RC Modeller banned from flying on his own land

[paul devereux]

I read this this morning and thought someone had dobbed me in as it fitted me to a 'T' : 68 years old- flying on his own land- two acres- next to his house- CAA compliant. It was only when I saw the name that I realised it wasn't me.

It just goes to show, if we keep banging on about how dangerous our hobby is, we will get banned, and we will have done it to ourselves. That's why I got so cross a couple of days ago. We all do a range check, fail-safe, throttle stop, look out for danger, etc because it is common sense, not because it is in a rule book. The general public don't care about these things, they just go on what they hear. And if they hear it from us, it has even more weight.

 

Malcolm Edwards, 68, was banned from flying his model aeroplane in the two-acre field behind his Kidderminster home, despite complying with all the laws set out by the Civil Aviation Authority.

Mr Edwards told The Telegraph that he believes he was given the order by a 'vindictive' police officer who took a local complaint on face value.

The 68-year-old model plane enthusiast, who has been diagnosed with cancer, which he belives to be related to the stress of the ordeal, added:  

'You feel violated when you know you have done nothing wrong and helpless knowing everything you are doing to rectify the situation falls on deaf ears,' he said.

 

Campaigners call for community protection notices to be scrapped | Daily Mail Online

 

 

Edited July 2, 2023 by paul devereux

[Robin Colbourne]

Issuing a Community Protection Notice if Malcolm Edwards had been flying, say an unsilenced Cox Tee Dee .049, every day, might not be unreasonable, however if he then flew a chuck glider or a quiet electric model, the ban might still apply, despite the nuisance caused no longer being there.

The problem is that the people with the authority to issue these notices need not be specific about the nature of the nuisance caused, so a blanket ban could be given.

There is more detail here on Malcolm Edwards' and other cases here:  CPNs ruining people's lives - Daily Telegraph

 

and the law here: Legislation about issuing CPNs

Clearly requests to have CPNs issued are open to abuse by vindictive people, however there are also plenty of people who are utterly thoughtless about the impact of their activities on their neighbours.

[paul devereux]

9 minutes ago, Robin Colbourne said:

Issuing a Community Protection Notice if Malcolm Edwards had been flying, say an unsilenced Cox Tee Dee .049, every day, might not be unreasonable, however if he then flew a chuck glider or a quiet electric model, the ban might still apply, despite the nuisance caused no longer being there.

The problem is that the people with the authority to issue these notices need not be specific about the nature of the nuisance caused, so a blanket ban could be given.

There is more detail here on Malcolm Edwards' and other cases here:  CPNs ruining people's lives - Daily Telegraph

 

and the law here: Legislation about issuing CPNs

Clearly requests to have CPNs issued are open to abuse by vindictive people, however there are also plenty of people who are utterly thoughtless about the impact of their activities on their neighbours.

The Telegraph article is behind a paywall, I suppose it is the same article as the Mail? So am I right in thinking you believe that the CPN was reasonable and model flying should possibly cease? I kind of agree with you as there are safety issues with all models, but shouldn't people be allowed to fly on their own land? I get it that there are people that fly slope soarers off public land (for example there is someone who has regular YouTube videos flying from Polperro )which I guess you think should be banned, but don't you agree that there should be some places at least where model flying should be allowed? Like your own land?

Edited July 2, 2023 by paul devereux

[Robin Colbourne]

3 minutes ago, paul devereux said:

The Telegraph article is behind a paywall, I guess it is the same article as the Mail?

Yes, the details for the Malcolm Edwards case were the same;  I'm not sure whether the others quoted were too.  I was able to read the Telegraph article as the webpage said it was a one month free trial. 

From reading the legislation about the issue of CPNs, they are for persistent and on-going nuisance.  If anyone is contacted about one, firstly, if face to face e.g by the Police or council, the thing is to act calmly and non-aggressively, ask lots of questions about the nature of the annoyance, and establish what steps might be taken to reach a positive outcome for both parties, i.e. what steps would stop the annoyance, whilst allowing continuance of the activity either at a different time or in a modified manner.  Being the most reasonable party is always a good starting position.

CPNs can also be appealed within 21 days.

Edited July 2, 2023 by Robin Colbourne

[paul devereux]

9 minutes ago, Robin Colbourne said:

I was able to read it as the webpage said it was a one month free trial.  Yes, the details for the Malcolm Edwards case were the same;  I'm not sure whether the others quoted were too.

Without paywall:How community protection notices are ‘ruining people’s lives’ (archive.ph)

It affects me, I enjoy learning to fly,  I know people are worried about safety etc, but I did think that we would be able to continue with the hobby! Oh well, we can always use computer sims I suppose!

