By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more
Forum sponsored by:
Forum sponsored by CML

New Drone/Aerodrome Regulations - Is your club at risk?

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
MattyB24/01/2019 17:07:33
avatar
1868 forum posts
28 photos
Posted by Steve J on 24/01/2019 16:43:25:

Posted by MattyB on 24/01/2019 15:39:39:

"...The court heard Rusu was a member of the Little Harlington Model Flying Club, in Hayes, Middlesex and flew his aircraft two or three times a month for the past two years."

I have seen a post on another site indicating that LHMFC have denied that he is a member.

In any case, it strengthens the governments argument for competency testing.

Steve

Interesting... do you have that link to hand? That is very good news if he is not a BMFA member. You are right though, it will reinforce the arguments for competency testing.

Edited By MattyB on 24/01/2019 17:11:09

ken anderson.24/01/2019 17:42:10
avatar
8344 forum posts
768 photos

don't you think even if he was a BMFA member they would have washed their hands of him? …..also I think that there is a distinct possibility there will be a few more hefty fines dished out to some individuals who fly wherever they want to regardless of any rules and regs in force....

ken anderson...ne..1....washed hands dept.

GONZO24/01/2019 18:26:17
avatar
1097 forum posts
13 photos

Put me right if I've got this wrong .

These rules apply to all small unmanned aircraft, even those bellow 250 gm, with no lower limit.

These rules apply to free flight aircraft as well as RC aircraft.

If so then this man, or anyone else, could be prosecuted for flying:

A chuck glider.

Or even a Frisbee as its protracted flight(?) path is due to it generating lift as it spins from its dished underside and could be considered a 'sort of' plane.

This is a theoretical question exploring the limits of this legislation. Although, a 'jobs worth', we all know there are plenty out there, may act on the theoretical limits.

Don Fry24/01/2019 19:37:45
avatar
3256 forum posts
39 photos

A Tundra is a proper plane, in excess of one kilo. . Excuse it if you wish.

GONZO24/01/2019 20:08:38
avatar
1097 forum posts
13 photos

I'm not trying to excuse anything. I'm just trying to see if my understanding of the limits of this legislation is correct.

Don Fry24/01/2019 20:37:40
avatar
3256 forum posts
39 photos

Gonzo, you are right. No limits. If you wish to be stupid, there is a Contrary to Section xxx (2), Daft Legislation Act 2018, and Whatever Air Navigation Order waiting.

As that daft egitt found out. While dragging us one step closer to the abyss.

Steve J24/01/2019 21:00:21
avatar
912 forum posts
37 photos
Posted by GONZO on 24/01/2019 18:26:17:

This is a theoretical question exploring the limits of this legislation.

You would have to ask the CAA. I suspect that it will come down to the definition of 'aircraft'. I can't see a definition in the ANO, but ICAO have this:

An aircraft is any machine that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air other than the reactions of the air against the earth's surface.

Steve

Steve J24/01/2019 21:04:14
avatar
912 forum posts
37 photos
Posted by Don Fry on 24/01/2019 20:37:40:

As that daft egitt found out. While dragging us one step closer to the abyss.

Why? He broke the ANO, the police caught him and he was fined.

The interesting question for me is how did the police find him. Did somebody report him? Did a random patrol happen to see him? Or was his transmitter detected and the police sent to investigate?

Steve

Don Fry24/01/2019 21:20:22
avatar
3256 forum posts
39 photos

Steve, we follow an entertaining but ultimately largely pointless activity. It's fine, as long as you remain in the shadows. You do not need publicity. He provides publicity.

I used to do target shooting. Me and my ilk didn't hurt anyone with our pointless activity. We got shafted.

john stones 124/01/2019 22:06:41
avatar
10181 forum posts
1475 photos

Silence is deafening on this I see, had it been an M/R we would be on page 20 by now, BMFA would be being lambasted for not distancing us from "them".

Peter Jenkins25/01/2019 00:01:46
1175 forum posts
127 photos
Posted by john stones 1 on 24/01/2019 22:06:41:

Silence is deafening on this I see, had it been an M/R we would be on page 20 by now, BMFA would be being lambasted for not distancing us from "them".

+1

Dickw25/01/2019 12:31:12
avatar
405 forum posts
61 photos
Posted by GONZO on 24/01/2019 18:26:17:

Put me right if I've got this wrong .

These rules apply to all small unmanned aircraft, even those bellow 250 gm, with no lower limit.

These rules apply to free flight aircraft as well as RC aircraft.

If so then this man, or anyone else, could be prosecuted for flying:

A chuck glider.

Or even a Frisbee as its protracted flight(?) path is due to it generating lift as it spins from its dished underside and could be considered a 'sort of' plane.

This is a theoretical question exploring the limits of this legislation. Although, a 'jobs worth', we all know there are plenty out there, may act on the theoretical limits.

The current interim measure “1km from boundary” restricted zone does indeed seem to apply to everything including under 250gm. BUT the proposed larger exclusion zone referred to in the government doc published in January seems to exclude under 250gm “drones”, quote :-

“2.5 As such, the Government is taking action to amend the current restriction zone. The new restriction zone will include rectangular extensions from the end of runways measuring 5km long by 1km wide to better protect take-off and landing paths. In addition, all drones will be required to ask permission from the airport's Air Traffic Control to fly within the ATZ (see paragraph 2.2). The overall restriction zone is displayed in the diagram overleaf. The new zone will apply to all small drones weighing more than 250g.”

