Article 16 Reporting Clarification

[Roger Jones 3]

Posted by i12fly on 31/01/2021 14:15:03:

Roger and Peter, as I said 'lesson learnt' it was some years ago and has not been repeated and my situational awareness is fine thank you. I applaud you guys never having made a mistake sometime.

Sure we do. Hopefully not twice.

Fly into the sun straight and level and you should come out the same. I won't elaborate as you know how to suck eggs as well as I do.

Except for photochromic sunglasses. Wear them too much and your eyes can become 'lazy' and after a while the irises won't close down as much as they should.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

There's the old trick of shutting one eye if you inadvertently cross the sun - the theory is that the protected eye can take over while the sun-blinded eye recovers.

[Rich Griff]

If caught out by the sun I would lift the tx up and us it to block the sun whilst still seeing the model, so no loss of sight of the model.

Lesson, beware the hun in the sun, fly according to local conditions, or don't fly.

[Denis Watkins]

It's perhaps a blessing that we all learn, or not

At different rates and in different ways.

If we were all the same it would get boring very quickly.

There are lads who I stand with at the field, who cannot ever fly alone, with the biggest grin on their face when some part of the flight goes ok, and I take over, when it does not.

[kc]

The question we need answering is do we need to report a model that goes out of sight in the immediate vicinity - that is goes into crops, dense trees or bushes etc.  (If you have trees around your field as we do then the sound of a model hitting trees is unmistakeable and it's clear it's very near! )    Can we use common sense and not report it to the CAA as long as there is no damage to property or persons?

I submitted a question about this to the BMFA webinar last week but they didn't answer it!   Perhaps they just ran out of time...........

Edited March 4, 2021 by kc
clarification

[Chris Walby]

Looking at the AAIB Bulletins from Nov2020 to Feb2021 there have been 5 reported UAS incidents and investigations As mentioned there will be those that treat reporting as an indicator for safety improvements inline with full size and other industries.  If there is a lot of activity and no one reports incidents some may draw a conclusion that people are hiding something and this IMO is where we are heading , but not the commercial UAS industry. They will have logged their flight hours and have evidence of the number of incidents, thus their justification to use airspace where as we will have little or nothing. If we argue we fly a lot then we have no evidence around incidents (hiding real incidents) or we don't fly much then there is little impact on us being prevented from flying.

 

Perhaps individuals or clubs should record flying hours and incidents, plus makes good reading at the club Christmas lunch as to the best excuse for a unplanned arrival.

[MattyB]

1 hour ago, Cassandra said:

 

My concern is that it appears that the AAIB want every 'arrival' that does more than break a prop reporting. If this is the case they are going to be busy when the flying fields open ?.

 

 

 

Indeed. We should report every busted undercarriage leg from over-runs and and scuffed wingtips from ground loops; they'll be begging for us to stop within a few weeks... ?

[Gary Manuel]

I know that the AAIB have stated "if in doubt, report it", but we fly under an authorisation from the CAA not the AAIB.

Perhaps we should give @Andy Symons - BMFA chance to report back on the findings of the BMFA/CAA/AAIB meeting before we all apply our own interpretation.

 

On 29/01/2021 at 20:12, Andy Symons - BMFA said:

I wouldnt get too bogged down with it just yet. The AAIB and CAA or actually reviewing reporting requirements as it is a little bit unrealistic just at the moment.

 

The CEO has a meeting with the AAIB/CAA next Friday IIRC to sort things out.

 

Once its all finalised we will be producing an online form that guides you through the process and sends you where tou need to go if you need to repprt something. Potentially automatically submit it for you.

 

Edited March 4, 2021 by Gary Manuel

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Wise words indeed Gary.

1 hour ago, Gary Manuel said:

.

Perhaps we should give @Andy Symons - BMFA chance to report back on the findings of the BMFA/CAA/AAIB meeting before we all apply our own interpretation.

 

 

 

[Rob Buckley]

We're still awaiting a meeting with the AAIB, but in the meantime, despite what it says in the Article 16 Authorisation, the agreement with the AAIB for model association members is to 'not report anything to the AAIB other than accidents & serious incidents that involve a model aircraft and result in a Fatality or Serious Injury'.

 

The AAIB are aiming to align both their UAS and Model aircraft reporting processes to ensure that there is consistency and to deal with those events which could have a benefit to ongoing flight safety.

 

All being well we'll be having a meeting with the AAIB this month to agree on what reasonably needs to be reported for model aircraft to not waste everyone's time.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

Just now, Rob Buckley said:

We're still awaiting a meeting with the AAIB, but in the meantime, despite what it says in the Article 16 Authorisation, the agreement with the AAIB for model association members is to 'not report anything to the AAIB other than accidents & serious incidents that involve a model aircraft and result in a Fatality or Serious Injury'.

 

The AAIB are aiming to align both their UAS and Model aircraft reporting processes to ensure that there is consistency and to deal with those events which could have a benefit to ongoing flight safety.

