R/C Aircraft flown in the LZ can present a hazard

Steve90266 · Post by **Steve90266** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 8:58 am

It has been reported that there have been several instances of R/C model aircraft interfering with the safe landings of hang gliders and there have been club members who have been struck by R/C model aircraft. By ignoring the issue, the club as well as the operator are open to liability in the event that anyone on the ground is injured for any reason.

For a nominal annual fee the operator can have 1/2 million of liability
insurance. The club can also apply for membership in the AMA and obtain
additional liability protection. R/C model aircraft and especially sailplanes are an excellent and affordable way for pilots to learn and hone their thermal flying skills and should be encouraged by the club.

A club member has proposed the following rules governing RC flying in the LZ, to be adopted by the SHGA:

A - No operation of any R/C model aircraft on or over club property at any
time unless the following conditions are met:
1 - Any hang glider or paraglider must be at least 300' AGL and/or
at least 1/4 mile from the LZ landing circle at any altitude.
2 - The operator must have a current AMA Park Pilot membership:
http://www.modelaircraft.org/membership ... tions.aspx
3 - The operator must be compliant with the AMA Safety Code:
https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf
4 - The operator must have established prior coordination of radio
frequency with the established AMA designated R/C model field located off of
Harding and Maclay streets
B - Additional Rules:
1 - Appropriate penalties for rule violations to be determined by
the club board

I am posting this here for club comment and debate.

Steve M.

Steve90266 · Post by **Steve90266** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 1:57 pm

Steve,

Thanks for identifying a potential safety issue and taking corrective steps before there is a problem. This is both refreshing and welcome. I believe that your point # 1 is well taken and I will personally vote for it.

As for joining the AMA, at $58 per year, and complying with everything on the AMA safety code, that is simply overkill, in my humble opinion. The RC planes that we fly are electric powered and made of foam. We simply do not need to enforce AMA rules to fly our type of RC planes safely and coordinating frequecies with the RC park is not only impractical but unnecessary. That place is too far away from us for our crappy little RC transmitters to overpower those used there. If frequency interference were a real problem we would certainly know that by now.

Remember that we are a hang gliding park and the only rule that we really need for RC's is that they do not interfere with hang gliders. Let's not make rules that are hard to enforce and that are not absolutely necessary. I hope you will soften your stand on this by the time we get to our first meeting as I for one will be arguing against everything but rule number one.

Rob

P.S. I will be soon be sending you lots of other safety related stuff that has nothing to do with RC airplanes. I hope you will give these issues equal effort.

Jim · Post by **Jim** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:09 pm

A - No operation of any R/C model aircraft on or over club property at any
time unless the following conditions are met:
1 - Any hang glider or paraglider must be at least 300' AGL and/or
at least 1/4 mile from the LZ landing circle at any altitude.

Yeah, let's keep those pesky hang gliders out of the landing zone.

Glad to see this now, Steve. I almost told my family I wanted an R/C for Christmas. Maybe I'll ask for a set of lawndarts instead...

Steve90266 · Post by **Steve90266** » Mon Dec 17, 2012 6:21 pm

Now that's some pretty funny stuff!

TerryH · Post by **TerryH** » Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:03 pm

Steve90266 wrote: A club member has proposed the following rules governing RC flying in the LZ, to be adopted by the SHGA:

A - No operation of any R/C model aircraft on or over club property at any
time unless the following conditions are met:

[...]

4 - The operator must have established prior coordination of radio
frequency with the established AMA designated R/C model field located off of
Harding and Maclay streets

[...]

Steve M.

This is important for 72 MHz equipment, since the two sites are within range of each other. I've seen some pretty big glow/gas airplanes at the other field, and it would be bad for our flying to cause a crash there.

However, for 2.4 GHz equipment, this should not be a concern, due to the spread-spectrum technology and uniquely ID'd transmitters.

OP · Post by OP » Wed Dec 19, 2012 11:59 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpwISgNt1Mk[/youtube]

How does torrey do it? Apparently not well.