[Eric Robson]

Much easier to issue CPN's to elderly people than youths terrorising the neighbourhood, also good for statistics 

[paul devereux]

34 minutes ago, Robin Colbourne said:

Being the most reasonable party is always a good starting position.

But what if the complaint is that model flying is inherently dangerous? Imagine if someone says, for example, a chuck glider, normally harmless, becomes deadly when flown by a RC modeller? And they have the facts to prove this? Shouldn't all model flying be banned?

[Robin Colbourne]

8 minutes ago, paul devereux said:

But what if the complaint is that model flying is inherently dangerous? Imagine if someone says, for example, a chuck glider, normally harmless, becomes deadly when flown by a RC modeller? And they have the facts to prove this? Shouldn't all model flying be banned?

A good point Paul, however the frequency of deaths and injuries from model flying needs to be taken into account, given the number of flights and hours flown every year.  Cricket and golf clubs must be in line to receive a few CPNs too, if model flying is considered that much of a risk. 😄

[David Davis]

We don't know the details of this case. How close was the nearest house? What was the model which Mr Edwards was flying?

 

Flying an electric powered Super Sixty is one thing but flying a model powered by a 20-60cc petrol engiine with an ineffective silencer is another matter entirely.

[GrumpyGnome]

5 hours ago, paul devereux said:

But what if the complaint is that model flying is inherently dangerous? Imagine if someone says, for example, a chuck glider, normally harmless, becomes deadly when flown by a RC modeller? And they have the facts to prove this? Shouldn't all model flying be banned?

 

I presume you're mentioning the chuck glider as that was discussed, rather heatedly,  in a previous thread.......

 

We don't really know the specifics of this case, but if he was flying the model which he is pictured with, each day at, say 6 a.m. and 8 p.m., and he is close to other houses, you could totally understand someone complaining, and him getting slapped with an ASBO (which is what this is).  If the farmer next to me allowed people to practice riding their moto-cross bikes over the 2 hours they currently do at a weekend, I'd complain as well. Firstly to them, then the farmer, then the authorities.

 

Many clubs have lost flying sites due to noise complaints, which is why many have restrictions on what can be flown, and when.

 

Let's not sensationalise it. Especially as we do not know the facts.

[Learner]

Paul, Strange how its you "banging on"  about the dangers in this post when there's no mention in the article, its more likely noise related complaint.

Edited July 3, 2023 by Learner
Change

[Learner]

7 hours ago, paul devereux said:

But what if the complaint is that model flying is inherently dangerous? Imagine if someone says, for example, a chuck glider, normally harmless, becomes deadly when flown by a RC modeller? And they have the facts to prove this? Shouldn't all model flying be banned?

Where are they going to find the facts? you cant! 

Edited July 3, 2023 by Learner

[leccyflyer]

34 minutes ago, Learner said:

Paul, Strange how its you "banging on"  about the dangers in this post when there's no mention in the article, its more likely noise related complaint.

There is likely much more to this particular case than it being to do with model flying as a core issue and more than likely nothing to do with model flying safety.  There is a not very well hidden agenda here..

 

 

[Rich Griff]

Make sure your brain is in gear before you open your mouth would be a fair expression I think.

 

We are all on the same side here I feel.

 

Noise, statutory nuisance...

 

So it's ok to fly model planes but not Motocross bikes ? I am not "having a go", just pointing out something, nimby...

 

The full facts need to be known to make a "reasonable judgement" but it was quoted all caa rules complied with.

Local bye laws ??? Not known.

 

It is a worry as government, reading between the lines, wants this wonderfully educational "sport" banned I feel.

 

I can see "permission' to fly being restricted to specific suitable sites with a licence fee being mandatory, a tax.

 

Even a "pilot licence", which in a way is already here...

 

The bmfa etc. Needs our support, views, feedback etc. to HELP US, which they have done in the past, and am sure will do in the future.

 

So, what to do ?

 

A lottery win and buy a county ?

 

We must all conform to all the rules, and be seen ( and heard ) to conform.

 

Does your club have a "noise test" so models onform to statutory noise regs ?

 

Bye laws ????

 

Remember, I am not having a go at anyone.

 

Thank you Paul for bringing this case to my attention, and to the attention of those that care to read this thread.

 

Ignorance is bliss I suppose, act on what history teaches us, 1930's. I heard that on the bus.

 

Safe flying is no accident, flying sites are no accident.

 

Have the rotten apples removed from the barrel, a difficult one that.

