Bad advert for us all

[ashutchy]

I';ve got word that a couple of ';guys'; were seen flying their quads less than 1/4 mile from Leeds/Bradford airport last night. It';ll have been around 7 o';clock and they were on the pitch at Yeadon cricket club. One thing that stood out was just how high they were going. Hard to say exactly as it wasn';t me who saw them but from what I';ve been told it must have easily been 200'; and then some.

[tupoar]

Hope they get caught and fined...

[Hands0n]

Sounds like they were blissfully unaware ...  And the chances are that if they keep that up they';ll feel the heavy hand of the CAA on their shoulders.   Flying at an altitude of 200ft doesn';t seem to be anything particularly wrong, our most recent ceiling is 1,000ft since March 2014.  Although an overrider to that is that the aircraft must be in VLOS at all times - and I';d find it very challenging to maintain VLOS at 1,000 ft altitude!

Quite apart from any of that though ... being within the bounds of an airport is a complete no no without specific permission, which I';d imagine would be very unlikely to have been secured by the fliers. 

[QuadBod]

Flying at an altitude of 200ft doesn';t seem to be anything particularly wrong, our most recent ceiling is 1,000ft since March 2014. 

My understanding is that the height ceiling is above average sea level. It';s possible to be flying illegally before you';ve taken off if you';re on even moderately elevated terrain!

[G60jet]

I';ve set my max altitude to 120 meters didn';t realise I could potentially go higher.  Can anyone clarify this?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[guest325]

My understanding is that the height ceiling is above average sea level. It';s possible to be flying illegally before you';ve taken off if you';re on even moderately elevated terrain!

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap658%204%20edition%20amend%201%20june%202013.pdf

See item 4.2.2 4C - it';s 400ft above the surface. Item 4.2.3 also makes interesting reading!
HTH

[ashutchy]

I';ll give them the benefit of the doubt and go along with blissfully unaware Danny. On the plus side it shows I have other fliers not that far away from me. It would be nice to meet them if only to show them the error of their ways.

[Hands0n]

The 1,000ft ceiling is for FPV fliers only, it appears.  Important not to confuse that with the rest of the current legislation.

I am trying to find the official CAA notification about the 1,000ft FPV ceiling that was introduced in March 2014 for UAS below 3kg.  But independent reporting said this:

Following 18 months of incident free operation with the current exemption, and a year with a previous issue limited to FPV UK members, the FPV General Exemption for FPV flying will be extended for another 12 months when it comes up for renewal in March 2014.

It was also agreed that the limits will be increased to allow aircraft of up to 3.5kg AUW to be included, up from 1.8kg for fixed wing and 2.5kg for rotorcraft in the current exemption.

Furthermore the maximum altitude will be extended from 400ft to 1000ft when flying under the exemption.

This was a great example of FPV UK, BMFA and the CAA working together and FPV UK looks forward to working with BMFA and CAA in future.

Source: http://www.suasnews.com/2013/11/26202/uk-fpv-flyers-gain-weight-and-height/

The article goes on to warn:

Nb Its very important not to take the 3.5kg weight limit and 1000ft out of context and assume that any one can go off flying FPV, on their own, if they're within these limits. That is not the case! I emplore all UK FPV pilots to read the exemption and fully understand what this means. www.fpvuk.org/fpv-law explains the current exemption and lists the relevant parts of the ANO.

Only when following the rules in the exemption, may their flying be exempt from 166(3) of the Air Navigation Order. The rest of the ANO still applies. Crucially flying under the exemption must include flying with a Competent Observer who has direct unaided visual contact with the model for the purposes of collision avoidance.

So, flight ceilings summarised (from what I read):
LOS = 400ft
FPV = 1,000ft - within full compliance of the regulations regarding spotter, VLOS etc.

[Big A]

It depends on the class of airspace too.

[Hands0n]

It depends on the class of airspace too.

Indeed, and that is even more "complex" than simple height restrictions. 

Somehow, some way, the CAA, manufacturers, sellers have got to come up with some way of educating people buying what is increasingly becoming a commodity product.  Each week another maker comes up with a new model of multi-rotor.

I dread the day a model gets sucked into a jet';s intake or a propeller!

[Ross]

Best thing is report this to the Air Traffic at Leeds Airport ask for the duty ATC supervisor. and if the Tels operator baulks at putting you thro tell her its a flight safety matter. 

  Don';t be shy...better safe than sorry.

[Friskle]

I';ve got word that a couple of ';guys'; were seen flying their quads less than 1/4 mile from Leeds/Bradford airport last night. It';ll have been around 7 o';clock and they were on the pitch at Yeadon cricket club. One thing that stood out was just how high they were going. Hard to say exactly as it wasn';t me who saw them but from what I';ve been told it must have easily been 200'; and then some.

My neighbour told me a bloke round the corner was speeding, I better go report him, just in case its true, although I didn';t see it, he might have been.

