An Update on the UK Regulations for Model Flyers

[Bob Thompson1894]

I am not rubbishing the idea of terror weapons, indeed drones are already used. Its the idea that somehow this ill-conceived database will end or even reduce the risk of this happening. I dont think many terrorists will be coughing up £16.50. As for the sale of the things, the internet and ebay will never ask for your details and whether you have passed a test. So I would suggest that not one 'incident or terror attack or crash' will be prevented by us paying 2.4 million a year.

[Alan King]

No terrorist will register, well he might but more then likely not, and yes the point of registering is seemingly to give some mate a title and fat paycheck and a few others a job at minimum wage to make it all look good.

I though believe that regulation through the associations is more then adequate but not everyone flies legally, belongs to one of the association's or have insurance.

In fact the fact this was not done long ago astounds me as the internet is a source of equipment that is mind boggling.

I believe that some type of regulation is required to meet this but that the system proposed is in itself open to abuse as the police cannot police it adequately.

I believe our associations are doing well, in fact proof of this is irrefutable but too many drone, UAV, pilots or owners have no idea, sweet stuff all and that's the problem.

To have to pay is ridiculous but the same can be argued for road tax, we pay too much fuel tax already, the authorities suddenly woke up to the dangers that these "Toys" could have and hence," stuff you all now you'll be regulated"

I mean it's way easier to build a single seat SSDR plane and fly it then it is to build an over 20kg model. Or even fly an aircraft of 70kg or less without even a pilots licence.

Note I said devils advocate and do believe it's extreme particularly for everyone who has always complied.

Regulation can help in certain scenarios and this cannot be argued.

I feel there is a middle road but with politics in the state it's in who really cares about a few oldish men revisiting their youth or playing with big toy aeroplanes, we do but many think we're either rich nuts or just eccentric.

[Bob Thompson1894]

The simple point, Alan, is that this will do absolutely nothing. Far better would be to insist that everyone is insured, and make it an offence not to be, so any plod can ask to see that. A database of names and addresses is useless to anyone, even the police, who can not access it. There is simply no point.

[chris-berry]

The top and bottom of this whole issue, whether people like it or not is the relatively recent advent of easy to fly, gyro stabilised camera platforms or as most of us call them, Drones. Twenty years ago we didn't have this conversation, 10 years ago we didn't have this conversation. Therefore, as i see it, multi-rota copter drones are the sole reason for this requirement.

An old boy flying his radio queen, or someone flying a 1/4 Spitfire are no threat to anyone and haven't been a threat to anyone for decades and decades. They are hard to fly, have to be flown properly and cannot be flown from the steps of a museum or a city centre location or back garden in suburbia.

[Timothy Huff]

Fully agree. The whole mess has come about by the conflation by the CAA/D of T, of regular fixed-wing or simple rotary (standard helicopter configuration) with the multi-rotor drones, which are in almost every comparable respect, chalk and cheese. This is the equivalent of the regulation of speed-boats being brought under the auspices of the DVLC "because both cars and speedboats have steering wheels"! Absolutely asinine.

[Bob Thompson1894]

The only two collision investigations I can find online are both model gliders and light aircraft. Very little damage was done to the aircraft. Which begs the question, why pick on 'drones' if there have been no proven collisions?
As for the reports of near misses, "The aircraft pilot reported that he was on a local flight from Gloucestershire Airport. Visibility
was in excess of 10 km with a layer of grey cloud at various heights above him throughout the
flight. The aircraft initially headed north from Tewkesbury between 900 and 1,500 ft amsl.
As it approached Upton-upon-Severn, the pilot and his passenger noticed two model aircraft
flying from a field to the east of the river, “well below them” as they flew round the perimeter
of the field. The pilot then headed away from the area. A short time afterwards there was
a “loud thud” as the aircraft struck what the pilot believed was a seagull, seeing a slim grey/
white object pass over the left wing. He then noticed some damage to the upper skin of the
left wing but the fabric did not appear to be punctured. He recalled the altimeter indicating
about 900 ft amsl when he scanned the altimeter shortly after the impact.
After checking that the aircraft handled normally the pilot contacted Gloucester Approach
and informed them that he was returning as his aircraft had suffered a substantial bird strike.
The aircraft subsequently landed safely with the AFFRS in attendance. It had sustained a
small hole, about 10 mm in diameter, in the top of the left wing’s leading edge and surface
damage to the wing fabric behind the hole." if a slow flying light aircraft in perfect conditions hit a large glider, and the pilot was convinced it was a seagull, the how does the pilot of a fast flying airliner see a tiny drone flash by him? This is all a very large sledge hammer to crack a tiny peanut.

