400 Feet (120m) height restriction for models over 7.5kg.

[Peter Jenkins]

I would have thought that any B Cert holder should be aware of theb7 kg /400 ft limit if they had read the BMFA Handbook and CAP 658 (as it was) as you are required to do.  I fly F3A aerobatics.  Weight is limited to 5Kg for electrics or 5 kg dry for IC.  Top of the box at the recommended 150 mtr flight path is 850 ft but if you fly further out you can easily breach 1,000 ft.  Until I fitted telemetry I wasn't aware I was regularly at 1 ,100 - 1,200 ft.  

Key point is at <7.5 Kg, there is no height limit, provided you don't infringe controlled airspace, and you maintain unaided visual contact with the aircraft.  

It worries me that there are Club Committees that are unaware of these facts that have been around for well over 15 years.  It doesn't do our hobby any good if those running Clubs are ignorant of the law.  There really isn't any excuse.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

20 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:

I would have thought that any B Cert holder should be aware of theb7 kg /400 ft limit if they had read the BMFA Handbook and CAP 658 (as it was) as you are required to do.  I fly F3A aerobatics.  Weight is limited to 5Kg for electrics or 5 kg dry for IC.  Top of the box at the recommended 150 mtr flight path is 850 ft but if you fly further out you can easily breach 1,000 ft.  Until I fitted telemetry I wasn't aware I was regularly at 1 ,100 - 1,200 ft.  

Key point is at <7.5 Kg, there is no height limit, provided you don't infringe controlled airspace, and you maintain unaided visual contact with the aircraft.  

It worries me that there are Club Committees that are unaware of these facts that have been around for well over 15 years.  It doesn't do our hobby any good if those running Clubs are ignorant of the law.  There really isn't any excuse.

 

Which Club Committees Peter ? And which B flyers are you referring to ?

 

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

18 minutes ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

Accuracy?  I don't think a few percent is likely to be quibbled over but in the event of an incident, a trace showing that the Typhoon with a 1/4 scale Cub shaped dent in its tailplane was at 350ish feet over a model field would give a strong indication that the model flyer wasn't totally to blame...

 

When the questions are being asked, being able to state that your model was being flown within the permitted height as measured by a piece of equipment designed for the job rather than "Old Bob" saying "that looks OK boy..." will help reinforce your position in asserting that you were satisfied that you were taking adequate precautions to fly safely.  Same with the digital scales you've checked the model with - an ounce or two due to inaccuracy might put you the wrong side of the law but the fact you'd taken steps to measure it might help in mitigation.  Bottom line is that compliance is the responsibility of the pilot but anything that helps support you can only be a good thing.

 

I agree with most of that Martin, but some love to quibble over minute detail, and some may/do feel "Old Bobs" been doing it since God we're a lad, so it shouldn't change.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

"Old Pete" (apologies for any offence!) has been doing it for some time and only just discovered he's been way out with the benefit of telemetry (with further apologies to "Old Bob" who might well be right for all I know...)   ?

[Gary Manuel]

Club members are on the case now that I've made the suggestion. They were all aware of the 7.5kg height limit and our club rules do state that BMFA rules must be followed. It appears that it was just me that had not twigged the 400 feet limit for >7.5kg - strange because I did know about multirotors having the same restriction. I even have all the regs on my phone. 

 

Put my error down to a brain fart.

 

I will continue to discuss this with my club as I would rather fly knowing that my flight is fully legal and safe, rather than inadvertently drifting into the danger zone, relying on technology, Bob or even dear old Pete.

Edited May 21, 2021 by Gary Manuel

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

None of us know everything but the important thing is that we help each other through what can be quite a complex subject.

[MattyB]

2 hours ago, john stones 1 Moderator said:

We advocating the models should all have telemetry ?

If I was flying a model of >7.5kg at a site not sanctioned for flight above 400ft, yes I would only fly with a telemetry altimeter. If you have a model that big it is likely to be fairly expensive, and that means the vast majority will have some kind of telemetry already. Adding an altimeter is cheap insurance and would provide invaluable data in the event of an incident. 

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

2 minutes ago, MattyB said:

If I was flying a model of >7.5kg at a site not sanctioned for flight above 400ft, yes I would only fly with a telemetry altimeter. If you have a model that big it is likely to be fairly expensive, and that means the vast majority will have some kind of telemetry already. Adding an altimeter is cheap insurance and would provide invaluable data in the event of an incident. 

 

I can't see anything I disagree with there Matty, would likely do the same as you.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

How do clubs out there know which models in their clubs exceed 7.5kg ? what have you in place to ensure compliance and prevent models slipping through which are above. Quite a rare thing at ours models of this size, so I'm curious how clubs deal with it.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

We mostly rely on the integrity of owners although I recall one member with an A who had a Maher's Thunderbird that was found to be over 7kg.  To be fair to him, he stopped bringing it when it was pointed out to him that club rules required a B.  No actual law breaking involved of course.  We had an old fashioned brass spring balance at the time but these days, more accurate digital luggage balances are easily obtainable.  A known quantity of water makes a pretty reasonable calibration check and I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of mine.

