Article 16 Reporting Clarification

[Megawatt]

On 29/01/2021 at 20:05, Gary Manuel said:

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.

Iv'e been following this thread and it occurs to me that maybe the above has been mis interpreted. Here is another view.

The article 16 text says that occurrences must be reported - To me that does not mean that the items listed are occurrences in themselves (indeed the operating above 400' cannot be as its specifically allowed under the exemption.) So what is an occurrence - well that is where we are pointed to CAP 722, for guidance, which gives  a (non exhaustive) list of occurrences. So in other words if you have a structural failure whilst operating above 400' that is an occurrence which must be reported - likewise if it occurs within 50' of uninvolved people. It is interesting that operating beyond visual range has a different bullet point style - I read that to mean that all such cases should be reported.

[Rich Griff]

Perhaps a new thread " how I pranged my plane..." Would be an idea, so we don't make the same mistake ?

 

How did you prang it ? Out of practise ? I know I am and consider myself a tyro again...starting at square one...

[Don Fry]

If I told you how I killed the Panic, I would have to execute you from shame. It is not a subject of discussion. At least I I have a surfeit of hacks.

[Gary Manuel]

1 hour ago, Megawatt said:

Iv'e been following this thread and it occurs to me that maybe the above has been mis interpreted. Here is another view.

The article 16 text says that occurrences must be reported - To me that does not mean that the items listed are occurrences in themselves (indeed the operating above 400' cannot be as its specifically allowed under the exemption.) So what is an occurrence - well that is where we are pointed to CAP 722, for guidance, which gives  a (non exhaustive) list of occurrences. So in other words if you have a structural failure whilst operating above 400' that is an occurrence which must be reported - likewise if it occurs within 50' of uninvolved people. It is interesting that operating beyond visual range has a different bullet point style - I read that to mean that all such cases should be reported.

Yep. It's as clear as mud to me. I said in my OP that I may be mis-interpreting it, which was part of my point. It should be clear and unambiguous.

 

Hopefully, we'll get clarification or preferably a reissue of the authorisation next week.

Edited March 24, 2021 by Gary Manuel

[Rich Griff]

10 hours ago, Don Fry said:

If I told you how I killed the Panic, I would have to execute you from shame. It is not a subject of discussion. At least I I have a surfeit of hacks.

 

So we are not able to learn from your misfortune....

 

What conclusion can we make, battery problem, black wire corrosion, radio failure other than just mentioned, structural failure or just plain and simple out of practise ?

 

Maybe this is why CAA etc. would like some sort of report as to reasons why, commonality, safety feedback ?

 

I refuse to believe it would be a lack of common sense as that is so difficult to quantify ?

 

Vosa have a recall reporting procedure for a reason, may be CAA etc. want/would like a similar process for the benefit of the flying community.

 

We all make mistakes.

 

An explanation/verdict as to why the plane was pranged would possibly highligt a problem no one has experienced before.

 

This can only help the flying community I feel.

 

You have already done the right thing in admitting it was your fault in pranging the plane, no damage done other than to the plane, so why not inform the community here so that your mistake is provented by anyone else, hopefully.

 

As said we all make mistakes, but it is a mistake not to say what mistake was made I feel, so we can all learn from it.

 

It could be called progress.

 

I bet you won't make the same mistake again, lesson learnt.

 

I am dreading my first flight but will feel better after flight 13!

[Don Fry]

It was an error of such monumental stupidity that it would benefit no one. Every club has an idiot. I was, yesterday, the bloke showing the idiot how a master does it. Every person reading this, if I told, would say, I'm not that stupid. They would look at me, with pity, look at my dog, and enter an internal debate, “compare and contrast the levels of relative intelligence, or useful intelligence, of these two creatures”.
I therefore plead the 5 th Amendment.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Don Fry
Getting it right

[Rich Griff]

So you were flying some else's model or servo's were reversed ?

 

Message to everyone, we are all out of practise ( about 22 years for me !) and need to step back just before take off and mentally "do the check list again !".

 

Would that be fair, and a good idea ?

Or is that a completely unneeded bag of sweets.

 

About 26 years ago at the club field, I witnessed a take off of a super sixty type model.

 

I noticed the aerial was not extended at all. I didn't have time to tell him before he was in trouble but the plane landed.

 

What was comical was that the particular sheep on the field ran towards the now stationery plane and was seen to "dance" all over it !

 

The plane survived the mistake but not that sheep.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Rich Griff

[Don Fry]

The phrase used by defense solicitors, in answer to repeated questioning of the same question, “asked and answered officer.”  The use of such techniques is part of the legal definition of judicial torture used by the United Nations.

[Rich Griff]

Try that with the powers that be, you have reported the "prang" I assume, as I think we have to these days ?

 

Just saying ...no malice...

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Rich, I think Don has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't wish to elaborate on a mistake that was so obvious that nobody would benefit from an explanation.  As he lives and flies in France, the AAIB would have no interest whatsoever so this sub-discussion is not relevant to this thread.

 

[Frank Skilbeck]

The LMA issued guidance yesterday, by e-mail, to members, so I expect the BMFA guidance will be available very soon.

[GrumpyGnome]

BMFA posted guidance, and emailed members and clubs, on Friday

GG

[PeterF]

The BMFA issued guidance on flying under COVID rules on Friday, but they did not issue anything on Article 16 reporting, the subject of this thread.

[Cuban8]

On 24/03/2021 at 19:49, Megawatt said:

Iv'e been following this thread and it occurs to me that maybe the above has been mis interpreted. Here is another view.

The article 16 text says that occurrences must be reported - To me that does not mean that the items listed are occurrences in themselves (indeed the operating above 400' cannot be as its specifically allowed under the exemption.) So what is an occurrence - well that is where we are pointed to CAP 722, for guidance, which gives  a (non exhaustive) list of occurrences. So in other words if you have a structural failure whilst operating above 400' that is an occurrence which must be reported - likewise if it occurs within 50' of uninvolved people. It is interesting that operating beyond visual range has a different bullet point style - I read that to mean that all such cases should be reported.

I've just listened to the second BMFA YT Q&A and the impression as far as I can gather is that reporting an incident with a model is required should the machine fly off out of sight into the blue yonder to cause goodness knows what havoc, or if a model is involved in putting either a full sized aircraft in peril or another person's safety has been has been put at risk of serious injury by the action of the model. Common sense seems to be the thing here, so if your model goes AWOL behind some distant trees and OOS for a few seconds but is recovered from the crash/arrival site within a few minutes without incident (as most are)  I doubt if it  will count.

Edited March 28, 2021 by Cuban8

[leccyflyer]

It's that operating beyond visual range which has got us to where we are now, in terms of the imposition of all of this additional regulation. It really ought not be permitted at all and that should have been able to put clear blue water between model flying and BVR drone operations, allowing model flying to proceed as it had done for over 100 years.

[Andy Stephenson]

Leccy,

I put this point to Andy Symons when he came to a meeting of our club where he said something to the effect that there were too many grey areas for the CAA to make the distinction. I didn't agree and said so. It's obvious to me that the CAA can't be bothered with footling details of the toy flying public. The dead-hand of officialdom rules.

 

Andy.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Leccy,

I put this point to Andy Symons when he came to a meeting of our club where he said something to the effect that there were too many grey areas for the CAA to make the distinction. I didn't agree and said so. It's obvious to me that the CAA can't be bothered with footling details of the toy flying public. The dead-hand of officialdom rules.

 

Andy.

 

I don't believe the CAA have any direct interest or involvement in incident reporting,  This is the province of the AAIB, as far as I can see.  The CAA may respond to recommendations made by the AAIB but are a separate organisation - although both of them come under the DfT.

Edited March 28, 2021 by Martin Harris - Moderator
Added quote for clarity

[GrumpyGnome]

@PeterFoops, that's right. Apologies.

GG

[Don Fry]

The CAA, and th AAIB are civil servants. They enforce rules, as they see them. Cautiously. Because their masters will, taking political decisions, hang them out to dry for making a wrong, or even reasonable decision, that provides an unfavorable headline.
That is reality, in their shoes, what would you do?
The origin of the rule comes from the masters. 
And the masters did the general direction of the rules a couple of years ago. Train has left the station. And it’s not coming back.

So that leaves the likes of the BFMA, FFAM ( in France), and ( possibly sympathetic) civil servants, trying to make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear.

No votes in it, no money in it, your point?

This is all the world over. All of us are getting buried by this bumf.

