R/C model aircraft fatalities recently...........Be careful out there!

[MattyB]

 

1 hour ago, gangster said:

Some comment,however, have mentioned ski-ing, motorcycling  and other potentially activities but I am not sure where the comparison is. Sure people injure or kill themselves doing various things but surely there is no comparison. With model flying we are talking potential injury to third innocent third parties.

 

There is plenty of capacity for the sports you mention to injure innocent third parties if carried out in an unsafe manner, so I'm not quite sure what your point is on that one? 

 

1 hour ago, gangster said:

The latest communiqué’s from the BMFA speak of formal risk assessments. How many will relish that responsibility?

 

Relish it or not, risk assessments have always been highly recommended for organised flying sites pretty much forever (certainly we have had one at the clubs I am in for 20 years+). An RA is also a requirement to operate in most cases under the BMFA (and probably all the other organisations) Article 16 authorisation (many clubs or informal sites will need to do this due to their proximity to industrial, recreational, commercial or resediential properties not under their control).  

 

Key point - If the Article 16 auth says you need an RA and you don't have one, you're effectively not flying under the auth and will be in hot water if anything happens. Any issues would also inevitably give the CAA and their governmental masters leverage to to revoke these (entirely discretionary, annually renewed) authorisations across the UK, which would impact model flying hugely. Key extract below...

 

The Authorisation is valid throughout the UK at:

• Any established model flying club site. Clubs operating in a ‘built up area’ (This means an area substantially used for industrial, recreational, commercial or residential purposes) must conduct a risk assessment and have suitable mitigations in place within their ‘Field Safety Rules’.  The BMFA can assist with this.
• Any other suitable site which is not a ‘built-up area’.
• Within a ‘built up area’ if the flying site is within an area which is only used substantially for recreational purposes (for example playing fields or sports pitches) and a risk assessment has been carried out. Again, the BMFA can assist with this.

Edited June 15, 2023 by MattyB

[paul devereux]

@MattyB 100% on RAs, written and documented. It is also helpful if someone is able to demonstrate they have considered risks in a particular situation even if that one isn't documented. 

[Robert Cracknell]

In my previous life (I am now retired) I had to produce RAMS (Risk Assessments & Method Statements) to identify the risks and to set out procedures to reduce or eliminate the risk. For similar and sometimes repetitive tasks these took the form of tick box check lists somewhat similar to a cockpit check list. Done in this manner for a flying site it would prove useful and not too onerous. Minor amendments can be added for particular circumstances e.g. change of circuit due to wind direction or added risks like nearby farm activity for example.

[MattyB]

 

2 hours ago, paul devereux said:

My point about these accidents is that they are all probably avoidable if people took proper care and had consideration for others. No need for shouting warnings, etc- they shouldn't be necessary.

 

2 hours ago, paul devereux said:

Edit- I realise I said in the post you are referring to that I actually said no need- that is obviously ridiculous, I was responding to a previous poster who said this: I can shout very loudly if needed, but what of deaf people, morons and keeping my eyes on the model when it's flying not to mention what's going on around me ?

 

 

For the second time in 24 hours you are having to clarify/retract posts because (as a beginner) you don't have sufficient experience of RC flying to comment on sound field safety practices. Sorry, but having done some c/l and free-flight decades ago and now flying RC for a few months on private land with no-one else around means you do not not have sufficient knowledge to be able to state "no one is more cognisant than me when it comes to (RC) safety".

 

An analogy... I flew IC for a few years when I started (~30 years ago), but my Dad did all the starting, tuning and maintenance. I picked up some rudimentary basics of handling and running IC engines, but nowhere near enough to be considered an expert or even a competent operator. As a result I don't post advice in threads on IC - I have only enough knowledge and insight to be unhelpful at best, and dangerous at worst! 

