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

The Gov't, CAA, BMFA & UAV legislation thread

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
ken anderson.04/12/2019 09:05:40
avatar
8552 forum posts
776 photos

i would say 100% Yes-have a word with him. Why let 1 person do what they want and put the site at risk for the other members who fly there.unfortunatley the times we live in are governed by rules which we have to adhere to.there will be many who will say do nowt...but many more who will say act.

ken anderson...ne...1..do nowt dept.

Denis Watkins04/12/2019 09:11:07
4176 forum posts
83 photos
Posted by Nigel Heather on 04/12/2019 08:39:58:

Question

You are at your club, pretty empty, just you and another guy. The other guy is flying a quad using FPV so he doesn’t have line of sight. Even if he had a spotter, the quad is often flying behind structures that would block line of sight. He is a very competent flyer and doesn’t appear to be putting anyone else at risk given the location that we fly from.

Do you say anything?

Cheers,

Nigel

Over the years Nigel, I personally have caused many flyers to leave the club

Not by being impolite or being a jobsworth

But for looking for increased safety

Looking out for my self and others and our neighbours living nearby

You are not compromising safety

They are, and we feel awkward

We constantly revise what we should be doing

We are all better off without these competent great flyers who risk it for everyone

Ron Gray04/12/2019 09:25:32
1677 forum posts
447 photos

If the (hypothetical) guy is a true club member then he won’t mind you saying anything.

Don Fry04/12/2019 09:41:47
avatar
4557 forum posts
54 photos
Posted by Ron Gray on 04/12/2019 09:25:32:

If the (hypothetical) guy is a true club member then he won’t mind you saying anything.

yes

Jason-I04/12/2019 10:51:56
303 forum posts
37 photos
Posted by ken anderson. on 04/12/2019 09:05:40:

i would say 100% Yes-have a word with him. Why let 1 person do what they want and put the site at risk for the other members who fly there.unfortunatley the times we live in are governed by rules which we have to adhere to.there will be many who will say do nowt...but many more who will say act.

ken anderson...ne...1..do nowt dept.

If there are no other members there, he is a competent flyer and he is not putting anybody at risk, then why not just leave the poor fellow alone to enjoy his hobby? Why do people always feel the need to say something when no harm is being done?

Nigel Heather04/12/2019 10:58:25
239 forum posts
7 photos
Posted by Ron Gray on 04/12/2019 09:25:32:

If the (hypothetical) guy is a true club member then he won’t mind you saying anything.


Personally, I would not have the confidence, nor the desire for confrontation, to say anything.

In the last year I have been at the field when there was about 6 of us, me and five quad pilots - they all seemed very competent and also very tight knit as if they are mates beyond just club membership.

If they fly today the way they flew then they would all be breaking the law. Even back then, I was uncomfortable with the way that some of them flew. Now that the new legislation is in force maybe they will change the way they fly but it is not something I would put money on.

But I didn’t tackle them on the subject and in all honesty if it happens this year I won’t either - I don’t have the confidence for a five on one confrontation.

Cheers,

Nigel

Martin_K04/12/2019 11:20:48
133 forum posts

Posted by Nigel Heather on 04/12/2019 10:58:25:

.... five quad pilots - they all seemed very competent ....

If they fly today the way they flew then they would all be breaking the law

Competent pilots / breaking the law.

Are those two statements compatible?

Ron Gray04/12/2019 11:23:15
1677 forum posts
447 photos

There are ways of saying things and there are ways of saying things! It’s not really confrontation it’s just an observation. If said person ignored your (justifiable) comment then it would indicate the sort of person you are dealing with and at that point you would have to decide to either repeat the comment or report the incident to club officials. Personally I would repeat the comment but then, whilst I don’t seek confrontation, It doesn’t really bother me (call me thick skinned / stupid / nutter).

However, I am against letting it go which is totally against JasonI’s post above.

Steve J04/12/2019 11:27:45
avatar
1772 forum posts
51 photos
Posted by Martin_K on 04/12/2019 11:20:48:

Competent pilots / breaking the law.

Are those two statements compatible?

The only times that I have seen flying that I suspect violated the ANO, very competent pilots were on the sticks.