Of course this is still a proposal so could change, best keep your fingers crossed.

Dick

Geoff Sleath25/01/2019 15:34:56
avatar
3188 forum posts
247 photos

Both the clubs I've been a member of have shared an airfield with full size aircraft with no problems at all.

RR (Hucknall) flew for years sharing the Rolls-Royce airfield at Hucknall (now a housing estate ) for years with a little co-operation a nd zero conflict. The airfield at Ashbourne is much rougher (the old runways are very pot-holed) but there were a few people who flew full--size aircraft and we simply had a rule that we kept well clear (obviously) and the full-size usually did a circuit before landing to warn us. Again, we had no conflict.

If the Heathrow culprit was flying a Tundra within a km of the airport boundary it's highly unlikely he would have interfered with the airport's operation unless done deliberately with that intention. But the law is the law and he should have known better. The Tundra comes with a camera mount for FPV flying so he could have been flying much further away from himself than would be normal for line of sight - and perhaps without a spotter.

Geoff

Steve J20/02/2019 08:32:55
avatar
912 forum posts
37 photos

The DfT are saying that new 'drone' restrictions around aerodromes will come in to force on the 13th March.

I can't find the SI modifying the ANO, but it sounds like the changes will be as described in the consultation response.

Steve

Steve J20/02/2019 11:06:14
avatar
912 forum posts
37 photos

CAP 1763.

"The flight restriction zone is active at all times and applies to all small unmanned aircraft of any mass (even very small ‘toys&rsquo."

Steve

Edited By Steve J on 20/02/2019 11:14:11

Mike T20/02/2019 13:16:52
376 forum posts
28 photos
Posted by Steve J on 23/01/2019 23:24:55:

Pleaded guilty and got a £2000 fine.

It was a model aircraft...

**LINK**

Steve

Just been on Google maps to get the lie of the land. He flew just over 1/2k north of the northern runway. There appear to be other places nearby where he could have (legally) gone for a 'quick flip'.

Zooming in on the scene of the crime, I notice that BALPA's premises overlook said recreation ground! They probably grassed him up!

Re the Met's report, I think ordering his plane to be destroyed is a little melodramatic. I wonder if a constable was ordered to "fwow it wuffly to the gwound..."

Steve J20/02/2019 14:44:51
avatar
912 forum posts
37 photos

Posted by Mike T on 20/02/2019 13:16:52:

"fwow it wuffly to the gwound..."

Great film.

Anyway, clubs in ATZs or what the CAA are calling 'runway protection zones' have three weeks to get agreements with the relevant ATC units in place.

Steve

Ikura20/02/2019 16:42:11
305 forum posts
Posted by Steve J on 20/01/2019 12:07:22:

I, for one, think that they are completely pointless.

Steve

.....and unenforceable for the most part.

Did anyone ever discover an image of the so called Gatwick and Heathrow 'drones' or was it just smoke and mirrors?

Steve J23/02/2019 13:39:02
avatar
912 forum posts
37 photos

BMFA article.

Some quotes from the SI's explanatory memorandum.

"7.20 The Department for Transport will work with aerodrome operators, and others whose permission is required, to ensure airports put in place efficient and easily usable processes for SUA users to obtain permission."

"10.2 As part of this consultation, flight restrictions at aerodromes were covered. Feedback from the consultation was varied in relation to restrictions around aerodromes. There was, however, strong consensus from airports and airlines that a larger restriction zone around aerodromes is necessary to ensure SUA do not come into unsafe proximity with manned aircraft, particularly in take-off and landing paths. After consideration, the Government therefore decided to extend the flight restriction zone."

"14.2 The Department for Transport has also instructed the CAA to carry out a review of the effectiveness of restrictions around aerodromes (see paragraph 13.3 above). As part of this review, the CAA will examine the number of permission requests received by ATCUs and FISUs, what percentage were granted, and the reasons for refusals. The CAA also has power under article 266 of the ANO 2016 to create exemptions from any of its provisions, including those amended by this instrument, subject to any conditions it considers appropriate. The review will consider whether there are any areas (such as public parks) near aerodromes where SUAs may be used safely, and which could be granted an exemption. More generally the review will assess the impacts of restrictions, and consider other relevant safety and risk questions, which may result in further amendment of the ANO 2016."

Steve

Robert Welford12/03/2019 18:57:03
138 forum posts
4 photos
Posted by Cuban8 on 20/01/2019 11:36:16:

Old Warden! How will that work out for the club that uses the airfield and the modelling events - obviously, a workaround exists?

Edited By Cuban8 on 20/01/2019 11:47:05

Yes Old Warden Model Aircraft Club and any model events hosted at Old Warden are now subject to a 400 ft height limit.

I believe that the 400 ft constraint for a model club based at a "Protected Status" airfield (without ATC/FIS) is a case of unintended consequences of CAP1763. I don't think anyone anticipated that a model club would be based on a "Protected Status" airfield!

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of RCM&E? Use our magazine locator link to find your nearest stockist!

Find RCM&E! 

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Wings & Wheels 2018
Slec
Revoc
Gliders Distribution
Pepe Aircraft
Motion RC
CML
electricwingman 2017
Advertise With Us
Sarik
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Does your club have a safety officer?
Q: Does your club have a safety officer, or is the emphasis on individual members to each be their own safety officer?

 Yes we have a SO
 No, it's down to everyone

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us