 

In summary, there are posters here with decades and decades of RC experience who regularly operate in club environments such as the one where the most recent accident took place. I highly recommend you listen and learn from those posters moving forward, rather than throwing out statements which you later have to retract/adjust/clarify because of a lack of knowledge and practical RC experience.

 

Edited June 15, 2023 by MattyB

[gangster]

1 hour ago, Cuban8 said:

Perhaps not so clear cut as you suggest, Gangster. We operate in a variety of manners such as alone on private land, alone in a public place, with any number of others either in a closed club environment or a club environment that is open to the public etc. Each has potential risks to those involved and not involved, and for the most part, simple rules and procedures will reduce the chances of accidents to a very small amount. Flick through the BMFA handbook that has developed greatly over the years- just about every eventuality is covered in terms of best operating practice, no matter what or wherever one flys - we all just need to follow it. Clubs may well have their own ideas to suit local conditions. For instance, how many models are allowed to be airborne at any one time at your club? Four, five, six.....no limit? Is every one obliged to fly a strict circuit pattern or is it a bit more loose?

Both of my clubs will not permit a flyer to stand on the patch behind his model to take off. The pilot remains in the flightbox with the other pilots at all times and aircraft are recovered by taxiing to a clear area off to one side. Recovering a dead stick model where it might be a hazard to other models being landed, is handled by good communication and in a manner suitable to not put anyone at risk. If that means having to wait until a natural break in the flying before collection, then so be it.

From the BMFA Handbook......"Do not taxi in or out of the pits area. Wheel or carry your model well clear of the pits before commencing taxying and stop the model well clear when taxiing back after landing. Do not put other flyers at risk".

I suspect that none of us are perfect, and it's usually a combination of circumstances either for an individual or within a group, that will come together and given a bit of bad luck or a moment's inattention, result in disaster.

I don't agree that we're hammering nails into the hobby's coffin, or indeed that our hobby is dead or dying. Changing certainly, with pressure on flying sites and perhaps not as attractive to so many younger people as it once was, but on the whole I'd say we're doing OK.

 

Totally agree with all the safety precautions you outlined there. Yes pilots must be in the flight box together Fliers should not be roaming about neither should models be taxing about. It is basic courtesy and good manners to attempt to communicate intentions to the others, which by nature means a limited number up at the same time. To ask ok to take off, ok to collect ? Call out your intention to land , urgently if deadstick.  And also if you have been out to collect announce your return. Nothing just to do with rules etc just common manners and decency. Who wants someone to wander out to the strip or even take off just as your tank/ battery is about depleted

[Cuban8]

10 minutes ago, gangster said:

Totally agree with all the safety precautions you outlined there. Yes pilots must be in the flight box together Fliers should not be roaming about neither should models be taxing about. It is basic courtesy and good manners to attempt to communicate intentions to the others, which by nature means a limited number up at the same time. To ask ok to take off, ok to collect ? Call out your intention to land , urgently if deadstick.  And also if you have been out to collect announce your return. Nothing just to do with rules etc just common manners and decency. Who wants someone to wander out to the strip or even take off just as your tank/ battery is about depleted

No argument from me with all that. My only worry is the notion of collecting models from a live runway with other models overhead. Not usually an issue given that models can be taxiied out of the way. Hand lauched models without undercarts, gliders and dead sticked power models do pose a degree of thought when flying with others though. Loud calls usually do the trick and I'm pretty loud!

Even so calling  "landing" and shout of "finals" will sometimes go unheeded and the motorcyclists life saver glance at the patch might just spot old Fred or whoever, nipping out unannounced to collect his model or to pick up a dropped item. 

I dont know if it can ever  be made a totally foolproof procedure.

[Rich Griff]

LANDING, DEAD STICK !

 

Twice if needed.

 

 Even if you are alone it's good practise.

 

Discipline, self or otherwise is also needed on the slope as you never know when or where a head is going to "pop up".

 

Always fly into wind, you can usually "park" a sloper for a quick look round.