Denis Watkins04/12/2019 11:48:47
4176 forum posts
83 photos

No need to start WW3 Nigel

We have always flown " Line of Sight ", so the " Secretary " could assist by putting out an email, or your club form of communication, relating to what is expected of in the pilots box

Maybe have a word with a trusted colleague at your site, and see what they say

GONZO04/12/2019 11:52:49
avatar
1353 forum posts
14 photos

Competent is generally used to define ones ability/skill as a pilot and should not be conflated with the CAA 's 'high jacking' of the term to describe their test.

Lets expand this theoretical incident to include a situation less 'black and white' where a member, who you know did not register as an operator, is flying a plane you suspect is 1/ slightly over the 250gm limit(small foamy) and 2/ could in your visual assessment be about 500gm(open structure vintage'ish). What do you do? Do you have some scales with you? Are you going to photograph the plane and club member then start a full inquiry with the club committee? Are you going to push the committee to start a process of weighing planes and keeping records? These possible situations are fraught with problems. From causing bad feeling when the accusation is wrong to possible physical confrontation.

Martin Harris04/12/2019 12:17:32
avatar
9159 forum posts
229 photos

I am afraid that if it was at my club field I would have to bring up the subject. However, I wouldn't just wade in but I would point out that he was breaking club rules as well as the law by flying FPV without a spotter and offer to stand with him as an observer. I would question his competence if he was unable to appreciate the dangers of flying out of line of site with the limited field of view and lack of visual acuity provided by a small screen or goggles. Threat detection by the human eye depends on detection in peripheral vision.

Our field is too valuable to the members as a whole to justify allowing one person to jeopardise its existance - and there's the wider point that the BMFA has cultivated a professional working relationship with the CAA based on the safety record and general responsibility of its clubs. Prosecutions of club members for flouting the regulations - and even worse, injuries to third parties - could only harm this.

If a person isn't willing to abide by the law and by club rules, it brings into question his suitability to continue to enjoy the members' facilities - happily this is not something often encountered and most people are willing to comply with reasonable rules when the reason for their application is explained.

Edited By Martin Harris on 04/12/2019 12:18:42

Nigel Heather04/12/2019 12:39:30
239 forum posts
7 photos
Posted by Martin_K on 04/12/2019 11:20:48:

Posted by Nigel Heather on 04/12/2019 10:58:25:

.... five quad pilots - they all seemed very competent ....

If they fly today the way they flew then they would all be breaking the law

Competent pilots / breaking the law.

Are those two statements compatible?

By competent, I meant that they were clearly very experienced and in my opinion had full control of their aircraft at all times. In my opinion they were flying safely and this was in a farmer’s field well away from other people and property.

Strictly speaking he would be breaking the law if he repeated it now because he did not have a spotter. But I suspect he would argue that he had a much better appreciation of the aircraft’s surrounding than any line of sight spotter would have. Don’t know if any of you have tried to follow a 250mm freestyle quad being flown around at distance, close to the ground, at speeds well over 50mph - I have and I find it vey difficult and that is when there is just one in the air.

I’m not excusing it, just exploring some of the practicalities. I think the law has been written in mind of the kid who has got a drone for his birthday and is flying around in a public park going behind trees with no idea what is behind them, rather than the hobbyist flying at the club field which is on a remote piece of private farmland where the pilot knows the landscape very well. But it is one law for all applied to the lowest common denominator.

Cheers,

Nigel

Don Fry04/12/2019 12:51:56
avatar
4557 forum posts
54 photos

Going to object a little. Spotters and FPV. Might be inconvenient.

Get some blinkers, as in horses to eliminate peripheral vision. Jump in the car, drive briskly across town. Or if not up to it, imagine it. The difference is you, your actual skin and bones, are at risk.

john stones 104/12/2019 13:11:54
avatar
11128 forum posts
1502 photos

Lets say there are no new regs, it never happened, no such thing as a Drone, or FPV. Someone is ignoring your club rules, he's flying behind the flight line, over your heads, too close, he's "Competent" so the rules aren't for him, his mates the same, his heli's too close, it's in the other pilots faces, he's hovering over the strip stopping folk taking off and landing, he's "Competent". They're making people uncomfortable, nervous, a bit unhappy because they don't want to be the fun police, you're feeling a bit embarrassed because you don't like confrontation, and feel you should say something really.

Who's the bad guys here ? and why should the vast majority have to put up with it ?

And we've all been here seen this.