 

All being well we'll be having a meeting with the AAIB this month to agree on what reasonably needs to be reported for model aircraft to not waste everyone's time.

Thanks Rob.

[Wingman]

Obviously, only incidents that result in an insurance claim should be reported to the authorities.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

I don't think the insurance aspect is a true guide.  For example, most claims involve models against cars and they don't appear to come within Rob/Andy's guidelines.

[Rob Buckley]

I'm quoting an email from the AAIB, that is the interim agreement for model aircraft reporting under article 16 authorisation until we can get to discuss & agree on the most appropriate reporting regime.

[Gary Manuel]

I've just watched the recent BMFA Question Time video, which I found interesting and very worth while.

There's one section within the video from around 1:07:10 to 1:16:30 which is worth watching purely in the context of incident reporting. Although it does not clarify the exact reporting criteria (which are still under discussion as clarified above), it does give an insight into how important incident reporting is going to be to all concerned.

If we get it right and show good compliance, it will do the recognised associations a lot of good and allow us to continue to stand out from the casual park flier etc. On the other hand, if we get it wrong and / or fail to comply we stand a good chance of loosing the VERY GOOD reputation we have. Listen to what Kevin Woolsey - CAA is saying. It explains why this is so important.

 

 

[Gary Manuel]

Any progress made on this yet @Andy Symons - BMFA?

 

The modelling world potentially goes flying again in 10 days time and at the current time, the legislation requires all sorts of minor incidents to be reported. People and their models haven't seen the light of day for such a long time, so I would expect lots of "additional UAS occurrences" as defined in CAP 722 section 2.9.8.2. 

 

I'm sure that nobody needs reminding that if this isn't resolved by the 29th March, either the the CAA will be inundated will reports or more likely, the vast majority of modellers will become "criminals" for not reporting incidents they have been involved in or observed. I would envisage that just about every club in the country will experience several of these occurrences on every single flying day - especially in the early days after lockdown.

 

See original posting if you have not been following this:

 

On 29/01/2021 at 20:05, Gary Manuel said:

I've been following another thread which has touched upon the requirement to report incidents such as "Fly Aways". I don't want to bog that thread down as it is already generating conflict, so I have started another one about the specific requirement to report "Other Occurrences".

I am a BMFA member, so I will base my query upon the BMFA Article 16 Authorisation.

"Section 3.13: Reporting Requirements" includes the following:

....................................

The following must be reported to the CAA, as a condition of this authorisation:

▪ Serious Incidents or Other Occurrences which involve any of the following:

o Manned aircraft

o Operating above 400ft

o Operating less than 50m from uninvolved people

▪ Any instances of flight beyond the visual line of sight of the remote pilot

Note 1: Further guidance on reporting requirements and relevant definitions can be found in CAP 722.

....................................

The BMFA Article 16 Authorisation refers the reader to CAP 722, where the relevant section is:

....................................

2.9.8.2. Additional UAS occurrences that must be reported.

In addition to those listed in the regulations above, other, more UAS specific occurrences must also be reported should they or a similar occurrence be experienced or observed by you. These occurrences are listed below but the list is not exhaustive.

When you are considering whether an occurrence is reportable, you should also take into account other situations where the same thing could have happened. For example, the actual occurrence may have been ‘benign’ as it happened in a remote area. However, if the full scope of how the aircraft could be operated is taken into account, for example over people, could the same occurrence in a different situation result in a more serious outcome?

Operation of the aircraft

•Unintentional loss of control

•Loss of control authority over the aircraft

•Aircraft landed outside the designated area

•Aircraft operated beyond the limitations established in the relevant operating category or operational authorisation

•Aircraft operated without required licencing, registration or operational authorisation

•Aircraft operated in an unairworthy or unflightworthy condition

Technical malfunction/failure of the aircraft or command unit

•Loss of command and control link (C2 link)

•Battery failure/malfunction

•Powerplant failure

•Aircraft structural failure (for example, part of the aircraft detaches during operation)

•Errors in the configuration of the command unit

•Display failures

•Flight programming errors

•Navigation failures

....................................

Whilst all of these would obviously be reportable for full size aircraft, it does appear to be a little extreme for model aircraft.

For example:

"Battery failure / malfunction" and "Powerplant failure" suggest that a dead-stick landing is reportable.

"Aircraft landed outside the designated area" suggests that landing / crashing in Farmer Giles's adjacent field is reportable.

"Unintentional loss of control" and "Loss of control authority over the aircraft" suggests that disorientation or radio failure / failsafe operation is reportable.

I could go on, but I think I have used enough examples to get my point across.

My issue is that these appear to be a bit (a lot) extreme for model aeroplanes but do appear to be a requirement unless I am misreading CAP722 (which could be the case due to the technical way these things are written). Can anyone clarify exactly which incidents should and should not be reported. It is of note that the BMFA Article 16 Authorisation lists flight beyond visual line of sight but not some of the other requirements.

 

Edited March 19, 2021 by Gary Manuel

[GrumpyGnome]

Unless we receive additional guidance, I plan only on reporting a flyaway, or an extended complete loss of control(radio, not dumb thumbs!).

