heights than over 400' in totally uncontrolled airspace as full size would tend to avoid low flying over an active airfield.

Edited By Martin Harris on 13/03/2019 23:21:15

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I suspect there may have been a recent update to the ANO which may cover the situation at locations such as Old Warden?

Whilst perusing the ANO (as you do!) I noticed the following

Small unmanned aircraft: permissions for certain flights94A.—(1) If the permission or permissions that are required under this article for a flight, or a part of a flight, by a small unmanned aircraft have not been obtained— (a) the SUA operator must not cause or permit the small unmanned aircraft to be flown on that flight or that part of the flight, and(b) the remote pilot must not fly the small unmanned aircraft on that flight or that part of the flight.(a) Amended 2017(b) Amended 2017(c) Amended 2019(d) Amended 2017

50(2) Permission from the CAA is required for a flight, or a part of a flight, by a small unmanned aircraft at a height of more than 400 feet above the surface.(3) But permission from the CAA is not required under paragraph (2) if— (a) the flight, or the part of the flight, takes place in a flight restriction zone at a protected aerodrome, and(b) permission for the flight, or the part of the flight, is required under paragraph (4) from an air traffic control unit or a flight information service unit.(4) Permission for a flight, or a part of a flight, by a small unmanned aircraft in the flight restriction zone of a protected aerodrome is required—(a) from any air traffic control unit at the protected aerodrome, if the flight, or the part of the flight, takes place during the operational hours of the air traffic control unit;(b) from any flight information service unit at the protected aerodrome, if the flight, or the part of the flight, takes place during the operational hours of the flight information service unit and either— (i) there is no air traffic control unit at the protected aerodrome, or(ii) the flight, or the part of the flight, takes place outside the operational hours of the air traffic control unit at the protected aerodrome;(c) from the operator of the protected aerodrome, if— (i) there is neither an air traffic control unit nor a flight information service unit at the protected aerodrome, or(ii) the flight, or the part of the flight, takes place outside the operational hours of any such unit or units at the protected aerodrome.(5) In this article, “operational hours”, in relation to an air traffic control unit or flight information service unit, means the operational hours— (a) notified in relation to the unit, or(b) set out in the UK military AIP in relation to the unit.(6) In this article and article 94B, “protected aerodrome” means— (a) an EASA certified aerodrome,(b) a Government aerodrome,(c) a national licensed aerodrome, or(d) an aerodrome that is prescribed, or of a description prescribed, for the purposes of this paragraph.

OK - not very readable, but if I'm not mistaken, the important part is

(c) from the operator of the protected aerodrome, if— (i) there is neither an air traffic control unit nor a flight information service unit at the protected aerodrome, or(ii) the flight, or the part of the flight, takes place outside the operational hours of any such unit or units at the protected aerodrome.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I found this interesting - it's from the introduction to the new non-standard flight application process being launched later this week:

Notice that there will be a distinct separation between "Drones" and "Model Aircraft"...I think this is fairly encouraging?

[Robert Welford]

Posted by Martin Harris on 24/03/2019 11:04:17:

I suspect there may have been a recent update to the ANO which may cover the situation at locations such as Old Warden?

Not as yet. CAP 1763 is still the problem - we are awaiting an amendment.

Edited By Robert Welford on 09/04/2019 10:44:34

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

**LINK**

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Excellent news Andy and well done to all involved.

Has there been any change regarding no longer requiring permission to fly >7kg models up to 400' in controlled airspace which changed when the new legislation was introduced? The new Airspace User Portal is coming into use this week so I need to be sure that we don't need to renew the old permission for our club.

I thought I'd ask here as other clubs may be in a similar position.

Edited By Martin Harris on 10/04/2019 18:02:06

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Posted by Martin Harris on 10/04/2019 17:54:45:

Excellent news Andy and well done to all involved.

Has there been any change regarding no longer requiring permission to fly >7kg models up to 400' in controlled airspace which changed when the new legislation was introduced? The new Airspace User Portal is coming into use this week so I need to be sure that we don't need to renew the old permission for our club.

I thought I'd ask here as other clubs may be in a similar position.

Edited By Martin Harris on 10/04/2019 18:02:06

Plaudits to BMFA CEO, its hard to overstate how hard he has been working on this.

permission no longer needed for over 7kg up to 400' in controlled airspace (unless inside FRZ)

[Robert Welford]

Posted by Andy Symons - BMFA on 10/04/2019 17:37:42:

**LINK**

Thank you Andy and your colleagues for resolving this issue with the CAA. This means that model events and club flying at Old Warden may no longer be affected by the FRZ 400 ft height limit

 

Edited By Robert Welford on 10/04/2019 18:19:21

[Robert Welford]

Sadly we are "not out of the woods" yet.

Despite the latest amended CAA Exemption allowing normal height limits (none for < 7kg, 400 ft >7kg) for Old Warden Model Aircraft Club, the club committee have decided to retain the 400 ft height limit that was introduced with CAP 1763 on 13 March 19.

The committee have refused to provide any justification for their decision and before you ask it isn't the Shuttleworth Trust who are insisting on a height limit.

The only upside is that if anyone were to fly higher than 400 ft for < 7kg (inadvertently) they are no longer in breach of the CAP 1763, but only of the club rule. In addition, model flying events are now free to have no height limit.