Nigel Heather04/12/2019 13:38:55
239 forum posts
7 photos
Posted by john stones 1 on 04/12/2019 13:11:54:

Lets say there are no new regs, it never happened, no such thing as a Drone, or FPV. Someone is ignoring your club rules, he's flying behind the flight line, over your heads, too close, he's "Competent" so the rules aren't for him, his mates the same, his heli's too close, it's in the other pilots faces, he's hovering over the strip stopping folk taking off and landing, he's "Competent". They're making people uncomfortable, nervous, a bit unhappy because they don't want to be the fun police, you're feeling a bit embarrassed because you don't like confrontation, and feel you should say something really.

Who's the bad guys here ? and why should the vast majority have to put up with it ?

And we've all been here seen this.

Get a bit fed up with this sort of thing. Someone describes a scenario and then someone else comes along, ignores the original scenario, creates a completely different one and then tries to discredit the original scenario with lots of whatiffery.

Thing1 says that a competent driver was safely driving on the deserted motorway at 56mph when the 50mph restriction signs were still on.

And then Thing2 says, but he can’t be competent because he was breaking the speed limit.

Thing1 agrees that strictly he was breaking the law but the motorway was deserted and he was driving carefully.

To which Thing2 says what if he was drinking a bottle of whisky and playing with a live hand grenade at the time.

Well he wasn’t, stop changing the scenario.

Cheers,

Nigel

john stones 104/12/2019 13:51:06
avatar
11128 forum posts
1502 photos

Scenario hasn't been changed Nigel, some people have always ignored rules and others have always felt uncomfortable as a result.

Nigel Heather04/12/2019 13:51:52
239 forum posts
7 photos
Posted by Don Fry on 04/12/2019 12:51:56:

Going to object a little. Spotters and FPV. Might be inconvenient.

Get some blinkers, as in horses to eliminate peripheral vision. Jump in the car, drive briskly across town. Or if not up to it, imagine it. The difference is you, your actual skin and bones, are at risk.

Good point, well made.

Though I don’t think that the field of vision is as restricted as you suggest.

Let me state first that I don’t fly FPV or quadcopters - just line of sight fixed wing and some beginner helicopter.

But I have worn a pair of goggles slaved to the same quad someone was flying FPV and the view is pretty good.

Look at this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V0oqnrml0o

Okay this film was probably taken from the onboard camera rather than the feed from the goggles so might have a slightly wider field of view but not dramatically.

Cheers,

Nigel

Don Fry04/12/2019 14:29:19
avatar
4557 forum posts
54 photos

I have flown FPV. If you want good acuity, you go for a narrow view camera. This is the common. If you don't care, a wide angle is a possibility. Most wide angles lens used still give a field of view less than the 120° minimum requirement to hold a driving licence.

G194004/12/2019 14:39:35
3523 forum posts
1 photos
Posted by Philip Lewis 3 on 02/12/2019 21:18:58:

Quite dangerous ground legally for a club to be checking anything, get it wrong and they have accepted some responsibility, they thereby take on a responsibility that they probably don't want.

That comes from a legal case in sailboat racing where the entrance committee's used to check that the competitor had valid insurance, it was subsequently held that by accepting it was sufficient to race they had endorsed that the cover provided was adequate (which in this case it wasn't). Entrance committee's stopped checking insurance and even refusing to look at it and simply accepted a competitors declaration that they had it.

That is certainly the case. When we raced at open meetings, either championships or at another club, we were required to have 3rd party insurance (it wasn't very expensive because accidents in dinghies were rare) and had to show it when entering but then the clubs stopped checking and we just signed that we had the insurance and they accepted our word. I wasn't aware there'd been a legal case though.

I have wondered whether the requirement to show BMFA membership before flying at a club fly-in puts the home club in a risky position for the same reason. eg if the card is out of date, the person checking doesn't notice and the pilot is, in reality, uninsured and causes injury.

Geoff

Geoff

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
Slec
Sussex Model Centre
electricwingman 2017
Cambridge Gliding Club
CADMA
Wings & Wheels 2019
CML
Sarik
Advertise With Us
Latest "For Sale" Ads
Has home isolation prompted you to start trad' building?
Q: The effects of Coronavirus

 Yes - for the first time
 Yes - but Ive bashed balsa before
 No - Ive existing projects on the bench
 No - Im strictly an ARTF person

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us