Article 16 Reporting Clarification

[Gary Manuel]

I've been following another thread which has touched upon the requirement to report incidents such as "Fly Aways". I don't want to bog that thread down as it is already generating conflict, so I have started another one about the specific requirement to report "Other Occurrences".

I am a BMFA member, so I will base my query upon the BMFA Article 16 Authorisation.

"Section 3.13: Reporting Requirements" includes the following:

....................................

The following must be reported to the CAA, as a condition of this authorisation:

▪ Serious Incidents or Other Occurrences which involve any of the following:

o Manned aircraft

o Operating above 400ft

o Operating less than 50m from uninvolved people

▪ Any instances of flight beyond the visual line of sight of the remote pilot

Note 1: Further guidance on reporting requirements and relevant definitions can be found in CAP 722.

....................................

The BMFA Article 16 Authorisation refers the reader to CAP 722, where the relevant section is:

....................................

2.9.8.2. Additional UAS occurrences that must be reported.

In addition to those listed in the regulations above, other, more UAS specific occurrences must also be reported should they or a similar occurrence be experienced or observed by you. These occurrences are listed below but the list is not exhaustive.

When you are considering whether an occurrence is reportable, you should also take into account other situations where the same thing could have happened. For example, the actual occurrence may have been ‘benign’ as it happened in a remote area. However, if the full scope of how the aircraft could be operated is taken into account, for example over people, could the same occurrence in a different situation result in a more serious outcome?

Operation of the aircraft

•Unintentional loss of control

•Loss of control authority over the aircraft

•Aircraft landed outside the designated area

•Aircraft operated beyond the limitations established in the relevant operating category or operational authorisation

•Aircraft operated without required licencing, registration or operational authorisation

•Aircraft operated in an unairworthy or unflightworthy condition

Technical malfunction/failure of the aircraft or command unit

•Loss of command and control link (C2 link)

•Battery failure/malfunction

•Powerplant failure

•Aircraft structural failure (for example, part of the aircraft detaches during operation)

•Errors in the configuration of the command unit

•Display failures

•Flight programming errors

•Navigation failures

....................................

Whilst all of these would obviously be reportable for full size aircraft, it does appear to be a little extreme for model aircraft.

For example:

"Battery failure / malfunction" and "Powerplant failure" suggest that a dead-stick landing is reportable.

"Aircraft landed outside the designated area" suggests that landing / crashing in Farmer Giles's adjacent field is reportable.

"Unintentional loss of control" and "Loss of control authority over the aircraft" suggests that disorientation or radio failure / failsafe operation is reportable.

I could go on, but I think I have used enough examples to get my point across.

My issue is that these appear to be a bit (a lot) extreme for model aeroplanes but do appear to be a requirement unless I am misreading CAP722 (which could be the case due to the technical way these things are written). Can anyone clarify exactly which incidents should and should not be reported. It is of note that the BMFA Article 16 Authorisation lists flight beyond visual line of sight but not some of the other requirements.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

I wouldnt get too bogged down with it just yet. The AAIB and CAA or actually reviewing reporting requirements as it is a little bit unrealistic just at the moment.

The CEO has a meeting with the AAIB/CAA next Friday IIRC to sort things out.

Once its all finalised we will be producing an online form that guides you through the process and sends you where tou need to go if you need to repprt something. Potentially automatically submit it for you.

[Gary Manuel]

I'm glad it's not just me that recognises that it's unrealistic.

Thanks for the feedback Andy. Hope to see some guidance / clarification on this by the time we are allowed / safe to go out to play.

[Brian Cooper]

Hopefully "common sense" will prevail here. . . It won't be necessary to phone the CAA every time a rubber band gets broken.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I would hope that common sense will reduce reporting requirements to those where injury or third party damage, or a serious possibility of such could have resulted. Dave Phipps has an excellent track record of dealing with legislators and producing pragmatic solutions. At least this rather OTT requirement has been introduced while the majority of us are unable to indulge in model flying!

The message is that reporting occurrences is not designed to apportion blame but is a tool to identify root causes of potentially hazardous situations and reduce or eliminate future ones. A nose-over on a bumpy patch resulting in a broken prop is hardly likely to fit that description!

Edited By Martin Harris - Moderator on 30/01/2021 01:45:31

[Roger Jones 3]

The 'common sense' is that no sane operator is go to report it himself and none of his sane fellow flyers will report it for him.

"Hello, is that the CAA? I just lost my toy plane"

The 'additional' ones? I don't see many people bothering to report ANY of them.

Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 29/01/2021 22:01:24

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I'm afraid that the message hasn't got across very well. The whole ethos of incident reporting is to identify where things have and can go pear shaped and learn lessons.