Maybe we could have a weight restriction, small foam RTFs are different than the fiberglass things at torrey:

Replace A2-A4 with this:
*Aircraft must not exceed 2 pounds, 60 mph, and may not be powered with an internal combustion engine. ICEs are noisy.

Steve90266 · Post by **Steve90266** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:32 am

Personally, I'm fine with the RC craft in the LZ and enjoy watching them fly, the dogs chasing them, etc. I'd like to own and fly one myself.

However, as Rob pointed out to me in a phone conversation, if an RC aircraft breaks a pilot's concentration, even for a moment, it creates a hazard.

Perhaps the club should consider a rule that suspends all RC activity when any pilot has crossed the road and is moving towards the landing pattern?

Some semblance of a rule like that could be a good idea. What does everyone else think?

TerryH · Post by **TerryH** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 8:27 am

OP wrote:
[...] and may not be powered with an internal combustion engine. ICEs are noisy.

The existing guidelines on the web site already say no internal combustion. I'm in favor of carrying that forward into any new guidelines or rules.

dhmartens · Post by **dhmartens** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 9:37 am

Possibly each manned aircraft should have a 200 foot bubble of clear airspace around them. As a former motocross rider, through early growth forests, I could see flying my glider through a hundred impacting foam pushprop r/c planes no problems as long as I have hard gloves and face and neck protection(athletic cup too).
My bigger concern is db readings at the north boundry:

Should a gas engine be allowed if it has acceptable sound emission?

Recently a photo of a classified Navy propeller was released with top secret quietness capability:
http://ogleearth.com/2007/08/microsofts ... propeller/

I read Torrey banned R/C for a short time in 2002.

JD · Post by JD » Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:22 pm

Steve90266 wrote:....as Rob pointed out to me in a phone conversation, if an RC aircraft breaks a pilot's concentration, even for a moment, it creates a hazard.

Perhaps the club should consider a rule that suspends all RC activity when any pilot has crossed the road and is moving towards the landing pattern?....

I'd go with a 1/4-mile radius in any direction and 500' AGL. It's legal to be 1600' AGL above the LZ and many pilots have climbed out and gone back up from below 500' AGL so not every approach is a landing.

I agree with the basic philosophy of avoiding any activity in the LZ that is likely to create a distraction to any pilot who may be trying to land. This extends to pilots in the LZ directing away horseback riders, mountain bikers, neighbor's children, etc. from our runway under the same circumstances. This doesn't have to be just an R/C model plane rule but might include anything that is likely to distract or interfere.

It doesn't take much of a stretch to realize that we are all under the microscope of our (USHPA's) liability insurance company and need to minimize to possibility of a needless blown landing resulting in an injury to a bystander. This means it may be a courtesy to tell a spectator to "Duck!" or "Watch your head!" when carrying your glider across the LZ especially if the wind is switchy or gusty.

If anyone is interested I have copies of the two videos of the incident in Chelan that nearly ended USHPA's liability insurance and would have closed down most flying sites. The unfortunate event was completely avoidable.

Don · Post by **Don** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 3:57 pm

After thinking about it for a while - I kind of like the idea of distractions when I'm landing. It would provide a reasonable excuse why I'm so bad at it.

vannoppen · Post by **vannoppen** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 4:44 pm

While I do love flying my RC around, in close , to hang gliders,3s and4s of course I also like to fly through RC s in my landing approach,but I also realize that for the longevity of our club and freedom we enjoy there we should probably reign in some of our RC flight guidelines, sorry Phil, LD, and Rob, to name a few,Chip. I recommend a dog fight to the death of all RC aircraft in the LZ,say Sun the 3rd

dhmartens · Post by **dhmartens** » Thu Dec 20, 2012 11:38 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52CVrcCydig[/youtube]

Steve90266 · Post by **Steve90266** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 10:59 am

From the comments it seems clear that new guidelines should be adopted by the club for the sake of pilot safety, as well as liability.

I like Jonathan's idea:

I'd go with a 1/4-mile radius in any direction and 500' AGL. It's legal to be 1600' AGL above the LZ and many pilots have climbed out and gone back up from below 500' AGL so not every approach is a landing.