 

Landing approach is usually from behind you somewhat so I turn sideways for better views but I still cannot see right behind me. One side is the slope, the other a blind spot usually with good distance for any people approaching.

 

Similar for powered apart from a slope and being able to park, but good hieght for a quick look around in stages.

 

At a club it's club rules.

 

Safe flying is no accident.

 

Car drivers always use indicaters even when roads are empty, apart from German cars of course. Is that the cars fault I wonder but that's for a different day.

Edited June 15, 2023 by Rich Griff

[John Lee]

From the BMFA FW 'A' Test guidance:

 

(d) Fly a rectangular circuit and approach with appropriate use of the throttle and perform a landing on the designated landing area.

The pilot should call this manoeuvre out loudly as a landing during the standard line and height initial into-wind pass across the landing area and you should take note that they have visually checked the active area before and during the manoeuvre (watch for head movements). The ability to glance away from the model to re-check that the landing area is clear is important and is a skill that a ‘solo standard’ pilot should posses.

If a landing is called when there is anyone out on the landing area (for instance taking off or retrieving models) who may not be in a position to hear the call then you may consider that the candidate has not given due consideration to field safety.

 

The 'B' Test has recently been amended (at the initiative of Brian Cooper of this Forum) to now include:

 

Fly a rectangular landing approach and perform a hazard avoidance go-around from below 10 ft. Note that this manoeuvre is an aborted landing for the purpose of collision avoidance, not a low pass.

Edited June 15, 2023 by John Lee
Typo

[paul devereux]

1 hour ago, MattyB said:

 

 

 

For the second time in 24 hours you are having to clarify/retract posts because (as a beginner) you don't have sufficient experience of RC flying to comment on sound field safety practices. Sorry, but having done some c/l and free-flight decades ago and now flying RC for a few months on private land with no-one else around means you do not not have sufficient knowledge to be able to state "no one is more cognisant than me when it comes to (RC) safety".

 

An analogy... I flew IC for a few years when I started (~30 years ago), but my Dad did all the starting, tuning and maintenance. I picked up some rudimentary basics of handling and running IC engines, but nowhere near enough to be considered an expert or even a competent operator. As a result I don't post advice in threads on IC - I have only enough knowledge and insight to be unhelpful at best, and dangerous at worst! 

 

In summary, there are posters here with decades and decades of RC experience who regularly operate in club environments such as the one where the most recent accident took place. I highly recommend you listen and learn from those posters moving forward, rather than throwing out statements which you later have to retract/adjust/clarify because of a lack of knowledge and practical RC experience.

 

Okay, point taken! 

[gangster]

53 minutes ago, John Lee said:

From the BMFA FW 'A' Test guidance:

 

(d) Fly a rectangular circuit and approach with appropriate use of the throttle and perform a landing on the designated landing area.

The pilot should call this manoeuvre out loudly as a landing during the standard line and height initial into-wind pass across the landing area and you should take note that they have visually checked the active area before and during the manoeuvre (watch for head movements). The ability to glance away from the model to re-check that the landing area is clear is important and is a skill that a ‘solo standard’ pilot should posses.

If a landing is called when there is anyone out on the landing area (for instance taking off or retrieving models) who may not be in a position to hear the call then you may consider that the candidate has not given due consideration to field safety.

 

The 'B' Test has recently been amended (at the initiative of Brian Cooper of this Forum) to now include:

 

Fly a rectangular landing approach and perform a hazard avoidance go-around from below 10 ft. Note that this manoeuvre is an aborted landing for the purpose of collision avoidance, not a low pass.

