Steve J Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Three airprox reports involving model gliders have issued. 1) A conflict between a light aircraft and a glider over Coventry and District Model Aero Club during a competition - http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2016/New_assessed_reports/Airprox Report 2016106.pdf 2) A conflict between a model glider and a paraglider at Treak Cliff in Derbyshire - http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2016/New_assessed_reports/Airprox Report 2016100.pdf 3) A conflict between a model glider and a Chinook near RAF Benson - http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2016/New_assessed_reports/Airprox Report 2016113.pdf Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jef Ott Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Reading through these with great interest, can anyone explain what is meant by "VFR in VMC"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie Perrin Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 Visual Flight Rules in Visual Meteorological Conditions VMC is basically clear of cloud and in sight of the surface with a visibility of 5km or greater. Reg 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted October 17, 2016 Author Share Posted October 17, 2016 The Castleton airprox doesn't say what the glider was, but, based on the size and weight given, I'm guessing that it was a HobbyKing Ridge Ryder. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jef Ott Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 1 hour ago, Steve J said: a HobbyKing Ridge Ryder Took me a while to find that bit. To enlighten (no pun intended) those not familiar with the model that Steve J quotes... "1 The Model Aircraft involved has the following specifications: Wingspan: 913mm Length: 500mm Weight: 175g (w/o battery)" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martynk Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 This is an interesting spreadsheet and perhaps should be filed under 'This looks rather worrying' https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Topical_Issues_and_Themes/Current Drone Airprox Count and Information.xlsx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jef Ott Posted November 18, 2016 Share Posted November 18, 2016 It does indeed look very worrying... 5 model aircraft and 22 drones in the last 3 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted November 18, 2016 Author Share Posted November 18, 2016 Be aware that the airprox board use drone as a catchall term, i.e. drone in that spreadsheet does not necessarily mean multirotor. It looks like around a third of this year's airproxes will involve unmanned aircraft, hence 400ft Britain and the relaunching of the CAA's dronecode. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssexBOF Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 The latest one involving an Airbus 320 near the Shard, seems to me to be somewhat tongue in cheek if we believe the piiot's report, that he saw a drone 65 feet from his wing tip, the drone was 50 cm in size at a height of 5000 ft. His airspeed was not quoted but assuming it was approx 200mph, cannot believe he would have seen such a small object, from what was stated. Also why was the difference in using cm and ft, to give the size and distance 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted November 20, 2016 Author Share Posted November 20, 2016 Airprox 2016139 - http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2016/New_assessed_reports/Airprox Report 2016139.pdf The Airbus was doing 90 m/s. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted February 23, 2018 Author Share Posted February 23, 2018 An airprox involving model gliders at Ipswich Radio Control Model Club Manor Lane flying site. http://www.airproxboard.org.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Standard_content/Airprox_report_files/2017/New_assessed_reports/Airprox Report 2017233.pdf Quote Recognising that the model flying club had been at that site for quite a number of years, the Board thought that it would be advantageous for there to be more dialogue between the two units, with a proactive approach to make sure a similar incident didn’t happen again. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martynk Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 I have flown at an airfield where model fliers share with full size aircraft They have a very simple and elegant process to prevent conflicts. The model club has purchased a High Intensity Orange LED flat panel beacon which is active when their are model aircraft in the air. This flashes and is very visible to full size aircraft wishing to land. The full size makes a high pass (1000ft+ or so) to indicate he wants to land. The models are grounded, the beacon is turned off indicating it is safe to land. It works really well Martyn 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted February 23, 2018 Author Share Posted February 23, 2018 @martynk Interesting, but not really relevant to airprox 2017233. IRCMC's field is 3km from the end of Crowfield Airfield's runway and more or less in a line with it. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martynk Posted February 26, 2018 Share Posted February 26, 2018 Steve, Maybe not. However, I still think its a very valid method of signalling to aircraft on approach that there is model activity. Reading the airprox report it appears that model and full size were sharing very close airspace and anything to help should be considered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted February 26, 2018 Author Share Posted February 26, 2018 I'll give you three alternatives, one from the report and two that I think will become options in the near future. Quote the provision of an airband radio receiver tuned to the Crowfield frequency would also assist in providing earlier situational awareness of aircraft movements 2) Aeromodellers could use an app (Drone Assist) to tell an automated low level air traffic system (UTM, U-Space) when and where they are flying and this information could be uplinked to aircraft on 978 MHz (TIS-B). 3) UAVs flown over 400ft will be required to be electronically conspicuous and aircraft and airports will be equipped to detect them. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martynk Posted March 2, 2018 Share Posted March 2, 2018 A local club uses an airband receiver to monitor for local air traffic (shared airspace - private airfield). The problem is that it needs at least two people present, one to monitor and spot and the pilot. It would be interesting to see how quickly your other options materialise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted March 5, 2018 Author Share Posted March 5, 2018 On 3/2/2018 at 16:07, martynk said: It would be interesting to see how quickly your other options materialise Unmanned traffic management in the UK moved a step closer with today's announcement from NATS and Altitude Angel. https://www.altitudeangel.com/blog/nats-enters-strategic-partnership-with-altitude-angel/ Quote This partnership lays the foundation for a future whereby access to lower level airspace could increasingly be granted digitally. It links knowledge of an operator’s aircraft, qualifications and mission, pioneering a new form of airspace management suited to the changing use of our skies. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martynk Posted March 5, 2018 Share Posted March 5, 2018 Thanks Steve I guess that the use of this technology - suitably packaged - could remove the requirement for altitude limited model flying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve J Posted March 6, 2018 Author Share Posted March 6, 2018 22 hours ago, martynk said: I guess that the use of this technology - suitably packaged - could remove the requirement for altitude limited model flying. The FAA UAS ID ARC report (there are no EASA or SESAR equivalents that I am aware of, although I am sure that they are coming) suggests having UAVs operating over 400ft equipped with UTM interfaces (and ADS-B for UAVs operating over 2500ft). Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now