Example: 2 pilots find that their 2.4 GHz transmitters are cross controlling. The incident is reported, found to be caused by GUIDs having been set to all zeros by the manufacturer. A recall programme is initiated and the affected transmitters are modified to work as intended.

The important thing is that these systems capture the unexpected. If occurrences could be reasonably anticipated they shouldn't happen so either the operating regime is faulty or something new is emerging. Either way,open reporting can identify causes and trends and it would be counter-productive for the CAA to use it to track down and punish those who've made accidental errors or been the victim of circumstance.

[Roger Jones 3]

As you say, some of it makes sense. But not much of it.

It's marked as applying to a UAS (I had to look up what a 'UAS' is) and was probably just cut and pasted from the full size rules without bothering to check any of it.

In practice it won't matter. I am an 'average' sort of flyer, a BMFA member for donkey's years, and like most people obey rules that don't 'impact' me as I neither want to ride a bicycle at night without lights or murder anyone.

But if anyone thinks many of us will pay attention to these rules and their 'clarifications' in any manner other than in 'mild curiosity' they are in cloud cuckoo land.

[Geoff S]

I particularly like the 'Unintentional loss of control'. I've lost control occasionally but never on purpose

Geoff

[Roger Jones 3]

Posted by Geoff S on 29/01/2021 23:27:15:

I particularly like the 'Unintentional loss of control'. I've lost control occasionally but never on purpose

Geoff

I think many forget that the CAA probably regards model aircraft, their 'operators', and the BMFA as 'minor irritants' that they have to be polite to but they wish would go away.

[cymaz]

I think this reporting has to be done as of full size ,is that maybe lawyers have yet to come up with a watertight legal definition of a RC aircraft as opposed to multi copters etc.

I wait to see what the CAA bring forward, keep up the good work Andy

[Doctor Chinnery]

Posted by Brian Cooper on 29/01/2021 20:27:14:

Hopefully "common sense" will prevail here. . . It won't be necessary to phone the CAA every time a rubber band gets broken.

Exactly - if you have any doubts re-read 2.9.8.2, add a generous dollop of common sense, sit down with a cuppa and decide whether CAA or anybody else would be really concerned whether you reported said occurrence or not. P.S. - and another ThankYou for Andy & Co..

[Dickw]

I think a lot of the problems on the other thread stemmed from the OP, when challenged on being out flying, claimed that he was not flying recreationally but making videos for income via YouTube, i.e. flying commercially.
That is not covered by the Article 16 Authorisation and the reporting (and general operation) requirements of CAP722 are a lot more onerous.
Perhaps a case of getting out of a hole by digging a bigger one

As a BMFA member who flies for enjoyment only I just intend to get on with my normal flying (once allowed out again) and to use my common sense about what the CAA might really be interested in when it comes to any reporting.

Dick

[Gary Manuel]

Actually, 2.9.8.2 says that the listed occurances MUST be reported but that the list is not exhaustive.

The reason I queried the requirement to report these items was exactly because I was sitting down with a cuppa applying a dollop of common sense. I don't suppose any modeller with an ounce of common sense would think of reporting any of these incidents and yet, it is a legal requirement to do so! That is exactly why CAP722 (or perhaps just Note 1 in the Article 16 Authorisation?) needs revisiting. Andy has already confirmed that the BMFA are doing this.

[cymaz]

Don’t forget that anyone putting on a public show with models over 7.5kg and / or flying over 400’ must get an event licence from the CAA and issue a NOTAM ,notwithstanding the BMFA insurance extension.

[Gary Manuel]

Dick,

Article 16 refers to CAP722 (see Note 1), so the reporting requirements are the same at the moment. Hopefully soon to be corrected.

Edited By Gary Manuel on 30/01/2021 10:43:12

[Dickw]

Posted by Gary Manuel on 30/01/2021 10:38:29:

Dick,

Article 16 refers to CAP722 (see Note 1), so the reporting requirements are the same at the moment. Hopefully soon to be corrected.

Edited By Gary Manuel on 30/01/2021 10:43:12

Agreed.

Dick

[i12fly]

I hate the phrase 'common sense'. Why? Because your common sense is different to my common sense. We see on this forum how a person does something that someone objects to. Long threads develop as it comes down to opinion or interpretation.

So we need the Reporting conditions to be clear cut and sensible, we don't want a court somewhere deciding.

On 'intentional loss of control', some years ago I deliberately let a fairly expensive artf crash. I lost orientation in the sun, I could have tried to rescue it as there was just about enough height, but the downward trajectory was away from the pits so I closed the throttle and let it plough in. If I'd tried to recover and got it wrong, 50/50 chance, I shudder at the consequences. All happened in less than a second, it was totalled. Lesson learnt, emotionally it still hurts but no-one else was hurt.

