Peter Jenkins Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 Posted by john stones 1 on 24/01/2019 22:06:41: Silence is deafening on this I see, had it been an M/R we would be on page 20 by now, BMFA would be being lambasted for not distancing us from "them". +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dickw Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 Posted by GONZO on 24/01/2019 18:26:17: Put me right if I've got this wrong . These rules apply to all small unmanned aircraft, even those bellow 250 gm, with no lower limit. These rules apply to free flight aircraft as well as RC aircraft. If so then this man, or anyone else, could be prosecuted for flying: A chuck glider. Or even a Frisbee as its protracted flight(?) path is due to it generating lift as it spins from its dished underside and could be considered a 'sort of' plane. This is a theoretical question exploring the limits of this legislation. Although, a 'jobs worth', we all know there are plenty out there, may act on the theoretical limits. The current interim measure “1km from boundary” restricted zone does indeed seem to apply to everything including under 250gm. BUT the proposed larger exclusion zone referred to in the government doc published in January seems to exclude under 250gm “drones”, quote :- “2.5 As such, the Government is taking action to amend the current restriction zone. The new restriction zone will include rectangular extensions from the end of runways measuring 5km long by 1km wide to better protect take-off and landing paths. In addition, all drones will be required to ask permission from the airport's Air Traffic Control to fly within the ATZ (see paragraph 2.2). The overall restriction zone is displayed in the diagram overleaf. The new zone will apply to all small drones weighing more than 250g.” Of course this is still a proposal so could change, best keep your fingers crossed. Dick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff S Posted January 25, 2019 Share Posted January 25, 2019 Both the clubs I've been a member of have shared an airfield with full size aircraft with no problems at all. RR (Hucknall) flew for years sharing the Rolls-Royce airfield at Hucknall (now a housing estate ) for years with a little co-operation a nd zero conflict. The airfield at Ashbourne is much rougher (the old runways are very pot-holed) but there were a few people who flew full--size aircraft and we simply had a rule that we kept well clear (obviously) and the full-size usually did a circuit before landing to warn us. Again, we had no conflict. If the Heathrow culprit was flying a Tundra within a km of the airport boundary it's highly unlikely he would have interfered with the airport's operation unless done deliberately with that intention. But the law is the law and he should have known better. The Tundra comes with a camera mount for FPV flying so he could have been flying much further away from himself than would be normal for line of sight - and perhaps without a spotter. Geoff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike T Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 Posted by Steve J on 23/01/2019 23:24:55: Pleaded guilty and got a £2000 fine. It was a model aircraft... **LINK** Steve Just been on Google maps to get the lie of the land. He flew just over 1/2k north of the northern runway. There appear to be other places nearby where he could have (legally) gone for a 'quick flip'. Zooming in on the scene of the crime, I notice that BALPA's premises overlook said recreation ground! They probably grassed him up! Re the Met's report, I think ordering his plane to be destroyed is a little melodramatic. I wonder if a constable was ordered to "fwow it wuffly to the gwound..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 20, 2019 Share Posted February 20, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted February 23, 2019 Share Posted February 23, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Welford Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 Posted by Cuban8 on 20/01/2019 11:36:16: Old Warden! How will that work out for the club that uses the airfield and the modelling events - obviously, a workaround exists? Edited By Cuban8 on 20/01/2019 11:47:05 Yes Old Warden Model Aircraft Club and any model events hosted at Old Warden are now subject to a 400 ft height limit. I believe that the 400 ft constraint for a model club based at a "Protected Status" airfield (without ATC/FIS) is a case of unintended consequences of CAP1763. I don't think anyone anticipated that a model club would be based on a "Protected Status" airfield! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Fry Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 I think they did. In that case, the airfield authority sets it's restrictions as it sees fit. If they set 3 feet, the survivors will be world model aircraft limbo champions. Tin hat fitted. Edited By Don Fry on 12/03/2019 20:03:32 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lima Hotel Foxtrot Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 Our club runway is bisected by the runway extensions. In theory we could take off one way and be fine, take off the other way and you are in violation of rule x, y & z. Cue a great wailing and gnashing of teeth from the more old womanish types in the club. All the secretary did was go through the ATC contact in order to speak with the airfield manager who didn't know any of this was coming into effect. When he questioned the CAA, they sent him the bumph, then a quick chat with our club sec and a letter to safeguard everyone's interests was written: Everybody happy. A bit of common sense and a calm approach goes a long way. Besides, given that GA isn't supposed to be below 500' unless on the approach or departure, if there were to be a conflict between us and them they would have had to travelled at rooftop height for quite a distance... Which is a totally different set of issues! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Welford Posted March 12, 2019 Share Posted March 12, 2019 Posted by Don Fry on 12/03/2019 20:01:21: I think they did. In that case, the airfield authority sets it's restrictions as it sees fit. If they set 3 feet, the survivors will be world model aircraft limbo champions. Tin hat fitted. Edited By Don Fry on 12/03/2019 20:03:32 Don, I sense you are not aware of the subtleties in the wording of CAP1763. The ATC unit at a "Protected Airfield" can authorise any height limit they like within a FRZ and by definition to a model club based at the airfield itself. However, for an airfield without ATC/FIS the operator can only authorise any UAS/model aircraft activity up to 400 ft. Hence, relaxing the 400 ft height restriction at Old Warden (no ATC/FIS) is outside the authority of the Shuttleworth Trust, the airfield operator. Resolution of the issue requires intervention by the CAA. The CAA are on the case. BTW this doesn't just affect Old Warden MAC, but all future model events that are hosted at Old Warden. Edited By Robert Welford on 12/03/2019 20:44:53 Edited By Robert Welford on 12/03/2019 20:46:31 Edited By Robert Welford on 12/03/2019 20:57:50 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Welford Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Posted by Steve J on 13/03/2019 09:50:07: I wonder if not putting the aerodrome operator in article 94A(3)(b) was intentional or an oversight. It does seem strange that you need both the permission of both the operator and CAA to go above 400ft if the protected aerodrome doesn't have an ATC or FIS unit. It also seems a bit strange to have a protected aerodrome that doesn't have a ATC or FIS unit. Steve I agree. I assume Old Warden airfield wanted a FRZ on display days when they have a NOTAMed ATZ (sometimes a RAT) with ATC, but got it 365 days/ year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamC Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 My club is shut down at present and the gate locked awaiting outcome of discussions with ATC at the local Airfield. I find the whole thing very frustrating. As a law abiding model flyer I can't fly, but the rules will do little to prevent those who are prepared to break the law. I have politely corresponded with those responsible for UAS policy at the CAA, and they did do me the courtesy of replying and assuring me that they sympathise and that they "recognise that aero modellers are a conscientious and law-abiding group" but couldn't offer any help in dealing with the local ATC. I was amused to see one forum member's insistence in the thread about the 737 MAX issues that the CAA would not take a decision lightly. They have just banned the flying of 25 gram chuck gliders in every open space within 2.5 miles of a protected aerodrome without ATC permission and with very little warning. I do wonder whether kicking a ball in the park might technically be prohibited under the rules. I'm wondering what would happen if I ring ATC and ask for permission to fly my chuck glider! Edited By GrahamC on 13/03/2019 14:36:12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrahamC Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 I should clarify. I'm not a committee member, but I know that the commitee have put in a lot of work. I know that they have approached the ATC with a draft memorandum based on the BMFA template, but as of today have not been able to resolve the issue. I wrote to the UAS sector lead and UAS Policy (Operations) individuals at the CAA as a private individual, expressing my frustration that as a club instructor who has taught people to operate models safely and legally, the new rules have stopped me enjoying my hobby but will do hardly anything to prevent those who are prepared to operate illegally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Cooper Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Due to the new legislation, my club (Wellingborough) had to apply for permission from Sywell Aerodrome. Happily, using the BMFA guidance documents, we obtained the necessary permissions to fly our R/C models. . They are also putting our club on their charts so pilots of fullsize aeroplanes are aware of our model flying activities. B.C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Welford Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Brian, are you limited to 400 ft, or have Sywell given you permission to operate higher? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly boy3 Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Hi Robert, I have sent you a PM. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Cooper Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 Posted by Robert Welford on 13/03/2019 16:19:30: Brian, are you limited to 400 ft, or have Sywell given you permission to operate higher? We put 400ft on our request but the circuit height at Sywell is 800 ft and we are not on the circuit flightpath, so with a goodly dose of co-operative common sense, we can go above 400ft but would need to drop down if any fullsize aircraft start coming our way. . However, we will be encouraging our club members to regard 400ft as the limit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GlidingGuy Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 We're already on an active airfield at Langar so I don't expect much to change for us hopefully... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted March 13, 2019 Share Posted March 13, 2019 [This posting has been removed] 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.