It makes sense, and allows the RC guys to come back and fly if a pilot gets back up over the LZ,

I will forward my recommendations to the Board at the next meeting.

Please keep this discussion going until then.

Steve[/quote]

Steve90266 · Post by **Steve90266** » Sun Dec 23, 2012 5:45 pm

So far, this is what I've got:

The following guidelines are proposed governing the operation of R/C Model Aircraft in the SHGA approach and landing areas during normal flight hours.

No operation of any R/C model aircraft on or over club property shall be permitted at any time unless the following guidelines are met:

1. The operator must be an SHGA member in good standing.
2. R/C flying shall only be permitted from sunrise to sunset.
3. The operation of R/C model aircraft shall not be conducted if any hang glider or paraglider is within a one-quarter mile radius of the landing zone and less than 500 ft AGL.
4. R/C aircraft shall only be permitted if they transmit at 2.4 GHz and on a discreet channel. 72 MHz equipment shall not be permitted.
5. No combustion engine R/C aircraft shall be permitted.
6. Operators must be compliant with the AMA Safety Code. https://www.modelaircraft.org/files/105.pdf
7. The operator must have a current AMA Park Pilot membership: http://www.modelaircraft.org/membership ... tions.aspx

JD · Post by JD » Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:23 pm

Thanks Steve. Just so pilots know--the Park Pilot Program costs only $29.95 per year and provides $500,000 personal liability insurance coverage. That's a small price for a lot of coverage.

I've noticed that most of the R/C electric aircraft being used on club property have pusher propellers which puts foam in front versus a tractor propeller that places the motor and prop in front. I wonder if this would be a good requirement for all powered R/C aircraft since it should reduce the risk of injury.

jcflies · Post by **jcflies** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 7:18 am

Do we REALLY need all these RULES?

BudRob · Post by **BudRob** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:06 am

Why the membership in the AMA? Who will enforce it?

Let's only make rules that are needed. I can't see how flying R/C aircraft without an AMA license puts anyone's safety at risk.

Steve90266 · Post by **Steve90266** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:39 am

Just a reminder that we already have the following rules in place, which can be found on our website here: http://shga.com/rules.asp

They read as follows:

R/C Guidelines

1. Before flying, go to the R/C park and put a note on their frequency board indicating the frequency and times that you will be flying.
2. Except for launching and landing, all R/C flight should be over the wash.
3. All R/C flight should be south of the H4 "Runaway Glider" Ramp.
4. Launching and landing should be done as far south and east in the LZ as is possible, consistent with safety.
5. Throttle down for landing in the LZ.
6. Under no circumstances, should you fly any R/C near the houses on the West side of the LZ.
7. No internal combustion engines on R/Cs at all.
8. If your fellow R/C pilots are flying outside of these guidelines, please remind them that you really don't want new rules, or an R/C ban, and you would appreciate it if they followed the guidelines.

So what we are really proposing here is to amend the existing rules governing R/C flying in the LZ. To that end, I propose that we get rid of existing rules 1, 2, & 3, and add the rules outlined above.

I'm inclined to agree with Rob, when he states

Why the membership in the AMA? Who will enforce it?

Let's only make rules that are needed. I can't see how flying R/C aircraft without an AMA license puts anyone's safety at risk.

What do others think about removing the licensing requirement?

jdevorak · Post by **jdevorak** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:45 am

In that there is endless debate in this club and nothing is ever done until some member steps up to the plate, I have taken on the resolution of this particular problem. At my own expense I have hired Agent Walker to fix the problem. There is no need for new rules. He canâ€™t read anyway. Sunday, his first day on the job, he took out two of the pesky buggers without breaking a pant. The owners spent a half hour revitalizing their planes and he got them again within seconds. He is very persistent. Neither is he influenced by politics. He will stand up to the president as well as the lowly electrician. The only downside is that we have to find something else to do when itâ€™s not flyable and before the wife calls.

Sylmar Hang Gliding Association