 

Edited By Robert Welford on 16/04/2019 21:05:36

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Don't you elect your committee to represent you and work on your behalf? As a fairly longstanding committee member I would feel I was failing in my duty if I were to refuse to explain a committee decision to any interested member unless it was something involving an individual confidence - whether or not I had agreed with it personally. At the very least I would hope that a committee would respond to a written request.

In any matter involving club operations it's difficult to imagine any good reason for a committee not to explain why they decided not to pursue a course of action which is presumably desired by a significant proportion of the membership.

Edited By Martin Harris on 16/04/2019 23:01:36

[Robert Welford]

I agree Martin. I'm involved in other clubs; another model club and a full-size gliding club and both are run very democratically with important issues communicated and discussed with the membership.

I would have thought a 400 ft height rule was a sufficiently important issue that needed to be discussed with the membership.

I'm am member because Old Warden airfield is a great place to fly. Going forward how we resolve this and other issues requires further consideration.

Edited By Robert Welford on 16/04/2019 23:22:44

[Piers Bowlan]

If it is not a silly question Robert, how would anyone (including you) know you were breaking the 400ft club height limit? With models not all being the same size I would have thought it near enough impossible to guesstimate a models height above ground level to within a hundred feet or even two hundred feet. To prove it would be impossible, so why would a club commitee impose an unenforceable rule? Bizarre.

It is everyones personal responsible to remain within the law, so if someone breaks it and is convicted, it is the person who breaks the law that gets convicted not the committee. 

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 17/04/2019 10:26:51

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I can't answer for Robert but my larger models and gliders are equipped with onboard height telemetry. I have also flown smaller models with the same equipment in order to familiarise myself with what 400' AGL looks like with a variety of model sizes.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Robert Welford]

Piers - yes the 400 ft height club rule is unenforceable, but it won't stop the OW "Safety Police" from claiming you are flying too high. I been criticised in the past for flying too far away!

Like Martin I have instrumented a few models with altimeter telemetry (via my Multiplex radio) to see how low 400 ft is particularly when flying aerobatics.

The real problem is that we operate on an active airfield. The procedure is that models are required to land as soon as full-size aircraft commit to an overhead join. On occasions aircraft have come in directly on finals and haven't been spotted, so the most dangerous height band is 0 to 200 ft.

I have suggested that we operate airband receivers on the Old Warden frequency to enhance our situational awareness of traffic intending to land. The committee didn't like that as an idea.

Edited By Robert Welford on 17/04/2019 11:32:31

[Robert Welford]

David, if you were asked to release the data to a 3rd party would you and possibly incriminate yourself?

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Getting a bit deep now! I doubt that information obtained from an uncalibrated hobby device would stand up in a court of law but its use could well be seen as an attempt to act with reasonable care should an incident occur.

[Former Member]

[This posting has been removed]

[Don Fry]

Posted by Martin Harris on 17/04/2019 11:44:15:

Getting a bit deep now! I doubt that information obtained from an uncalibrated hobby device would stand up in a court of law but its use could well be seen as an attempt to act with reasonable care should an incident occur.

Yes it would. The speedo in your car is uncalibrated, but it's evidence is accepted in a court, if the operator estimated the speed at the time agrees with the speedo, i.e., a corroborated input from two sources. Same thing with your altitude measurer

[Piers Bowlan]

Thank you Martin and David, I didn't know how commonly used height telemetry was these days, perhaps I should try it. As for using it to prove that you weren't exceeding the height limit, I thought we were all inocent until proven guilty and not have to display the stored data to prove ones innocence.

Robert, an airband radio seems like a very practical and sensible safety aid to alert flyers to the presence of full size aircraft joining the Old Wardon circuit. Maybe a case of 'Not invented here syndrome', as far as your committee is concerned. An active aerodrome - why wouldn't you want to know who is in the circuit apart from model aircraft?!

 

Edited By Piers Bowlan on 17/04/2019 13:32:31

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by Don Fry on 17/04/2019 13:25:55:

Posted by Martin Harris on 17/04/2019 11:44:15:

Getting a bit deep now! I doubt that information obtained from an uncalibrated hobby device would stand up in a court of law but its use could well be seen as an attempt to act with reasonable care should an incident occur.

Yes it would. The speedo in your car is uncalibrated, but it's evidence is accepted in a court, if the operator estimated the speed at the time agrees with the speedo, i.e., a corroborated input from two sources. Same thing with your altitude measurer

That surprises me but I know you have a background in law enforcement. Has this ever happened to your knowledge? As far as I'm aware, speedometers are supplied to over read by manufacturers and although it might be accepted in mitigation, I always understood that the law is absolute on speeding - some police authorities enforcing limits with no latitude at all.

However, I was envisaging a case where a model flyer was being prosecuted for flying above the limit where they attempted a defence by producing logs from a telemetry device. There is also not likely to be any traceable validity of such logs unless the recording equipment had been seized in evidence at the time of the alleged transgression.

[Robert Welford]

Posted by Piers Bowlan on 17/04/2019 13:29:36

Robert, an airband radio seems like a very practical and sensible safety aid to alert flyers to the presence of full size aircraft joining the Old Wardon circuit. Maybe a case of 'Not invented here syndrome', as far as your committee is concerned. An active aerodrome - why wouldn't you want to know who is in the circuit apart from model aircraft?!

To operate an airband transceiver you need an RT licence, but not an airband receiver. They cost from less than £100. Yes - agreed it's a no brainer.