What is the change here? I recall an aborted landing was part of the B test when I took mine with the Wright brothers obviously it has been changed a bit.  I guess we have been all been giving this a lot of thought. Thankfully we are talking of only 2 events well separated by time and geography. The thought that crossed my mind with all the talk of glancing at the field and calling intention is that ott legislation and insurance requirements could force us to have a designatedlookout when 3 or more flyers are together Not sure how that would work when individuals are at a slope or other non club field. Let’s hope it doesn’t get to that

[John Lee]

58 minutes ago, gangster said:

What is the change here? I recall an aborted landing was part of the B test when I took mine 

 

It's changed from an aborted landing/go-around, where you opened the throttle & climbed straight ahead, to a collision avoidance manoeuvre where the requirement is:

 

"When instructed to go-around, the pilot should call the manoeuvre out loudly, ‘going around’, ‘overshoot’ or other words

to this effect are acceptable. The model should be turned to an angle of 30 to 45 degrees away from the flight line, while simultaneously taken safely back up to circuit height, with appropriate...."

The change was flagged in the Oct 22 edition of BMFA News

[gangster]

2 hours ago, John Lee said:

 

It's changed from an aborted landing/go-around, where you opened the throttle & climbed straight ahead, to a collision avoidance manoeuvre where the requirement is:

 

"When instructed to go-around, the pilot should call the manoeuvre out loudly, ‘going around’, ‘overshoot’ or other words

to this effect are acceptable. The model should be turned to an angle of 30 to 45 degrees away from the flight line, while simultaneously taken safely back up to circuit height, with appropriate...."

The change was flagged in the Oct 22 edition of BMFA News

Thanks for that John, makes sense to me. It was on that stage of my B test that my ultra reliable OS45 decided to die. There was just time that evening for the repeat attempt. I fuelled up moved the throttle trim a couple of clicks and flew a good test. When the aborted landing came up it was at a very swift tickover.  The real landing was also very swift for the same reason. The examiner asked the obligatory questions and then said “ do you always land that fast”. I replied well pretty fast usually. In reality I suppose that in terms of safety I should have fannied about proving engine reliability 

[Cuban8]

20 hours ago, Rich Griff said:

 

 

Car drivers always use indicaters even when roads are empty, apart from German cars of course. Is that the cars fault I wonder but that's for a different day.

Regardless of make or nationality, there seems to be an increasing  habit amongst more and more  car drivers of not signalling in good time when approaching mini roundabouts. No idea what their intentions are and I've lost count of the number of times a vehicle has swerved across in front of me (usually over the top of the slight bump or through the painted circle) in the road to turn right at the very last moment. We're talking about drivers who are still sans indicators when only a few metres away from entering the roundabout and flick their signal on as an afterthought.

I now never assume an approaching vehicle without indicators is going to proceed straight on as one would expect, and will delay entering the roundabout until they've definitely gone past or nothing else is coming. This sometimes gets people behind me hot under the collar, but where will they be if I enter the roundabout and wind up with a car smashed into my right side wing? Worse still, wiped out when on my Bonneville.

Just saying, apologies as off topic.

[EvilC57]

4 hours ago, Cuban8 said:

Regardless of make or nationality, there seems to be an increasing  habit amongst more and more  car drivers of not signalling in good time when approaching mini roundabouts. No idea what their intentions are and I've lost count of the number of times a vehicle has swerved across in front of me (usually over the top of the slight bump or through the painted circle) in the road to turn right at the very last moment. We're talking about drivers who are still sans indicators when only a few metres away from entering the roundabout and flick their signal on as an afterthought.

I now never assume an approaching vehicle without indicators is going to proceed straight on as one would expect, and will delay entering the roundabout until they've definitely gone past or nothing else is coming. This sometimes gets people behind me hot under the collar, but where will they be if I enter the roundabout and wind up with a car smashed into my right side wing? Worse still, wiped out when on my Bonneville.

Just saying, apologies as off topic.

Not to mention the fact that despite the law and the penalties (in the unlikely event they’re caught), they’ve probably got a hand held phone glued to their ear as well. I’ve never understood the need, I thought all modern cars had Bluetooth built in. Rant over 🤐.

[john davidson 1]

Mini roundabouts are  tricky , there is one at the bottom of my street and few slow down for it .