AAIB July Bulletin

[John Lee]

There are two incidents recorded in this month's Bulletin concerning 'conventional' model aircraft. This is the first time I've noticed such reports amongst the numerous other incidents regarding 'drones' and full size aircraft.

 

They are headed 

"Record-only UAS investigations reviewed: April - May 2021"

 

And read:

 

11-Apr-21

Align T-Rex 500x Little Stoke, Bristol
The UA, a model helicopter, was being flown from a playing field. The operator hit the rescue button on the transmitter, the button jammed and the UA did not respond. It disappeared into a housing estate and was not recovered.

 

24-Apr-21

Radio Controlled Glider Near Abingdon, Oxfordshire
From a model flying club, the pilot was flying his model glider at 50 m above the ground towards him. However, it flew past him, disappeared and was not recovered.

[Don Fry]

Cheers John, someone has been paid to publish that. The miscreants think it’s needed. So tax pounds are spent. 

[J D 8]

Anything to be learned from the reports above other than not to jab your return home so hard in panic ?

[John Muir]

These are down to the new compulsory reporting that came in with the last set of rule changes. They'll have been reported to keep the owners of the models above board should the lost aircraft have hit anything. More likely lost forever in a field or on E-Bay by now.

[Colin Leighfield]

I lost my Keilkraft Nomad in Sutton Park in 1958. Should I tell somebody? It’s been a guilty secret for 63 years. 

[EvilC57]

The one from the same report which made me chuckle was, “The UAS was being used to film a moving car. However, the UA collided with the side of the car and fell to the ground. It suffered substantial damage when it was then run over by the car.”

 

Is it just me, or (except for the owner) is that quite funny?

[Rich Griff]

Pay back for the dent in the car perhaps ?

[ken anderson.]

UK 2021......what a waste of time an resources...and money.

 

ken anderson...ne..1..pointless dept.

[Simon Chaddock]

IMHO the slightly concerning bit is the level of detail in these reports.

In the first case the pilot apparently needed the rescue button. A description of the circumstances that required its use would be useful to other pilots which is the point of the AAIB reports.

The second occurred at a flying site so an unrecovered plane can have consequences to the use of the site. The description of how the loss occurred is vague to say the least.        

 

[Cuban8]

Just my opinion of course, but I question the value of reporting what on the face of it appears to be what one could describe as 'flying incidents' that do occur from time to time, but thankfully very rarely given how reliable our gear is these days.

If one can reasonably be sure that no damage or injury has been caused by a model going AWOL - no contact from a complainant who would otherwise have found the ID number on the model and traced the owner within say seven days, why make a song and dance over it?

 

[GrumpyGnome]

I think the point of reporting the two in the OP is that the pilits have no idea if any damage or injury occurred...... I do agree with Cuban8 in that not everything needs reporting. For example, I saw a 'flyaway' at the club field a few days ago..... no control at all! Model came down in adjoining crop field a mile from nearest house and 1/2 mile from nearest road. Culprit found to be a totally flat Lipo.

 

Not reported.

[Cuban8]

To be fair I don't think it's unreasonable to be expected to report certain incidents to the authorities....

From the BM(D)FA

13.2 CAA Reporting Requirements
The following must be reported to the CAA:

• Occurrences which involve any of the following:
  • Fatality
  • Serious Injury
  • Manned aircraft

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

• Serious Incidents or Other Occurrences which involve any of the following:
  • Manned aircraft
  • Operating above 400ft*
  • Operating less than 50m from uninvolved people*
  • Operations at a ‘model aircraft flying display’
• Instances where aircraft have flown beyond visual line of site.*

Clearly, very obvious events of a direct dangerous nature need to be dealt with, however.........

*Presumably, if you fly your model (quite legally) at a venue where the public might simply wander within 50M (that's over half a football pitch length BTW) of where your model is flying circuits or whatever, or on approach to land, then you must inform CAA if an uninvolved punter strolls into your zone. Used to happen to me all the time when I flew gliders on the old Fairlop Playing fields. Equally I guess one is required to report a similar 'incident' if one witnesses an issue but is not flying oneself.

Equally every dead stick that winds up with the model into an adjacent field and can't be seen will need the CAA being informed. Who is to say what altitude a model is flying at without technical help? "Better file a report just in case"?

I suppose in certain quarters boxes have been ticked and reports have been written and filed away awaiting for the next bright idea to be formulated.

 

Edited July 18, 2021 by Cuban8

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Perhaps another point of view might be that reporting these incidents actually strengthens our case for article 16 exemption. 
 

The authorities must be aware that models occasionally fly beyond visual range, closer than allowed to uninvolved persons etc. so if we follow “advice” not to report incidents they will inevitably decide that we are not as responsible as they thought and we will lose the privileges gained for us by the great work of the organisations.
 

In short - report where mandatory but don’t go looking for unnecessary incidents to clog up the system.   

[GrumpyGnome]

Absolutely.... perhaps I should ask all club members to report incidents to Safety Officer to be sifted.....

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

4 minutes ago, GrumpyGnome said:

Absolutely.... perhaps I should ask all club members to report incidents to Safety Officer to be sifted.....

No, just ask them to use the BMFA reporting portal at https://reporting.bmfa.uk/ it will guide them on whether an incident needs reporting.

[Cuban8]

12 hours ago, Martin Harris - Moderator said:

Perhaps another point of view might be that reporting these incidents actually strengthens our case for article 16 exemption. 
 

The authorities must be aware that models occasionally fly beyond visual range, closer than allowed to uninvolved persons etc. so if we follow “advice” not to report incidents they will inevitably decide that we are not as responsible as they thought and we will lose the privileges gained for us by the great work of the organisations.
 

In short - report where mandatory but don’t go looking for unnecessary incidents to clog up the system.   

Absolutely agree. Just beware of the clipboard and hi-viz brigade.

[MattyB]

 

21 hours ago, Simon Chaddock said:

IMHO the slightly concerning bit is the level of detail in these reports.

In the first case the pilot apparently needed the rescue button. A description of the circumstances that required its use would be useful to other pilots which is the point of the AAIB reports.

 

The second occurred at a flying site so an unrecovered plane can have consequences to the use of the site. The description of how the loss occurred is vague to say the least.        

 

A few observations...

1. This is definitely not a comprehensive list of all reports made. I know this is because I made one on 20th April for an incident that occurred on the 19th when a member of the public wandered into our field whilst I was landing an F5J glider. No-one was injured, but it met the criteria for a "near miss" incident (based on the BMFA wizard) so I reported it. I am guessing now, but perhaps we can assume they are not listing incidents in these reports where they decide there is no real learning that can be taken from the by the model flying/drone community (in this incident there were no further mitigations that could be made, as the person was not supposed to be there and signage was already in place to that effect)?
2. The CAA took down a lot more detail on my "near miss" than is given in these reports, so they are obviously only including an outline summary to the general public. I am guessing that they are beginning to realise that (based on their criteria) there are quite a lot of "incidents". What that means for us in the long term I'm not sure....
3. The CAA's website seems very inconsistent in the listing of "Record only UAS incidents"... The only one previous to this report was in 2020, so where are the other months in 2021? Rather strange.?

Edited July 19, 2021 by MattyB

[Simon Chaddock]

I suspect the reports are judged on how the AAIB interpret "Air Accident" as in their title.

Over the years I don't recall seeing many near misses (air prox) reports unless it involved commercial aircraft.