PatMc Posted May 27, 2021 Share Posted May 27, 2021 11 minutes ago, Martin McIntosh said: Flicked through most of the above which is all very well if we all flew with bells and whistles voice telemetry gear but we don`t. Even if it is displayed on the Tx screen it would be extremely dangerous to look down and then find it. The size/weight of a model does not realistically come into the equation and becomes irrelevant if you are thinking of a possible collision with a full size aircraft. Most responsible flyers will stay well clear if one approaches and even a glider on landing finals will be very visible. All of this is hypothetical anyway because a) our eyes cannot judge distance that well even with the ground as a reference and b), certainly not with a blank sky to look at. Try estimating if a moving light in the night sky is a high flying aircraft, a fast satellite or a UFO. The law doesn't care how the altitude is relayed back to the pilot. It's up to the pilot to comply with the legal regulation. If the pilot of a >7.5kg model is unable to judge or measure their model's altitude to ensure it does not exceed the altitude limit then he should not fly it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Manuel Posted May 27, 2021 Author Share Posted May 27, 2021 2 minutes ago, PatMc said: The law doesn't care how the altitude is relayed back to the pilot. It's up to the pilot to comply with the legal regulation. If the pilot of a >7.5kg model is unable to judge or measure their model's altitude to ensure it does not exceed the altitude limit then he should not fly it. .... Unless the club has a Site Permit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatMc Posted May 27, 2021 Share Posted May 27, 2021 4 minutes ago, Gary Manuel said: .... Unless the club has a Site Permit. That point isn't relevant to my answer, which is specifically directed at Martin's post. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Manuel Posted May 27, 2021 Author Share Posted May 27, 2021 (edited) I think it is very relevant unless I have misunderstood your comment Pat. A site permit removes the requirement for the pilot to judge or measure their model's altitude, so he can fly without having to worry about breaking the law (or more importantly, putting manned aircraft at risk). P.S. I am aware that a site permit will still have an altitude limit applied, but this should be high enough to allow for the particular site's requirements subject to maximum of 1500 feet. Edited May 27, 2021 by Gary Manuel P.S. added Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EarlyBird Posted May 28, 2021 Share Posted May 28, 2021 2 hours ago, Cassandra said: A BMFA Site Permit/being listed in the AIP as a model flying site does not give you exclusive access to a bit of airspace. Very true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Jenkins Posted May 28, 2021 Share Posted May 28, 2021 You need to take NOTAM action for that. Can be done and is advised by the BMFA for shows and the like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Skilbeck Posted May 28, 2021 Share Posted May 28, 2021 Peter, latest article 16 rules allow the BMFA/CAA to issue site/show/event permits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Jenkins Posted May 28, 2021 Share Posted May 28, 2021 Well Manny Williamson has suggested that organisers of air shows apply for one. A NOTAM does not guarantee that you won't get an intruder of course since folk need to read, and then act on them. I remember back in the 80s when I was the display organiser for an RAF airshow, although we had a NOTAM out we got a light aircraft that flew through the overhead while the BBMF Spitfire was doing its display. The pilot then came back for another look! Not sure the CAA ever caught up with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Manuel Posted May 28, 2021 Author Share Posted May 28, 2021 3 hours ago, Cassandra said: A BMFA Site Permit/being listed in the AIP as a model flying site does not give you exclusive access to a bit of airspace. No, but it does allow you to share it legally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Manuel Posted May 28, 2021 Author Share Posted May 28, 2021 (edited) If anyone is unfamiliar with the new Article 16 BMFA Site Permit application process, details are as follows. This explains where NOTAMs fit in. The justification I would suggest for the application is "To allow aerobatic manoeuvres to be practiced" or as suggested "To allow the use of glider towing" ...... ...... which can be found HERE. Edited May 28, 2021 by Gary Manuel Link added. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted May 28, 2021 Share Posted May 28, 2021 11 hours ago, Martin McIntosh said: Flicked through most of the above which is all very well if we all flew with bells and whistles voice telemetry gear but we don`t. Even if it is displayed on the Tx screen it would be extremely dangerous to look down and then find it. Full range TXs as cheap as £50 are now voice enabled with full telemetry capability that can warn you if you are approaching or over a given height if you fit a £15-20 vario/altimeter sensor; there is zero need to look away from the model to be alerted. If you are flying a model >7.5kg that is a very small investment compared to the overall amount of time and money invested in the model. 11 hours ago, Martin McIntosh said: The size/weight of a model does not realistically come into the equation and becomes irrelevant if you are thinking of a possible collision with a full size aircraft. The authorities disagree, and have made it very clear the safety risk is in there opinion linked to the mass of the UAS (as that is proportional to the energy transferred in a collision to the manned aircraft/uninvolved person); if this wasn't the case we wouldn't have the different rules for models under 250g. Whether you agree or not is ultimately irrelevent; you still have comply with the law and if you don't saying you think it's wrong is no defence. 11 hours ago, Martin McIntosh said: All of this is hypothetical anyway because a) our eyes cannot judge distance that well even with the ground as a reference and b), certainly not with a blank sky to look at. Try estimating if a moving light in the night sky is a high flying aircraft, a fast satellite or a UFO. ...which is exactly why a number of us in this thread are espousing the use of real time telemetry for models over 7.5kg flown anywhere that does not have a permit to operate over 400ft. I am not normally for new regs, but since the 400ft limit for large models is not a new rule but it clear that many were not aware of it before now, I think mandating telemetry in such cases would probably be a sensible move. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatMc Posted May 28, 2021 Share Posted May 28, 2021 11 hours ago, Gary Manuel said: I think it is very relevant unless I have misunderstood your comment Pat. A site permit removes the requirement for the pilot to judge or measure their model's altitude, so he can fly without having to worry about breaking the law (or more importantly, putting manned aircraft at risk). P.S. I am aware that a site permit will still have an altitude limit applied, but this should be high enough to allow for the particular site's requirements subject to maximum of 1500 feet. No it's not relevant. You have misunderstood the the fact that my comment is confined to Martin's post alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Manuel Posted May 28, 2021 Author Share Posted May 28, 2021 Apologies Pat. I 100% agree with what you say that if a pilot can't judge his altitude and is flying within a 400 feet ceiling, then he shouldn't be flying. I was just pointing out that there is an alternative, which is the entire point of this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Skilbeck Posted May 28, 2021 Share Posted May 28, 2021 2 hours ago, Gary Manuel said: Apologies Pat. I 100% agree with what you say that if a pilot can't judge his altitude and is flying within a 400 feet ceiling, then he shouldn't be flying. I was just pointing out that there is an alternative, which is the entire point of this thread. That's an interesting one, because how do you know what 400ft is unless you have measured it at least once. I have some gliders with telemetry height readout and typically at lower heights, say upto 500ft people tend to underestimate the height and higher, say 1,000 ft + they over estimate. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyB Posted May 28, 2021 Share Posted May 28, 2021 28 minutes ago, Frank Skilbeck said: That's an interesting one, because how do you know what 400ft is unless you have measured it at least once. I have some gliders with telemetry height readout and typically at lower heights, say upto 500ft people tend to underestimate the height and higher, say 1,000 ft + they over estimate. I fly regularly with models with varios and altimeter readout and you know what? I am still rubbish at estimating height! It's mde harder by the different shapes of models too - if you've jsut flown a 3.7m F5J model at 900ft you will know what that looks like, but it won't necessarily help you to estimate whether a 2m petrol aerobat is below 400ft. That's why I am coming to the conclusion these large models need telemetry as standard if flying in an area restricted to no higher than 400ft. 1 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.