 

Fingers crossed, that'll be zero instances.

 

Happy to be advised of alternative course of action......

 

GG

[MattyB]

On 19/03/2021 at 16:21, Gary Manuel said:

Any progress made on this yet @Andy Symons - BMFA?

 

The modelling world potentially goes flying again in 10 days time and at the current time, the legislation requires all sorts of minor incidents to be reported. People and their models haven't seen the light of day for such a long time, so I would expect lots of "additional UAS occurrences" as defined in CAP 722 section 2.9.8.2. 

 

I'm sure that nobody needs reminding that if this isn't resolved by the 29th March, either the the CAA will be inundated will reports or more likely, the vast majority of modellers will become "criminals" for not reporting incidents they have been involved in or observed. I would envisage that just about every club in the country will experience several of these occurrences on every single flying day - especially in the early days after lockdown.

 

Reporting is the one area of the Article 16 Authorisation that needs further work/clarification. On a number of occasions the BMFA and CAA have told us it fully replaces CAP 722 for National Association members (when they choose to use it), yet the authorisation itself refers us back to CAP 722 on reporting. Which is it? Also the authorisation tells us to report for operating over 400ft and within 50m of people, yet that same authorisation actually allows us to do both those things in some situations (depending on the model used, RA carried out etc)! It's all rather messy and as you say means legitimate flyers could easily become criminals through no real fault of their own. This really does need clarifying before next week IMO...

[MattyB]

On 19/03/2021 at 17:02, GrumpyGnome said:

Unless we receive additional guidance, I plan only on reporting a flyaway, or an extended complete loss of control(radio, not dumb thumbs!).

 

Fingers crossed, that'll be zero instances.

 

Happy to be advised of alternative course of action......

 

GG

 

Yes, that is pretty much what I will do too. In our site RAs we have put "Exact reporting conditions tbc according to BMFA guidance after meeting the CAA", as we didn't feel we could do much more than that currently.

[Gary Manuel]

This is exactly why I raised this issue.

 

The guidelines and legislation at the moment are (fairly) clear, and yet several people have openly stated that they will not be complying with the law. That can't be right. We should either comply with the law or get the law changed.

 

A representative of the BMFA has said that we shouldn't get too bogged down with it but here we are, 7 days away from our first flying day and we still have only the original legislation and Article 16 Authority to work with. I'm still hopeful that a rabbit will be pulled out of the hat at the last minute as we have seen before, but there is no guarantee of that happening.

 

If no change is forthcoming, then I feel that the clubs are faced with a responsibility to make the reporting requirements clear to all members. What nobody wants to see is the pilot failing to report an incident, but another member reporting it because he is required to do so by law. This could cause all sorts of problems, not least a reduction in the level of respect and associated privilege the BMFA membership currently enjoys.

Edited March 22, 2021 by Gary Manuel

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Thought we'd done with endless drone threads. Hopefully I will be flying Monday, what if sumat happens ? Well I'll cross that bridge if/when it confronts me.

Ensure others know the rules ? Nah, not my job, that's the individuals responsibility.

[Don Fry]

We are never done John. 
As a ex enforcer of (sometimes) debatable laws, the current laws are idiocies. Report the idiocies.

The idiots might or might not acknowledge they have a problem. Ask for an acknowledgment. Failing an answer, ask again.

The end result, they might just shift their reality to what happens in reality.

 

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Yep, fair enough Don, in the meantime I'll leave it with the BMFA et al and get on with flying, weather permitting. ?

[Zflyer]

Not wishing to pour fuel on the fire, surely we continue as we did before. What have you reported in the past ?

Those incidents that need reporting are as mentioned in the Webinar, i think, incidents involving injury and or damage. Incidents involving manned aircraft I would suggest Flyaways because of their nature we have no knowledge of where they come to earth.

Concerning the 400 ceiling and flying within 50m of people I would venture to suggest we adhere to those anyway.

[MattyB]

5 hours ago, Cassandra said:

 

It is 

Serious Incidents or Other Occurrences which involve any of the following:
o Manned aircraft
o Operating above 400ft
o Operating less than 50m from uninvolved people

 

...not operating over 400ft.

But what is an “Other occurence” that happens over 400ft or within 50m of an uninvolved person if I am operating in those areas perfectly in accordance with Article 16? If my soarer taps another whilst circling in a thermal over 400ft, is that reportable? If I land and a member of the public I could not see wanders over the lip of the hill within 50m, is that reportable?

 

As written it’s impossible to tell from Art 16, and as @Gary Manuel points out that lack of precision means no-one can know with any confidence what we should or should not be reporting. This really does need clearing up, and the AAIB in particular need to be challenged on whether their reporting criteria are really proportionate with the risk level posed by our operations. Even if they are I doubt they’ll cede anything, though. IMO it’s all part of a long term plan by the authorities to reduce recreational use of airspace below 1000ft dramatically in the coming years by making it ever more difficult and complex to operate legally.

Edited March 22, 2021 by MattyB