Sorry, but imho, thats what this post looks like.

Really, we are now condemning people due to hearsay ?

[nub]

find them and string them up i say!

[JeremyE]

My neighbour told me a bloke round the corner was speeding, I better go report him, just in case its true, although I didn';t see it, he might have been.

Sorry, but imho, thats what this post looks like.

Really, we are now condemning people due to hearsay ?

I couldn';t agree more! I have seen it on other forums where guys just want to report others that may be ';breaking'; the law in their eyes. The way I see it, the more we report others, the more evidence we give the authorities to create even stricter rules! Why not take the approach to go and chat to the person about the regulations and inform them they could get into trouble or cause danger to others. After all, they may not know the rules (I know that I didn';t when I did my first flight).

[Hands0n]

Which is precisely what the OP said (above)

... On the plus side it shows I have other fliers not that far away from me. It would be nice to meet them if only to show them the error of their ways.

A gentle and appreciative word would be preferable to coming out shooting from the waist.  I';ve found that people are generally quite surprised to learn that we are bound by the CAA for certain behaviours.   I';ve not yet been told to sling my hook by a model flier.  And passers by are equally appreciative to know that not only are there responsible fliers but that the CAA itself is involved.

[teslahed]

Unless there is clear and imminent danger (for example i saw someone literally dodging traffic on the M6 with an FPV aircraft for a laugh) then the first recourse should always be trying to speak to the people involved.

As Danny points out they might just not know. Ignorance may be no excuse in the eyes of the law but it';s a good reason to try talking to someone first before going all the way and reporting them. You could make new friends and earn the gratitude of someone who you';ve just saved from a future arrest and / or a serious incident. I am not the law and I';d rather people just fly safely than get reported and arrested.

I';d save the reports for people that should know better, do know better, have large and powerful aircraft and take obvious pleasure in continuing to break the law in dangerous ways for a laugh. I';m thinking of the kind of people that fly over blackpool pleasure beach and also alton towers. Flying over roads, crowds of people and rides that were in use both times. And we all know what happened to him in the end

[ashutchy]

My neighbour told me a bloke round the corner was speeding, I better go report him, just in case its true, although I didn';t see it, he might have been.

Sorry, but imho, thats what this post looks like.

Really, we are now condemning people due to hearsay ?

Got to jump in here and point a few things out Friskle.

Firstly, in which post have I suggested reporting anyone please? Didn';t think so.

You';re more than entitled to view a post anyway you like but the way you view the one in question, way off the mark. I was merely mentioning it as I thought it would be of interest to the members on here and spark some healthy debate/comments....which for the most part it did.

Far from hearsay, they were seen by my son.

And finally, my second post in this thread "I';ll give them the benefit of the doubt and go along with blissfully unaware Danny. On the plus side it shows I have other fliers not that far away from me. It would be nice to meet them if only to show them the error of their ways. ". Hardly condemning someone now is it no matter how you view these things.

Andy.

[teslahed]

Seems fair enough.

[nub]

i wonder what it was they were flying 

[kilby]

i wonder what it was they were flying 

A quick game of 20 questions ?

1: Was it white?

[Friskle]

Got to jump in here and point a few things out Friskle.

Firstly, in which post have I suggested reporting anyone please? Didn';t think so.

You';re more than entitled to view a post anyway you like but the way you view the one in question, way off the mark. I was merely mentioning it as I thought it would be of interest to the members on here and spark some healthy debate/comments....which for the most part it did.

Far from hearsay, they were seen by my son.

And finally, my second post in this thread "I';ll give them the benefit of the doubt and go along with blissfully unaware Danny. On the plus side it shows I have other fliers not that far away from me. It would be nice to meet them if only to show them the error of their ways. ". Hardly condemning someone now is it no matter how you view these things.

Andy.

Firstly, I was not suggesting you said report them, it was merely an example used to highlight hearsay, due to you not witnessing it personally.

And to be fair, does it matter who told you ? what matters is, the fact "you" didn';t see it, yet quick to jump in to condemn people you don';t know.

Yes you said that in a later post from your OP, mainly in response to what someone else wrote.


I';m far from trying cause argument, but I just don';t see how a person can criticise others when they have actually no clue as to what was going on.

[ashutchy]

Then perhaps it was a bad example you used? With no mention of reporting anyone in my OP you then use it as an example against something I';ve not said. You don';t work at the Daily Mail do you?

Maybe it only matters to me but if I heard it in a pub or out somewhere from Johns dads mums half sisters cat it would be hearsay. When it comes from my son, that';s different. To me at least.

And I still fail to see how I was "quick to jump in to condemn people I don';t know"?

Response to what someone else wrote..........isn';t that what happens on a forum?

I';m not trying to cause argument either but you seem to have completely misunderstood my OP. I';ve not criticised anyone, merely reported something I was told. That I can see I';ve not passed judgement or even given my opinion on them at all, have I?

Andy