[Jon H]

9 hours ago, paul devereux said:

if we keep banging on about how dangerous our hobby is, we will get banned, and we will have done it to ourselves.

 

But the hobby is dangerous. It has the potential to cause serious harm or death. This is the same as climbing, horse riding, sailing, mountain biking, motorsport of any form, diving... Things do not get banned because they have the potential to be dangerous. Full size aviation can be very dangerous, but processes, procedures, risk analysis etc puts a pretty substantial cork in that bottle, and that is what the bmfa try to do with the handbook. And you simply cannot rely on common sense because people make mistakes. We are all fallible, and the best way to minimise this is a procedural approach. This is why full size pilots use check lists. Its common sense to lower the undercarriage before landing, but plenty of pilots have forgotten. A quick scan of the landing checklist will prevent this embarrassing oversight. 

 

However none of the above has anything to do with the incident you mention as it appears to be a noise complaint not safety. 

 

 

 

 

To comment on the subject of the op specifically we need more information. As many have stated, we do not know the specifics. In the photo of the paywalled article we see electric models, but also the one inverted he is working on has an OS Alpha 4 stroke in it. Was he flying this at 10 at night over the neighbours house? We dont know and he could be bang to rights. Is there a pulsejet model hidden out of view? 

 

I suspect not though and this knee jerk sort of thing is becoming more common and there was a case recently of a musician banned from playing music of any kind in her home as it allegedly was a nuisance. If she fails to comply, they will confiscate her instruments. 

 

Unfortunately these days its very easy for whingers to get their own way as the body of evidence needed needed is very low indeed. 

[Brian Cooper]

There are two types of people in this world: 

There are those who do things. . . and there are those who complain about people who do things. 

[GrumpyGnome]

18 minutes ago, Rich Griff said:

So it's ok to fly model planes but not Motocross bikes ? I am not "having a go", just pointing out something, nimby...

 

Presumably that's aimed at me as I am the one that mentioned Motocross bikes.....  

 

You misinterpreted me.  There were three 2 stroke motocross bikes that used to practice on a field near my house.  They used to use it every Sunday for two hours around lunchtime.  Noisy? Yes. A nuisance? Yes, to me.  Did I complain? No, I did not - it obviously gave them pleasure, and it was only for a few hours.  If they expanded their activities so it was, say early in the morning, or late in the evening, or all day, then yes, I probably would have complained.  I don't think that's nimby-ism.  It's not like I moved to live near a church, then complained about the noise of the bells. And, to be honest, if I could hear model planes flying at my local field at unreasonable times, I'd try and do something about that, as it'd surely annoy my neighbours. Other views are available.

 

If said gentleman was flying an ic powered plane at 'unreasonable' times, or 'unreasonably' close to houses............... 

[Richard Harris]

I've known Malcolm for many years and he has only got a handful of small electric models, he generally flies Zagi type wings which he easily keeps within the perimeters of his land safely, a nice chap.

Location and ongoing feuds with neighbours is no doubt the reasons behind the ban.

 

[GrumpyGnome]

Tongue partly in cheek comment approaching...... the noise emitted by my zagi-type electric wings is, to my ear, far more offensive than the 15c four stroke in my Valiant.

 

Anyway, it's good to have some more information.  

[Ron Gray]

3 minutes ago, Richard Harris said:

he generally flies Zagi type wings

Loud angry bees spring to mind?

[MattyB]

I no longer see the OPs posts, but based on the quotes in this thread I have just called my friendly local law enforcement officer - he will be down to issue a few CPNs for forum-based annoyance post haste.... 😉

Edited July 3, 2023 by MattyB

[leccyflyer]

42 minutes ago, GrumpyGnome said:

Tongue partly in cheek comment approaching...... the noise emitted by my zagi-type electric wings is, to my ear, far more offensive than the 15c four stroke in my Valiant.

 

Anyway, it's good to have some more information.  

Possibly teching granny to suck eggs here, but if you are still flying your Zagi-type electric wings, just try moving the prop back by even a few mm, thereby increasing the distance between trailing edge and the pusher prop. The reduction in noise is significant.

[GrumpyGnome]

Yes, that certainly makes a difference! All my wings, except an indoor one, now retired for various reasons.

[leccyflyer]

Aye, I think they have had their time really - mine are all converted to slope use now.

[Phil Green]

Our local police couldnt keep on top of kids on dirtbikes so they did something much better.

They set up a proper motocross track and hold meetings & riding tuition every sunday morning.

Its only half a mile away so we hear it every weekend, doesnt bother us one iota as we're lifetime bikers ourselves. Live & let live 🙂

Phil