 

In general, larger models are normally the province of long term experienced members who are usually keen to be seen to operate responsibly and within club rules.  We had far more concerns over a very long term member in his 80s who had a preference for 120 FS powered models of around 5kg and was displaying poorer competence and judgement as the years went by.  We tried encouraging him to fly more lightly loaded models but sadly the incidents started increasing and offers of help fell on deaf ears, resulting in him moving to another club where his flying was mostly alone and unmonitored.

[EarlyBird]

6 hours ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

We had far more concerns over a very long term member in his 80s who had a preference for 120 FS powered models of around 5kg and was displaying poorer competence and judgement as the years went by.  We tried encouraging him to fly more lightly loaded models but sadly the incidents started increasing and offers of help fell on deaf ears, resulting in him moving to another club where his flying was mostly alone and unmonitored.

What a sad story. ?

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Pretty much what we do Martin, trust in the Integrity of our members, so are our Committee failing in their duties ? We've no data to back us up if an incident should occur, what if it's over 7.5 kg ? If it's better to have data from telemetry, why not do job right and get the data on the weight, isn't that just as important as the 400ft or are they somehow not of equal importance ?

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

15 hours ago, Peter Jenkins said:

I would have thought that any B Cert holder should be aware of theb7 kg /400 ft limit if they had read the BMFA Handbook and CAP 658 (as it was) as you are required to do.  I fly F3A aerobatics.  Weight is limited to 5Kg for electrics or 5 kg dry for IC.  Top of the box at the recommended 150 mtr flight path is 850 ft but if you fly further out you can easily breach 1,000 ft.  Until I fitted telemetry I wasn't aware I was regularly at 1 ,100 - 1,200 ft.  

Key point is at <7.5 Kg, there is no height limit, provided you don't infringe controlled airspace, and you maintain unaided visual contact with the aircraft.  

It worries me that there are Club Committees that are unaware of these facts that have been around for well over 15 years.  It doesn't do our hobby any good if those running Clubs are ignorant of the law.  There really isn't any excuse.

 

I'll ask again Peter, which club committees are you referring to ? You including the O.Ps committee in this group ?

And the B flyer one, why you chucked that in is beyond me frankly, for the avoidance of doubt, the O.P has no B cert, he don't need one to fly his models at our club, we don't rely on a piece of paper the mans actions are what counts, and the O.Ps (despite this thread) is B flyer quality, and in my opinion Examiner material as well.

Poor contribution from a high up BMFA official I think Peter.

[Peter Jenkins]

Hi John

Clearly I shouldn't have made an assumption that the OP was a B Cert holder.  I also was not specifically referring to the Club mentioned in the OP, do I gather from your comment that you are a Committee member there?   It was a general comment since the issue of flying above 400 ft with an aircraft weighing  up to 7 Kg should be well known.  I was clearly wrong in my assumption of a B Certificate holder flying the over 7 kg model and I apologise for not finding out first.  

 

I should also point out that I stood down from my Area and hence BMFA positions over 2 years ago in order to act as carer for my wife so I wouldn't want your comment about a "high up BMFA official" to reflect on the BMFA.  

 

I chose my words loosely and I apologise for that.

 

You raise a good point about having knowledge of the weight of a model when they are close to the new MTOW of 7.5 Kg.  This is not mentioned in Club rules in any of the Clubs of which I am a member.  It is a good point and I hope you will flag this up formally to the BMFA as something Clubs should be encouraged to implement in the same way as the noise test.  It is far easier to weigh a model with full tanks/battery fitted to determine whether there is an issue with the 400 ft height limit than have to decide, in the absence of telemetry, at what height the model is flying.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

9 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:

Hi John

Clearly I shouldn't have made an assumption that the OP was a B Cert holder.  I also was not specifically referring to the Club mentioned in the OP, do I gather from your comment that you are a Committee member there?   It was a general comment since the issue of flying above 400 ft with an aircraft weighing  up to 7 Kg should be well known.  I was clearly wrong in my assumption of a B Certificate holder flying the over 7 kg model and I apologise for not finding out first.  

 

I should also point out that I stood down from my Area and hence BMFA positions over 2 years ago in order to act as carer for my wife so I wouldn't want your comment about a "high up BMFA official" to reflect on the BMFA.  

 

I chose my words loosely and I apologise for that.

 

You raise a good point about having knowledge of the weight of a model when they are close to the new MTOW of 7.5 Kg.  This is not mentioned in Club rules in any of the Clubs of which I am a member.  It is a good point and I hope you will flag this up formally to the BMFA as something Clubs should be encouraged to implement in the same way as the noise test.  It is far easier to weigh a model with full tanks/battery fitted to determine whether there is an issue with the 400 ft height limit than have to decide, in the absence of telemetry, at what height the model is flying.

 

Thank you Peter, much appreciated. I was unaware you had stood down from your BMFA positions, and the reasons for doing so, that makes me guilty of the offense and also a jerk for obvious reasons,. Sorry Peter.