[chris-berry]

There are airprox reports on both sides for models but they are usually in remote locations or at established sites.

The issue isn't really us or airprox its the mass general untrained uncontrolled public who spend 50quid on a toy and cause havoc.

Our club of 90 members shares a site with a small microlight/farm strip. (4 aircraft based on site). We've all flown perfectly safely and in harmony for over 15 years. That's because we all know what we're doing and what the procedures are. Arguably we could report airprox on a regular basis but we don't because its all above board, safe and well managed and we all know what we're doing.

[Timothy Huff]

I used to instruct fixed-wing at Shoreham, where in the 90's there were frequently RC gliders and aircraft ridge-flying on the approach to runway 21 (as it was then) and I must have done hundreds of approaches within 200' or so of these. They never gave us any trouble or cause to worry, and as far as I know, no-one else was bothered by their presence. ATC would occasionally warn visiting pilots that they were there so it didn't startle them. It was otherwise a complete "non-event". Now that drones are being flown, I'm not sure we'd have taken quite the same sanguine view about it, because, then, there was a level of mutual trust in the airmanship of both the RC chaps and the pilots. I'm not sure it'd still be possible to rely on that with drone "pilots".


As regards impacts : I think different aircrew have different concerns here. The airlines are concerned about low-level engine failure in the case of ingestion by a large twin, and the huge maintenance bills to clear an engine which may - or may not have - ingested a cheap drone. Light aircraft pilots are probably at more actual risk, for they fly lower, and have less physical protection to a wind-shield strike from debris after it's passed through the 'prop. As much as anything the risk here is what subsequent mistakes a low-time pilot might make after such a collision with a drone. I hit a sparrow (or similar) once on finals, and was amazed to discover it'd pushed in the leading edge of a Pa28 about 3/4" at about 80 kts, I also heard the impact over the engine. So even light drones would, were I still flying, be something of a concern, nowadays.

What is simply unjust and wrong, is to compel RC pilots in good standing to deal with extra bureaucracy and expense because of the largely theoretical risk from (I presume) the minority of a group flying completely different craft away from club-fields, unsupervised by their peers.

[Bob Thompson1894]

hmm...A Robin DR400 (F-GSBM) was descending on base leg to land on Runway 20 at Shoreham when its right wing struck a radio-controlled model glider. The Robin suffered minor damage and landed safely. The pilot of the Robin had not seen the glider and the pilot of the glider had not heard or seen the Robin approaching until it was too late to take avoiding action. The model glider is considered to be an unmanned aircraft and the Civil Aviation Authority and the European Aviation Safety Agency are considering new regulations on the operation of small light-weight unmanned aircraft. In the meantime, the Shoreham airport operator is taking steps to increase pilots’ awareness of the model gliding site, located 1 nm from the Runway 20 threshold, near the turn from base leg to final.

[Peter Siggins]

It seems to me common sense that when using a shared site an RC pilot should have a mandatory spotter,then these incidents ,which do the rest of us little good ,wouldn’t happen.
On our site we have banned multi-rotor flying ,and when obtaining planning permission for our site at a full council meeting,one of the questions asked was ‘do you have drone flying ‘.I answered that we had banned them and there was a murmur of approval all round the meeting.
It did rather prove the non model flying public don’t approve either.

Just my twopennorth

Pete

[chris-berry]

At our shared site we have not banned drones but do not allow FPV, GPS, RTH or any automated flight systems.