I fly in France, ex BFMA member, the bits of qualification paper are accepted here. Slightly different rules. 
But here, it means the duck pond, near the house, I have owners permission to fly off, is good with a HK Skipper, sub 800 grams, but not a HK Tundra, 1100 grams. The flying giant that is the Tundra needs some sort of geolocation device, transmitting to a virtual Air Traffic Control system. Unless flown off an approved site (AKA, Up the club site). The said device is so popular, I can’t find one online. 
That’s a flat bit of water, and ground, no tree, no roads, no paths, and a thousand acres in front of me, all owned by my owner friend.

[Don Fry]

Thank you. I am losing the will to live. A friend suggested, who is interested? But, here, it’s a simple fixed penalty ticket system. It escalates, quadrupling for each offense. I would vaguely prefer to be legal.

[Gary Manuel]

Clarification on this matter has now been issued by the BMFA. Thanks to all, especially @Andy Symons - BMFA for taking the time to resolve this matter. Now it's down to us members to make it work. Link to guidance follows:

https://rcc.bmfa.uk/art16-occurrence-reporting

 

Here's a link to the BMFA Reporting portal.

https://reporting.bmfa.uk/

 

 

Here's the full text of the email sent to all BMFA members:

 

**************************************************************

Dear BMFA Member

(Sent to all members)
 

The BMFA Article 16 Authorisation includes a requirement for remote pilots to report certain accidents, serious incidents and other occurrences to the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) and the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).  This was an existing requirement, but has been emphasised in the terms of our Authorisation.

To read the full guidance about mandatory occurrence reporting see https://rcc.bmfa.uk/art16-occurrence-reporting

If you have been involved in an incident and are not sure whether it is a reportable occurrence, or who to report the occurrence to or  you need to report an occurrence, you should immediately visit the new BMFA Reporting portal at  https://reporting.bmfa.uk 

Members completing and submitting the pre-reporting form will be guided through the correct process and the occurrence will be reported to the necessary bodies.

The first mandatory occurrence report has already been submitted after a model fly-away that wasn’t recovered. The member in question stated that it was:

“A straightforward process and nothing to be frightened about.”

A representative from the CAA commented:

“Whilst I am very sorry to hear of this aircraft’s loss, I am incredibly encouraged by the actions of the remote pilot in submitting this report – this may contribute to a valuable lesson being learned in the future to help prevent this sort of loss of control happening again. I would be very grateful if you could pass on my sincere thanks to your member for being such a good example to others.”

Kind Regards

BMFA HQ

Tel: 0116 2440028

The Society of Model Aeronautical Engineers Limited T/A The British Model Flying Association

 

A company limited by guarantee.  Registered in England Number 457067
Registered office Chacksfield House, 31 St Andrew's Road, Leicester, LE2 8RE

**************************************************************

 

Edited April 1, 2021 by Gary Manuel

[Frank Skilbeck]

Just read it, it states we must report flying over 400ft, I thought association members had an exemption from this? Or do the CAA just want to know how often association members model aircraft fly over 400ft?

[PeterF]

But that does not really have any clarification as far as I can tell, it really just lists out the article 16 authorisation requirements and some definitions and provides a web based tool for deciding if / what reporting is required. Some clarification examples would be good.

[PeterF]

8 minutes ago, Frank Skilbeck said:

Just read it, it states we must report flying over 400ft, I thought association members had an exemption from this? Or do the CAA just want to know how often association members model aircraft fly over 400ft?

The way I read it is that it requires us to report occurrences that occur over 400ft, not just going over 400ft. Therefore if you are over 400ft and do not have a safety related event, then you do not report because there has been no occurrence.

 

This is why clarification in plain english with examples would be useful.

Edited April 1, 2021 by PeterF

[Gary Manuel]

I'm sure that there will be many more discussions and clarifications on this matter, which is a good thing. As far as I'm concerned though, as the originator of this thread, my question has been answered.

 

Rather than referring to CAP722 as required by Note 1 in the BMFA Article 16 Authorisation, I will instead refer to the BMFA guidance as linked above. Art 16 Auth can now effectively be read as a standalone document, having absolutely no references to CAP722. This is how I was always expecting / hoping it would be issued.

Edited April 1, 2021 by Gary Manuel
Typo