For context.... This is my airprox report from a Jet Modellers Association event in May 2023. Airprox reps are usually turned around in a few weeks. This one took a few months finally being published in December. We were briefed to be aware that the CAA had refused to reissue the lapsed NOTAM as Buckminster National Flying Centre is listed in the AIP and we didnt need the repeating NOTAM. We had clearance to 1500ft agl. An observer on the model flightline was using the Flight radar 24 App which had the hawks at 900ft asl which at buckminster is 350ft agl so i dispute some of the dimensions given in the official report. The rear hawk in the formation also gave us a wing wag and a bit of smoke as they passed so hard to believe we were not seen at all. I suspect red 1 was their contact for the report. The reccommendations from the airprox board are very supportive of model flying sites, but many more should be listed in the AIP and i would encourage the reader to make the application for their own model site asap. Our events are normally covered by NOTAM but the CAA stance on this issue was not helpful.
Just wondering if some sort of ground based transponder/ADSB out at model flying sites would be worthwhile so that when they are operational, it appears as a target on EC / moving map displays etc? 🤔
RT in the UK is a CF. Laugh at the USA all you want, but their RT procedures and phraseology is 10000000% clearer than ours. "Roger" is hardly a read-back, and just asking for problems.
I think every pilot should watch your channels. You are an excellent presenter of important information. I don't fly GA but I do share the airspace, generally upto 1500 feet, so believe it is best practice to follow all sources of information. Having an appreciation of other (GA) pilots outlook/workload/practices can only be beneficial to safety. I fly a paramotor but am licensed and carry RT.
As a model pilot we take great care in flying by the strict rules that have been set out for us by the CAA. If a club can operate with that height and weight then they have been given the approval from the caa and a notam In place over the sight. Where I fly it’s in unrestricted airspace with the occasional low flying military aircraft going through (200ft). If we are heavier than 7.5kg then we cannot bust the 400ft height limit, but still, we have to be super vigilant in always having a spotter looking out for any full-size traffic. Please do not think that model aircraft pilots are unaware of this information. We love our hobby and we’ll do anything to protect it even if it means accommodating the use of commercial drone activities in the area. Happy landings.
Why need model planes have to go as high as 1500 ft? It will be hard enough to see it, ok some are really big model planes... And 1500 ft is about 400 m, that is higher than the Eiffeltower!
What a ridiculous decision to only note these sites on mil charts. I'd rather have a slightly more cluttered VFR chart than a model through the windscreen! Thanks for the heads-up Jon!
Was there any mention of the fact that the Reds always NOTAM their transits, the model flying club should have seen this and been able to plan accordingly? Granted this would have not been the case for GA traffic...
Jon, as a model flyer this is nothing new, I flew gliders and turbine models for over 30 years. I can't see the issue. I'm also a microlight pilot I see this as part of flying in the UK. Model flying in the UK has been a wonderful privilege since 1949. This feels a little bit like scaremongering.
Overhead power lines are a nuisance. In France, they take the issue seriously and they very helpfully place large orange spheres on the pylons and wires.
Any chance of you stopping the tabloid "teaser" titles you've been producing of late? I'd be really sad if it was actually effective in driving up your clicks. It's a bit unbecoming for a professional aviation educator, isn't it?
I'd be really happy if it was effective in driving up his clicks, as RUclips would see it as a big positive and would get its algorithms to support and push the videos 🤷🏼♂
I agree, the clickbait titles have led to me unsubscribing from the flying reporter channel. I only ended up reading this as the algorithm put this video on while I was away from the ipad. I skimmed ahead through the transcript to find out what the shocking news was to discover it is model aircraft.well model aircraft have been around since I was a lad. Cam you confirm, how many mid air collisions there have been?The only reason this airprox is even being looked at is because it was the Reds who were involved. Sorry John, you appear to be descending into the pit of hel. Reserved for people who are desperately chasing views on RUclips.im now off to investigate how to actively block your contentas unsubscribing didn't work.
Obvious question, why were the Hawks flying a transit flight at just a 1,000ft? Given the location of the incident they were neither in their climb or descent phases of flight so why, if only for noise abatement reasons, don't they cruise at a higher altitude?
My understanding is that it's for workload and fuel saving. When they transit they will often do flypasts, descending and climbing for them will add to the workload, they are single pilot ops, but climbing out after each one just burns loads of fuel unnecessarily and they wouldn't go high enough to save fuel again. Instead, they NOTAM every transit so you always know where they are.
@@I_Evo Normally it would be that. But anyone can book the Reds for a display or a flypast, as a result, once they are signed off for a season they usually are trying to squeeze in at least a few flypasts if they have to go somewhere.
