Jets in the mist

[Ron Gray]

A misty day but it didn't stop us flying and it was interesting when these models got 'lost' (just listen to the banter).

 

 

 

 

 

[Kevin Fairgrieve]

Brilliant fun👍

[Konrad]

Loved it!

 

"I'm in, not doing that again!

and

"Not a day for the Zeus". So true, a light sky blue with low visibility gray ship!

Edited December 30, 2024 by Konrad

[Cuban8]

In addition to ACCIDENTS and SERIOUS INCIDENTS, it is a legal requirement to report any OCCURRENCES involving manned aircraft to the CAA.

Our Article 16 Authorisation also adds the requirement to report to the CAA any SERIOUS INCIDENTS or other OCCURRENCES which involve;

• Operating above 400ft
• Operating less than 50m from uninvolved people
• Operations at a model flying display

It is also a requirement to report any instances of flights which go beyond the visual line of sight of the remote pilot.

 

Comments anyone re the last line above?

 

Asking for a friend.

[Ron Gray]

Oh yes, I forgot to video the bit where one model flew ‘visually’ in front of another thus putting the latter BVLOS. Maybe your ‘friend’ would like to coment on that scenario too?

[Cuban8]

Simply asking for comments on the regulation that states 'It is also a requirement to report any instances of flights which go beyond the visual line of sight of the remote pilot'.

I'm not seeking to to be a kill joy or rule book waver - my god, far from it as my posts on the whole ludicrous regulatory environment that we inhabit now thanks to the CAA  bears out.

The issue is quite simple - I've asked in what I thought was best to be a humourous manner, whether anyone had comments on the models obviously going out of sight for maybe a second or so and therefore BVLOS which is not permitted and should be reported.  Perhaps BVLOS is not so straightforward as it's name suggests or the regulation is badly written. Does one's view of a model have to be blocked by terrain or a solid object only? Does cloud or mist not count? What about if your glasses fall off and you can't see?

Anyone can see that the models represent virtually zero risk to anyone because of where they are being flown in the middle of nowhere, and if I'd been there I'd have joined in and laughed along with them.

[Don Fry]

Children, play nicely.

[GrumpyGnome]

I'm pretty sure they don't want us to report any instance where a model flew behind a tree, or a windsock, or someones head..... I suspect they're more interested in sustained loss of visibility - like a flyaway.

 

I think it's impossible for a sentence to be perfect for every instance. As the legal system seems to prove regularly

[Konrad]

Wow, somebody is wanting to tear into the reg with pedantic detail!

 

First when reading regs one (the courts) need to look at the intent of the rules. 

 

Key is the word "line". 'Line of sight" is a term used to describe how higher frequencies radio wave act when propagating through the air. Because of the curvature of the earth the range one can see/receive is limited as this line goes off the surface of the earth into the stratosphere.  Then there is the added constraint of the 400 feet altitude. So the regs are saying that the range we are allowed to fly is a distance defined by a visual line no higher than 400 feet above the ground. 

This is ridiculous!!

 

The intent of the rules as I've read them is that the ground based pilot be aware of the area surrounding the aircraft to avoid collissions with other aircraft. (Keep the airspace safe). It is understood that onboard camera's can not give the pilot a wide enough field of vision to survey the area surrounding the "drone" to keep it clear of all other aircraft in the area. 

 

What we saw was pilots flying in a designated area and only using visual clues (visual line of sight) to control the aircraft (no GPS or a predetermined flight path).

I did not see any pilot flying outside the narrow definition of a visual line of sight 400 feet above the ground. Or using any other navigational aid other than visual references. The fog was a visual reference for the turnaround point.

 

Reading the regs I don't read that the pilot must have the aircraft in visual focus. I regularly fly LOS and loose visual orientation on a regular occurrence. This happens in high energy aerobatics and often when dropping down below the horizon on final.

 

Now I think there is a clause in the reg about filing nuisance reports. I think reporting what was shown, as pilots flying beyond the visual line of sight would constitute such a report. So if your friend thinks that what was shown is in violation of the letter of the reg or is in violation of the intent of the regs (the safety of the airspace). Please have them file a report. I'm sure he will already be on the agency's scope. 😉

 

The only thing I saw in danger were the aircraft. The regs don't say anything about being easily separated from one's money or property. I also saw/heard some lessons learned.

 

 

[GrumpyGnome]

Konrad - in the UK we're not limited to 400 feet for models under 7.5kg (our reg bodies have obtained exemtion from the CAA). 7.5kg to 24.99kg needs permission from CAA, often using a NOTAM on a rolling basis. 25kg and above is a different kettle of fish...

[Konrad]

I was just using the wording from Cuban8.  

 

The 7.5kg limit sounds a lot more rational than what I last saw for the USA flier.

[GrumpyGnome]

Irrespective of that, we're in agreement........ except losing sight on finals, which I assume is due to local geography, and would scare the pants off me! 

[Konrad]

Poor color of the models, far too much gray. I like that modern models usually have lights. But yes, far too often there is a lot of ground haze where I fly and with the weight on my models I can't dive towards the runway and hope to land with a reasonable touch down speed.

 

I still see a dot, but for a lot of the low level final, the attitude might not be readily apparent. This low level haze is why I like high drag flaps to help control the glide slope and speed on final. All within the what I call visual line of sight even if I can't make out the details! 

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

My interpretation is that the model must be sufficiently visible to keep orientation and control.  Going in to fog is a reportable occurrence but it's not clear (no pun intended) that any pilot lost sight of theirs - all I heard was others saying, "Darren's gone"...and I think we all know it's easier to keep orientation while you're flying rather than watching.

 

I would like to think that the pilots assessed the conditions before take off as safe, discovered unusually poor visibility and modified their operation to fly at untypically low altitude - the "fun" part - and without their usual vertical manouevres.  Four models took off and four returned safely and in this case, there's no actual evidence that a reportable occurence occurred.  Whether posting it on a public forum was entirely wise might be another matter although it seems arguable that no conditions of the Article 16 exemption were breached.

[Ron Gray]

Martin it wasn’t that misty, there were only 3 models flying at that time!

 

Your point about it not being wise to post the vid on this forum, it was a harmless bit of fun, the fact that it gets posts referring to article 16 really saddens me and makes me wonder if belonging to this forum is really worth it.

[Philip Lewis 3]

To me it's quite clear that not allowing models to be flown BVLOS is referring to deliberate operation of of not opperating BVLOS, I'm pretty sure the CAA would have no interest at all in a pilot momentarily losing sight of the model due to low cloud or fog, no doubt someone will soon point out that you should not look down at the TX screen to check what time is left as the model would then not be within your line of sight and what about checking the strip is clear before landing?

 

Lets use some common sense please, this is supposed to be a fun hobby.

[GrumpyGnome]

My view entirely. 

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Happy new year all, lighten up eh.

[GrumpyGnome]

@Ron Gray please don't let unintentionally negative comments stop you posting......

[Merry Mark]

Fun video, @Ron Gray.  Nice to see you guys having fun outdoors at this time of year, in the middle of nowhere, with some toy aeroplanes.

 

Keep up the good work. 😉👍
 

Happy New Year all.

 

[Futura57]

The video looks like harmless fun to me. Horizontal visibility is plenty and it's easy to moderate ones altitude to skim under the cloudbase. I've flown in worse conditions, though these days I like the extra security of some bright LEDs to gain an extra few metres if I need them.

 

Happy New Year peeps.

 

[Cuban8]

I was seeking comments, nothing more, certainly not being negative or judgemental, and I thank those that have voiced an opinion. I think the discussion and points raised have been worthwhile.

If nothing else it goes to show how the regs are in many instances open to interpretation and individual 'common sense' and as such are pretty much worthless in many instances.

Edited January 1 by Cuban8

[leccyflyer]

13 hours ago, Philip Lewis 3 said:

To me it's quite clear that not allowing models to be flown BVLOS is referring to deliberate operation of of not opperating BVLOS, I'm pretty sure the CAA would have no interest at all in a pilot momentarily losing sight of the model due to low cloud or fog, no doubt someone will soon point out that you should not look down at the TX screen to check what time is left as the model would then not be within your line of sight and what about checking the strip is clear before landing?

 

Lets use some common sense please, this is supposed to be a fun hobby.

Sadly we have seen exactly that sort on nonsensical comment about looking down at one's transmitter, or glancing at another model momentarily, means losing visual line of sight. I took them to be the musings of folks who rarely, if ever, fly a model and are merely looking to split hairs to make a dubious point. Momentarily losing sight of a model in mist, or behind a tree, or even in the case of seeing a dot, but being unsure of the orientation is not a reportable incident IMO. The reporting system is designed to protect against flying accidents - especially collisions - so a flyaway would be reportable, but not a momentary, recoverable, loss of direct visual contact.

[Engine Doctor]

A loverly open site like that our club would kill for . Critics of fun queue up to point out "what we should or should not do"  ? Our hobby is meant to be fun and if you really lost a jet in the fog / cloud closing the throttle will soon have it pop back into view. Good bit of fun on a misty day , enjoy  . So critics please go back indoors and read more rule books and lets the flyers have fun . Whats the wose that can happen in that large space ? A hole in the dirt 🙃

[Ron Gray]

Thanks ED. For those who wish to discuss what constitutes BVLOS please open another thread.