To be fair we don’t have any members who fly drones at the field anyway.

[Bob Thompson1894]

A couple of members have them, but they only appear if someone has lost a model in the crops..We dont allow FPV as we are also on a shared site with a safe record going back to the 70s.

[chris-berry]

So it seems that even without registration and laws all over the shop, clubs and it’s members are capable of using common sense and implementing rules and regs ourselves that are common sense.

[Bob Thompson1894]

What we have been saying since day one.

[chris-berry]

Our club was contacted by the local air ambulance operations team, asking where we flew because they were doing an update of their records and wanted to ensure they kept clear (subject to emergencies). I provided the information and sure enough they changed their transit route and now pass to the far side of our flying area. Common sense!

We have a couple of events within 20 miles of us that contain air displays, so today I've emailed the members to remind them that there may be increased traffic passing through this weekend. Just sensible approaches are all that's needed.

[Timothy Huff]

hmm...A Robin DR400 (F-GSBM) was descending on base leg to land on Runway 20 at Shoreham when its right wing struck a radio-controlled model glider. The Robin suffered minor damage and landed safely. The pilot of the Robin had not seen the glider and the pilot of the glider had not heard or seen the Robin approaching until it was too late to take avoiding action. The model glider is considered to be an unmanned aircraft and the Civil Aviation Authority and the European Aviation Safety Agency are considering new regulations on the operation of small light-weight unmanned aircraft. In the meantime, the Shoreham airport operator is taking steps to increase pilots’ awareness of the model gliding site, located 1 nm from the Runway 20 threshold, near the turn from base leg to final.

I'm guessing that was long after I left. It'd be really interesting to know if the Robin had got unduly low or the glider model unduly high. I'm not looking to blame anyone, I'm just trying to point out that this current paranoia about sharing airspace with RC models was by no means always the case. We just accepted it as a fact of life and something to watch out for. That the aircraft operator is bringing this to the attention of non-local aircraft is something, as far as I recollect, they were already doing back in the 90's. I'd be interested to know if the current airfield info for Shoreham points out this local quirk.

Reading the AAIB report suggests that the cleared "left base" join was in fact prosecuted as pretty tight left-base one, which was really the cause of the incident in my view. I think the RC pilots there may have got a little complacement in that flying whilst unable to watch for a non-standard flight-path, but that's wisdom with hindsight after 40 or so years largely incident flight there. ATC should really have warned him of the presence, however, on a busy day Shoreham's RT can get easily saturated, so it's easy to see how terse exchanges can omit such things.

[Bob Thompson1894]

I imagine that, as it is within 1 mile, the club will be shut down now. I am surprised not more collisions happen, I was invited to fly at a slope site near Bristol, while flying, around the corner of the hill suddenly appeared a fast glass full size glider, hugging the slope. He flew in between me and my model. I had no idea they flew full size there! That site was shared also by paragliders, so the recipe for disaster was there.

[Alan Cantwell 1131]

Ah Bob, you havnt lived till you have had a Tornado re op wave at you while your Phase 6 was 500 foot above him, ah, the RAF, bless um!

[Bob Thompson1894]

Back to this shameful set of stupid rules- I gather a private members bill was going for a second reading in the house with this snippet-(5)The operator of a prescribed drone must not fly that drone in the United
Kingdom unless it—
(a)has a permanent mark by which it can be identified;
(b)is fitted with a functioning electronic conspicuity device.
Now, as Boris has Prorogued parliament, will this now be dropped? And in any case how on earth am I supposed to fit a 'conspicuity device' to my models if this law is to carry?

[chris-berry]

I’ve just read the bill. Drone Regulation No2.
As ever and usefully IMO it’s geared towards commercially available drones. I bet if we asked if it includes model planes they wouldn’t know the answer.

Every drone must be registered to an owner and if it is sold the record must be changed. At the time of sale the drone must be registered with the CAA. Manufacturers must include EC and visible markings.

Peter Bone
Supported by Esther McVey, Gordon Henderson, Jonathan Lord, Phillip Davies, Henry Smith and Steve Double.