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

Slope Combat

A bit of a quandary..........

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
Devon Flyer02/09/2011 18:00:13
622 forum posts
I've been thinking a bit today (always dangerous ) and I realise this may well open up a can of worms, but I would like to know how slope combat can be squared with ANOs 137 & 138, viz:
 
Article137;
‘A person must not recklessly or negligently act
in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any
person in an aircraft’


Article 138;
“A person must not recklessly or negligently
cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any
person or property”
 
Anyone got the answers?
 
 

 
David Gilder02/09/2011 18:11:29
avatar
1860 forum posts
674 photos
Easy one that DF.
 
The ANO's state " recklessly or negligently".
 
Slope combat is neither reckless or negligent.... Its done deliberately with definate intent.
Also its done generally in way that the aircraft do not fall to ground in location likely to endanger persons or property!!
 
Done!!!!
Andy Symons02/09/2011 18:13:15
222 forum posts
137 refers to endangering full size so easy adhered to for combat, 138 is a little harder to square away, however as long as your not endangering people or property other than the model your combatting against I see no real problem.
Tim Mackey02/09/2011 18:19:20
avatar
20920 forum posts
304 photos
15 articles
I agree that 138 is a little harder to defend - but I think the other thing is that all parties involved in the activity are fully aware that it may result in damage to their property ( their model )... and that there is a small risk that they themselves could be struck by a model, or part of a model. generally speaking, the models are relatively small, light, and bouncy foam construction, so hardly likely to inflict serious harm.
Devon Flyer02/09/2011 18:22:43
622 forum posts
Posted by David Gilder on 02/09/2011 18:11:29:
Easy one that DF.
 
The ANO's state " recklessly or negligently".
 
Slope combat is neither reckless or negligent.... Its done deliberately with definate intent.
 
 
A deliberate act of crashing into another plane would be considered negligent in a court of law.
 
Posted by Andy Symons on 02/09/2011 18:13:15:
137 refers to endangering full size so easy adhered to for combat, 138 is a little harder to square away, however as long as your not endangering people or property other than the model your combatting against I see no real problem.
 
 
To quote the BMFA handbook on ANOs : "THESE APPLY TO ALL MODEL AIRCRAFT AT
ALL TIMES, WHATEVER THEIR WEIGHT OR SIZE."

No legal distinction is made between models and full size.
Danny Fenton02/09/2011 18:24:41
avatar
9753 forum posts
4556 photos
I saw loads of control line combat at the BMFA Nats, how does that fit or does it only include RC models?
 
Devon Flyer02/09/2011 18:28:47
622 forum posts
I'm just interested to know where you would stand legally, if someone was injured, or property damaged, by an errant airframe that had been deliberately knocked out of the air by another flyer. Apart from the public liability side of things; how would the CAA look at it?
Alan Cantwell02/09/2011 18:57:04
3039 forum posts
what errant airframe , person, and property are you meaning?
Devon Flyer02/09/2011 19:14:59
622 forum posts
Posted by Alan 4 on 02/09/2011 18:57:04:
what errant airframe , person, and property are you meaning?
 
 
Hypothetical ones.
 
Accidents can, and do, happen - even when all reasonable precautions have been taken to prevent them. This is something accommodated for in law.
However, if an aircraft is deliberately crashed into and knocked out of the air, that can hardly be described as an 'accident', can it?
DCW02/09/2011 22:18:10
avatar
100 forum posts
66 photos

There are no 'grey areas' with the Air navigation Order, it refers to ALL aircraft manned or un-manned. There is no doubt that so called slope combat is a breach of the of this order.
 
Consider this: what would happen if debris from one of these aircraft, say a battery or something hit and killed someone. We all have seen the speed that falling objects can reach and have probably dug up embeded items from the ground......
 
Further information: CAP 658, article 74.
 
DW

Andy Symons03/09/2011 00:27:59
222 forum posts
Posted by Devon Flyer on 02/09/2011 18:22:43:
Posted by Andy Symons on 02/09/2011 18:13:15:
137 refers to endangering full size so easy adhered to for combat, 138 is a little harder to square away, however as long as your not endangering people or property other than the model your combatting against I see no real problem.
 
 
To quote the BMFA handbook on ANOs : "THESE APPLY TO ALL MODEL AIRCRAFT AT
ALL TIMES, WHATEVER THEIR WEIGHT OR SIZE."

No legal distinction is made between models and full size.

You have missed my point, 137 refers to not letting your model endanger a full size aircraft.

John Privett03/09/2011 00:51:36
avatar
6092 forum posts
243 photos
Posted by Andy Symons on 03/09/2011 00:27:59:

You have missed my point, 137 refers to not letting your model endanger a full size aircraft.

 
I don't see the words "full size" anywhere in article 137...
 
Article137;
‘A person must not recklessly or negligently act
in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any
person in an aircraft’

 
Martin Harris03/09/2011 01:19:15
avatar
9548 forum posts
258 photos
Never having experienced slope combat I can only imagine the scenario but I have done a fair bit of 1/12 scale WW2 combat where safety rules include separation distances from any observers and hard hats for all participants and officials although mid-airs are a consequence of small misjudgements and not deliberate but fairly common.
 
If necessary precautions have been taken to exclude forseeable danger to passers by and participants then surely the act isn't reckless or negligent but deliberate and calculated and therefore legal.