[Gary Manuel]

Posted by i12fly on 30/01/2021 13:31:20:

I hate the phrase 'common sense'. Why? Because your common sense is different to my common sense. We see on this forum how a person does something that someone objects to. Long threads develop as it comes down to opinion or interpretation.

So we need the Reporting conditions to be clear cut and sensible, we don't want a court somewhere deciding.

I agree i12fly. That's why I started a new thread. Some people were suggesting that the incident in question should be reported to the CAA. Others thought it shouldn't. It should be clear cut and obvious whether an incident is reportable or not. At the moment it isn't, but it is being reconsidered.

[Dickw]

Posted by i12fly on 30/01/2021 13:31:20:

I hate the phrase 'common sense'. Why? Because your common sense is different to my common sense. We see on this forum how a person does something that someone objects to. Long threads develop as it comes down to opinion or interpretation.

So we need the Reporting conditions to be clear cut and sensible, we don't want a court somewhere deciding.

I would agree, but the concepts of "clear cut" and "sensible" do not always go together.
The following are clear cut, but may not always be sensible when applied to all such incidents in every day model flying.

CAP722
Aircraft landed outside the designated area

Article 16 Authorisation
Any instances of flight beyond the visual line of sight of the remote pilot

You can see what the CAA is getting at, but if you land behind the hedge at the boundary of your field should you report both violations? Both seem to apply to the flight that started the discussion.

As soon as you add "sensible" to the equation you are back to the problem that your ideas of sensible, and mine, may be different to the CAA's.

So I repeat that common sense seems the best approach until the CAA and BMFA provide any additional clarity, and probably a reporting format/system - and I believe they are working on it.

Dick

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

A lot of legal interpretation seems to hinge on the opinion of a particular gentleman travelling on public transport in South London - the man on the Clapham omnibus.

The legal system seems to operate on the premise of reasonable assumption until or unless a case sets a precedent.

I doubt that any exact definition of all reportable incidents is likely although I'd imagine that the consultation involving Dave Phipps will result in clearer guidelines being published. I'm happy to wait for the outcome for the time being.

[Peter Jenkins]

Posted by i12fly on 30/01/2021 13:31:20:

On 'intentional loss of control', some years ago I deliberately let a fairly expensive artf crash. I lost orientation in the sun, I could have tried to rescue it as there was just about enough height, but the downward trajectory was away from the pits so I closed the throttle and let it plough in. If I'd tried to recover and got it wrong, 50/50 chance, I shudder at the consequences. All happened in less than a second, it was totalled. Lesson learnt, emotionally it still hurts but no-one else was hurt.

Not wishing to jump on you i12fly, but losing orientation in the sun is something that we should all be considering before we get airborne. In SWEETS, the first S is Sun. So, pre-session checks using SWEETS is something I would encourage everyone to take seriously, especially on sites where the sun can get in the way. Luckily, I tend to fly facing north but on summer evenings the sun does come round to make landing from the west interesting. Careful thought on the route to take for landing avoids any last minute "oops, lost it in the sun" situations.

Happy flying - eventually!

[Roger Jones 3]

Posted by Peter Jenkins on 31/01/2021 00:32:38:

Posted by i12fly on 30/01/2021 13:31:20:

On 'intentional loss of control', some years ago I deliberately let a fairly expensive artf crash. I lost orientation in the sun, I could have tried to rescue it as there was just about enough height, but the downward trajectory was away from the pits so I closed the throttle and let it plough in. If I'd tried to recover and got it wrong, 50/50 chance, I shudder at the consequences. All happened in less than a second, it was totalled. Lesson learnt, emotionally it still hurts but no-one else was hurt.

Not wishing to jump on you i12fly, but losing orientation in the sun is something that we should all be considering before we get airborne. In SWEETS, the first S is Sun. So, pre-session checks using SWEETS is something I would encourage everyone to take seriously, especially on sites where the sun can get in the way. Luckily, I tend to fly facing north but on summer evenings the sun does come round to make landing from the west interesting. Careful thought on the route to take for landing avoids any last minute "oops, lost it in the sun" situations.

Happy flying - eventually!

Caused by a lack of situational awareness. In model flying that should become 'automatic' very early on. It's about the model important principle of all in both driving a car and full size flying.

Edited By Roger Jones 3 on 31/01/2021 07:03:45

[i12fly]

Roger and Peter, as I said 'lesson learnt' it was some years ago and has not been repeated and my situational awareness is fine thank you. I applaud you guys never having made a mistake sometime.

[cymaz]

Posted by i12fly on 31/01/2021 14:15:03:

Roger and Peter, as I said 'lesson learnt' it was some years ago and has not been repeated and my situational awareness is fine thank you. I applaud you guys never having made a mistake sometime.

He, who never made a mistake, never did anything.