Just wondering if some sort of ground based transponder/ADSB out at model flying sites would be worthwhile so that when they are operational, it appears as a target on EC / moving map displays etc? 🤔
As a model flying GA pilot, I have indeed been looking for a new location I could fly my model airplanes by looking at the AIP to check where in my region there would be fields and indeed the vertical limits of "their airapce". :)
On the airprox I get the clutter point. Could the electronic charts incorporate them? E.g SkyDemon? Others might be that larger models could incorporate ADS-B? Many modellers are keen to be good citizens in aviation. Let’s work together..
They are currently trying to put ADS-B on all models at a range up to 20 miles from a relay tower however this would knock out the signal or interrupt the connection to the radio transmitter which would make model flying impossible.
'Looking out' is still the correct response in EASAland. Why the CAA have deemed that a more easily confused phrase is preferable...I mean, add it to the pile of baffling decisions.
Your intro is just too long. I wrote that when I thought it was over but it is so much worse. 2 minutes in and you still haven't said anything about the actual topic.
@@smokingspitfire1197 It is not about my attention span, it is about every RUclipsr talking the same stupid shit, it is just a waste of lifetime to be honest.
@@HoverFilm Maybe it is "infectious" as you call it because nobody wants to listen to the same things over and over and over again for no good reason? Or I could just have created a conspiracy to prey on poor RUclipsrs and spread my evil mindset of hate for their long intros.
For context....
This is my airprox report from a Jet Modellers Association event in May 2023.
Airprox reps are usually turned around in a few weeks. This one took a few months finally being published in December.
We were briefed to be aware that the CAA had refused to reissue the lapsed NOTAM as Buckminster National Flying Centre is listed in the AIP and we didnt need the repeating NOTAM. We had clearance to 1500ft agl.
An observer on the model flightline was using the Flight radar 24 App which had the hawks at 900ft asl which at buckminster is 350ft agl so i dispute some of the dimensions given in the official report.
The rear hawk in the formation also gave us a wing wag and a bit of smoke as they passed so hard to believe we were not seen at all. I suspect red 1 was their contact for the report.
The reccommendations from the airprox board are very supportive of model flying sites, but many more should be listed in the AIP and i would encourage the reader to make the application for their own model site asap.
Our events are normally covered by NOTAM but the CAA stance on this issue was not helpful.
Just wondering if some sort of ground based transponder/ADSB out at model flying sites would be worthwhile so that when they are operational, it appears as a target on EC / moving map displays etc? 🤔
RT in the UK is a CF. Laugh at the USA all you want, but their RT procedures and phraseology is 10000000% clearer than ours. "Roger" is hardly a read-back, and just asking for problems.
I think every pilot should watch your channels. You are an excellent presenter of important information.
I don't fly GA but I do share the airspace, generally upto 1500 feet, so believe it is best practice to follow all sources of information. Having an appreciation of other (GA) pilots outlook/workload/practices can only be beneficial to safety.
I fly a paramotor but am licensed and carry RT.
Two minutes thirty seconds of intro ? Sorry lost interest.
As a model pilot we take great care in flying by the strict rules that have been set out for us by the CAA. If a club can operate with that height and weight then they have been given the approval from the caa and a notam In place over the sight. Where I fly it’s in unrestricted airspace with the occasional low flying military aircraft going through (200ft). If we are heavier than 7.5kg then we cannot bust the 400ft height limit, but still, we have to be super vigilant in always having a spotter looking out for any full-size traffic. Please do not think that model aircraft pilots are unaware of this information. We love our hobby and we’ll do anything to protect it even if it means accommodating the use of commercial drone activities in the area. Happy landings.
Why need model planes have to go as high as 1500 ft? It will be hard enough to see it, ok some are really big model planes... And 1500 ft is about 400 m, that is higher than the Eiffeltower!
What a ridiculous decision to only note these sites on mil charts. I'd rather have a slightly more cluttered VFR chart than a model through the windscreen! Thanks for the heads-up Jon!
Was there any mention of the fact that the Reds always NOTAM their transits, the model flying club should have seen this and been able to plan accordingly? Granted this would have not been the case for GA traffic...
Not a model club but the national model flying centre with a permanent entry in the AIP for clearance to 1500ft.
We should ALL email the CAA notifying them of their liability, now they have been notified of their shortcoming, should any incident occur.
"NOTAMS... just a pile of garbage that nobody ever reads"...
Time for an overhaul! Maybe even support rich text?!