Edited By Martin Harris on 03/09/2011 01:22:36

Devon Flyer03/09/2011 08:48:30
622 forum posts
Posted by Martin Harris on 03/09/2011 01:19:15:
Never having experienced slope combat I can only imagine the scenario but I have done a fair bit of 1/12 scale WW2 combat where safety rules include separation distances from any observers and hard hats for all participants and officials although mid-airs are a consequence of small misjudgements and not deliberate but fairly common.
 
 
 
 
And therein lies the rub.
The difference in law between a mid-air happening as a result of a misjudgement or one caused deliberately.
 
Don't get me wrong on this ; I love my slope combat as much as anyone, it's just the legal aspect of it that intrigues me.
 
Martin Harris03/09/2011 10:30:28
avatar
9548 forum posts
258 photos
And the point to argue (heaven forbid) in the event of a prosecution would be that you were being neither reckless nor negligent and that an incident occurred outside what could have been reasonably foreseen.
 
As an example, Article 98 of the ANO Para 2 (a) states (in regard to > 7 kg models where legal controls are more rigidly enforced) "unless the person in charge of the aircraft has reasonably satisfied themselves that the flight can be safely made".
 
Although the wording of the act does suggest that endangerment of any aircraft is an offence, I'd imagine that should the CAA bring a prosecution as the result of a willing participant's model being dented by another in a combat session they would be sent packing by the judge for bringing a frivolous case to court.  If they did so because members of the public were being hazarded due to a negligent or reckless approach to organisation that might be a different matter.
 
With regard to your earlier statement, DF, that "A deliberate act of crashing into another plane would be considered negligent in a court of law." what grounds could they quote if the likely consequences of that act were considered properly before the event?

Edited By Martin Harris on 03/09/2011 10:51:06

Ian Jones03/09/2011 11:13:19
avatar
3229 forum posts
1401 photos
A very interesting and worthwhile discussion.

I remember reading something about this in RCM&E a good few years ago but not being pariculalrly interested in combat at the time I haven't committed any of it to memory.

I think that an up to date and authorative answer could be obtained from the BMFA.
Devon Flyer03/09/2011 16:18:44
622 forum posts
Posted by Martin Harris on 03/09/2011 10:30:28:
 
With regard to your earlier statement, DF, that "A deliberate act of crashing into another plane would be considered negligent in a court of law." what grounds could they quote if the likely consequences of that act were considered properly before the event?

Probably the same grounds they could use if you deliberately drove your car into another one, fully realising that by doing so you could cause the other driver to lose control. If the other driver then ran someone over, whose fault would it be?

DCW03/09/2011 21:17:15
avatar
100 forum posts
66 photos
Too much guesswork and assumptions......... Why not go on the CAA website and get a copy of the main points of the ANO. Just don't try combat on National Trust property or any other public place.
 
DW
Martin Harris04/09/2011 08:18:11
avatar
9548 forum posts
258 photos
Posted by Devon Flyer on 03/09/2011 16:18:44:
Posted by Martin Harris on 03/09/2011 10:30:28:
 
With regard to your earlier statement, DF, that "A deliberate act of crashing into another plane would be considered negligent in a court of law." what grounds could they quote if the likely consequences of that act were considered properly before the event?

Probably the same grounds they could use if you deliberately drove your car into another one, fully realising that by doing so you could cause the other driver to lose control. If the other driver then ran someone over, whose fault would it be?

 
 
Sorry but I don't see the relevence of that argument. If I were participating in a Demolition Derby with a stock car (do they still do that?) I wouldn't expect to see a flashing blue light in my mirror and get a ticket for dangerous driving. Spectators have been killed or injured on many occasions at motor races and by and large the organisers and participants have been absolved from blame for the consequences of their accidents due to demonstrating that they have taken reasonable precautions and motor racing has been allowed to continue at most venues.
Devon Flyer04/09/2011 08:51:08
622 forum posts
Posted by Martin Harris on 04/09/2011 08:18:11:
 
 
Sorry but I don't see the relevence of that argument. If I were participating in a Demolition Derby with a stock car (do they still do that?) I wouldn't expect to see a flashing blue light in my mirror and get a ticket for dangerous driving. Spectators have been killed or injured on many occasions at motor races and by and large the organisers and participants have been absolved from blame for the consequences of their accidents due to demonstrating that they have taken reasonable precautions and motor racing has been allowed to continue at most venues.
 
 
Fair point Martin.
But isn't motorsport highly regulated with regard to public safety and all entry to motorsport events are on the understanding that it is dangerous ie. disclaimers on tickets, placards etc?
Most slopers just turn up on a hill and have a bash. Pretty much all hills have public access (that's why we use them) and, at times, it's almost impossible to know if anyone is in the firing line of a falling airframe.
I'm just interested in where we stand legally as no one seems to be able to give definitave answer.
 
PS. Had a great combat session yesterday with the Wildthings.
 

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Support Our Partners
Sussex Model Centre
electricwingman 2017
Slec
CML
Sarik
Advertise With Us
Latest "For Sale" Ads
NEW POLL - has the pandemic altered your event safety perceptions?
Q: Has the covid pandemic deterred you from attending shows and events in 2021?

 No, I'll be attending just as many as I usually do
 No, but I'll choose my event with greater care
 Yes, I'll attend fewer events going forward
 Yes, I wont attend any where previously I have

Latest Reviews
Digital Back Issues

RCM&E Digital Back Issues

Contact us

Contact us

Magazine Locator

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

Find RCM&E!