 

I've no interest in weighing members models, will stick with taking their word for it.

[Peter Jenkins]

No problem John, you weren't to know.

[Gary Manuel]

As the originator of this thread, I can only apologise for my lack of knowledge of historic legislation and the way the thread has gone. As I've already said, the 7.5kg height limit just did not register with me as I have progressed from smaller models into larger ones. If I had realised that the limit applied, I doubt that I would have chosen to made this progression.

 

When the all encompassing 400 feet limit was introduced in 2018, I was concerned that this was too low for aerobatic flight with models of any size and thought it would spell the end of model flying for me. I was greatly relieved when the BMFA issued the derogation in August 2018, allowing it's members to fly models above 400 feet. It was at this point that I became aware of the 400 feet limit for >7.5kg models. I didn't however realise that this was not a new restriction. I have definitely not flown any model over 7.5kg since this date.

 

I can't say for definite whether or not I have ever flown any >7.5kg models over 400 feet before this date but I suspect that I probably have. Nobody has ever pointed out that I have been flying too high but that could be because it's a little subjective and maybe I didn't go much above, if at all.

 

Now back to the present. An 8 feet long model only has to fly 50 times its length to reach 400 feet, which isn't very much at all. A 400 feet ceiling IS going to be very restrictive for a large model and will definitely affect the enjoyment gained from flying one. I doubt whether I will keep hold of my larger models if I cannot persuade my club to apply for permission to fly large models higher.

 

I believe that applying for this permission is the right thing to do, certainly for my club and arguably for all clubs on safety grounds. Having the permission granted removes the requirement for reliable altimeters or human judgement to decide when the model is nearing the height limit. More importantly, having the application granted ensures that the club site appears permanently within the Aeronautical Information Publication. This should significantly reduce the risk to full sized aircraft, not just from models over 7.5kg, but from all models flown from the site. I strongly believe that this will result in improved air safety for all concerned and may even overcome the future issue of electronic conspicuity - having model sites shown on flight planning maps may remove the requirement.

 

 

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

I think I'll make this my last post on this thread. No matter what others say on here the decision will be made by DVMFC members, not the committee. BMFA book says all sorts of stuff, many think this size model should only be flown by B cert holders, not an opinion I share. Seems the "Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire" has no clubs on the list, begs the question Why ? Do our Comrades not want big stuff up high for some reason, they unaware of the laws, bit thick, you can always tell a Yorkshireman but not much ? Who knows ? I would look how other regions have gone on this, but I don't care.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I might have travelled through there on Wednesday but our site is considerably further South!  I’m not sure that you’d see our permission as it was on an activation on request basis and COVID has meant that it hasn’t been used for a couple of years. 

[Martin McIntosh]

I would like to see an average turbine model loop in less than that. Our grass patch is maybe 100m long and a jet would only just be airborne at the end. Who could possibly estimate or measure the height of a model anyway? A figure pulled out of the air by some political office type. Getting thoroughly cheesed off with these petty regulations aimed at idiots with quads.

[Peter Jenkins]

Martin, it's not the idiots with quads this is aimed at.  It is clearing the airspace to allow its use for commercial reasons.  The 400 ft limit provides the space for unmanned vehicles to transit while flying beyond line of sight (BLOS), eventually, for a host of reasons.  Pipeline inspection, environmental inspections, parcel delivery etc.  The idiots with quads will also get in the way of these commerical users - not to mention the military users.  In any case, we are no worse off than before the regulations changed thanks to the sterling work of the BMFA.  If your jet weighs less no more than 7.5 Kg MTOW you can exceed 400 ft as you always have been able to do.  Above that weight, you have always had to have permission to exceed 400 ft - nothing has changed there.

[Rich Griff]

Jet, so no money worries, so fail safe and telemetry radio gear....etc..

 

Us poor uns can come up with an idea of overhead height like a gun site, when the wings fit in the circle it's 400 ft away, wings bigger than circle it's less, wings much smaller inside circle and its more than  400 ft, but that's a real low tech way of doing things, just like 1940 or even earlier

  Fit the circle gun site on the tx....different model with bigger/smaller wingspan, different site or "rings"...all you need next are some guns on the tx and offset/deflection.

 

For a jet, a sidewinder would do nicely, and for a quad, a 12 bore......but that's a whole different can of worms or sweets depending on your viewpoint/licence....

[Peter Jenkins]

Don't understand your point Rich.  I can't afford a jet either but that doesn't mean I cannot afford bolt on telemetry.  Also, provided your aircraft weighs 7.5 Kg or less you are not restricted to 400 ft whether you have telemetry or not - unless you are flying a multi rotor when it does apply.  Provided you've registered with the CAA, through the BMFA if needed, and stuck your OPID on your aircraft you are good to go.   What's your point?

[Rich Griff]

Jet equals no money problems equals telemarry radio gear....yes ?

 

If you drive a Merc etc , you can afford the bills....yes?

Edited May 23, 2021 by Rich Griff

[Peter Jenkins]

Oh, I see.  You're just complaining about wealth inequality so nothing to do with 400 ft height limits.