Starts at 2:35 (ish 😂)
I did your infringement course and shortly after had my first zone transit through EMA which was alot of fun :)
Jon, as a model flyer this is nothing new, I flew gliders and turbine models for over 30 years. I can't see the issue. I'm also a microlight pilot I see this as part of flying in the UK. Model flying in the UK has been a wonderful privilege since 1949. This feels a little bit like scaremongering.
Overhead power lines are a nuisance. In France, they take the issue seriously and they very helpfully place large orange spheres on the pylons and wires.
Any chance of you stopping the tabloid "teaser" titles you've been producing of late? I'd be really sad if it was actually effective in driving up your clicks. It's a bit unbecoming for a professional aviation educator, isn't it?
I'd be really happy if it was effective in driving up his clicks, as RUclips would see it as a big positive and would get its algorithms to support and push the videos 🤷🏼♂
@@kevchilton908 I should think just as many are put off. I'm not going to watch a 20-30 minute video without knowing what it's about.
@@matthewwilliams2128 You do know you're on RUclips?! 😆
I agree, the clickbait titles have led to me unsubscribing from the flying reporter channel. I only ended up reading this as the algorithm put this video on while I was away from the ipad. I skimmed ahead through the transcript to find out what the shocking news was to discover it is model aircraft.well model aircraft have been around since I was a lad. Cam you confirm, how many mid air collisions there have been?The only reason this airprox is even being looked at is because it was the Reds who were involved. Sorry John, you appear to be descending into the pit of hel. Reserved for people who are desperately chasing views on RUclips.im now off to investigate how to actively block your contentas unsubscribing didn't work.
Have you done TV or radio? You have a fantastic broadcasting voice.
Obvious question, why were the Hawks flying a transit flight at just a 1,000ft? Given the location of the incident they were neither in their climb or descent phases of flight so why, if only for noise abatement reasons, don't they cruise at a higher altitude?
My understanding is that it's for workload and fuel saving. When they transit they will often do flypasts, descending and climbing for them will add to the workload, they are single pilot ops, but climbing out after each one just burns loads of fuel unnecessarily and they wouldn't go high enough to save fuel again. Instead, they NOTAM every transit so you always know where they are.
The arrows transits are listed on NOTAMs. We are made aware on daily briefing to be aware.
@@roberttatlow5535 Interesting but not sure how it answers my question.
@@tom9571 I must have a different understand of a transit flight. I was thinking of it as more of a repositioning flight not what you're describing.
@@I_Evo Normally it would be that. But anyone can book the Reds for a display or a flypast, as a result, once they are signed off for a season they usually are trying to squeeze in at least a few flypasts if they have to go somewhere.
Thank you, Jon, excellent info again 👌🏻
Thanks Jon... super useful as always!
Just wondering if some sort of ground based transponder/ADSB out at model flying sites would be worthwhile so that when they are operational, it appears as a target on EC / moving map displays etc? 🤔
As a model flying GA pilot, I have indeed been looking for a new location I could fly my model airplanes by looking at the AIP to check where in my region there would be fields and indeed the vertical limits of "their airapce". :)
On the airprox I get the clutter point. Could the electronic charts incorporate them? E.g SkyDemon? Others might be that larger models could incorporate ADS-B? Many modellers are keen to be good citizens in aviation. Let’s work together..
They are currently trying to put ADS-B on all models at a range up to 20 miles from a relay tower however this would knock out the signal or interrupt the connection to the radio transmitter which would make model flying impossible.
Really useful update, thanks Jon 👍
Re 11:25. Did not "Looking out" use to be an official and correct phrase (and might still be outside of U.K.) ?
'Looking out' is still the correct response in EASAland. Why the CAA have deemed that a more easily confused phrase is preferable...I mean, add it to the pile of baffling decisions.
@@fpt9694 Yeah, I wonder how the ICAO compliant ones made it to Jon's bugbear list.
#NOGABelow2k, get conspicuous or climb up and out of the way
Your intro is just too long. I wrote that when I thought it was over but it is so much worse. 2 minutes in and you still haven't said anything about the actual topic.
Is your attention span THAT short? And you can just skip forward on the video.
@@smokingspitfire1197 It is not about my attention span, it is about every RUclipsr talking the same stupid shit, it is just a waste of lifetime to be honest.
@@Taladar2003 on your bike youre probably obese and broke
@@Taladar2003 spreading your infectious mindset
@@HoverFilm Maybe it is "infectious" as you call it because nobody wants to listen to the same things over and over and over again for no good reason? Or I could just have created a conspiracy to prey on poor RUclipsrs and spread my evil mindset of hate for their long intros.