Whether or not IAA sit up and take notice and begin any further action against you-tuber desodon will depend on the applicability of SI 25 of 2000.
(1) This order shall apply, unless otherwise specified herein, to a small
aircraft not exceeding a maximum total weight of 20 kilograms, less fuel
but including equipment or cargo, and to unmanned rockets exceeding
1.5 kilograms in fuelled weight and with more than 100 grams of
(2) The Order shall not apply to:-
(a) fireworks used in aerial display where the maximum altitude
reached is less than 400 ft above ground level at the launch site(s),
unless launched within controlled airspace or an aerodrome traffic
(b) to a model rocket using not more than 100 grams (0.1 kilogram) of
propellant or using a slow burning propellant and made of paper,
wood or frangible plastic containing no substantial parts and
weighing no more than half a kilogram (0.5 kilogram) operated in a
manner that does not create a hazard to persons, property or
(c) to a model aircraft of less than 1.5 kilograms maximum weight less
fuel and constructed of wood, paper or frangible plastic containing
no substantial parts and operated in a manner that does not create
a hazard to persons, property or other aircraft.
So from the outset, this regulation excludes the offending article, so we might as well examine the event from more general considerations.
An 830g foamie is without the aformentioned substantial parts, nosecone and motor excepted perhaps, and even that is debatable as to what the phrase "substantial parts" actually means. Did the drafters envisage a threat to other aircraft or to the public? Is a "substantial part" a part which could reasonably be likely to cause physical injury? - probably. Does the remote likelihood of contact with a human head or eye figure in the minds of the rulemakers?
These models are inherently stable ( http://www.parkzone.com/Products/Defaul ... ID=PKZ4700 ) and generally have a carbon rod as wing joiner, and therefore would be fairly unlikely to lose both wings and become a screaming missile. The probable failure mode would begin with radio or battery failure followed by a medium speed spiral dive. In practice there is a possibility of such a failure, but a much lower probability of a serious strike to a human. Another hazard would be contact with a motor vehicle, with a worst case scenario involving contact with a windscreen. It probably would not result in penetration. Would it startle a driver enough to make him lose control?, probably not. But a pusher configuration model would almost certainly meet the criterion of no substantial parts given it would be only a purely foam nose.
Notice the regulation did not qualify how great a hazard there must be, however a reasonable interpretation arguably must imply some sense of proportion, as so many human activities, even running down a street, carry with them hazards of collision and injury.
My hunch is that the IAA would have their work cut out convincing a court that there was a substantial hazard to the public. YMMV.
One more point, there would be no point in the "perp" joining MACI to avail of insurance cover or even legal assistance, given the prejudicial nature of their safety officer's remarks on radio, and their condemnation on MACI's website. He may yet need deep pockets...
See also http://vimeo.com/15174836 for the top end of the FPV hobby. There would be no shortage of naysayers over here clamouring "down with this sort of thing" now wouldn't there not TED?
Do I think that this video has served to further that cause amongst the general public ?....no, too many Teds
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests