CNA:Kite-flying, aeromodelling activities near airport may be allowed

[rchobbyfly]

Caught a glimpse of the news on TV during lunch.

Below is the report from CNA:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...207307/1/.html

SINGAPORE: The public may soon be able to fly kites or small model airplanes near the airport or airbase.

The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) said it is looking at relaxing the rules to allow such activities, which are getting popular in Singapore.

It is seeking views from the public on the changes.

Currently, activities such as kite-flying, aeromodelling and hoisting of captive balloons for commercial purposes are not allowed within five kilometers (km) from an airport or airbase.

Beyond the five-km radius, these activities are allowed, but the public must observe a height limit of 200 feet, which is about 12 storeys high.

Under the Air Navigation Order, these restrictions are in place to maintain a safe operating environment for aircraft operations.

Kites and model airplanes can pose danger to pilots who are engaged in the critical phase of flight, such as when the plane is taking off or landing.

The objects could also cause damage to aircraft engines and endanger lives.

CAAS said there is potential to liberalise the current restrictions on height and permitted areas for the conduct of specific types of aerial activities, while maintaining high international aviation safety standards.

That's because with advancements in aircraft technology, air navigation systems on the modern aircraft have greatly improved.

It added that the review will allow the authorities to explore a new balance between aviation safety and the desires for other aerial activities

"This review on the conduct of aerial activities is timely. There has been increasing public demand for more space to conduct aerial activities in Singapore. With the advancements in aircraft technology, air navigation systems on the modern aircraft have greatly improved, enabling the creation of more space for such activities where possible. While the safety of flight operations in Singapore remains paramount, this review will allow CAAS to explore a new balance between aviation safety and the desires for other aerial activities," said assistant director-general of CAAS Soh Poh Theen.

The public can give their feedback via the CAAS website and REACH portal.

The consultation closes on 12 July.

================================================== ==============================================

Hope this is gonna to help us.

[foxkilo]

Interesting news...

The skies may eventually be freer, but in Singapore, lack of open land also poses a big problem.

They need to work together with SLA, HDB and those agencies that own and control land use. Signboards planted at fields are usually by these agencies, in my observation.

[rayonnair]

It is in public consultation phase, which means any one of us can make representations. Read what they are asking for and considering changing here:

http://www.caas.gov.sg/caas/en/Regulations/Airspace_Management/Air_Navigation_Hazard_x_Obstruction_Policies/Aerial_Feedback.html

The detailed changes are here:

http://www.caas.gov.sg/caas/en/Regulations/Airspace_Management/Air_Navigation_Hazard_x_Obstruction_Policies/Aerial_Feedback_Application.html

What do you guys think? I will read it myself but need time to digest.

[foxkilo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but essentially the existing rules for model aircraft did not change much.

The "shaded green areas" on the map is meaningless, IMHO. So the map shows that I'm allowed to fly RC in the CBD area, in Sentosa, and the reservoirs?

Other agencies will step in and stop me, right?

Does it mean that in the shaded green areas, as long as it is not private land, we are allowed to fly there, within the height restrictions??

[rayonnair]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but essentially the existing rules for model aircraft did not change much.

The "shaded green areas" on the map is meaningless, IMHO. So the map shows that I'm allowed to fly RC in the CBD area, in Sentosa, and the reservoirs?

Other agencies will step in and stop me, right?

Does it mean that in the shaded green areas, as long as it is not private land, we are allowed to fly there, within the height restrictions??

You read that right.

I've had time to digest it... it isn't as great as the article or the press release suggests, nor does it give us any clarity. RC plane rules haven't changed, and as you say, it's meaningless for the CAAS to state acceptable fly zones, because other agencies (government or private) will complain. What happened to "Whole of Government"?

The areas marked out are pretty hilariously screwed up. There's a light blue area in the middle of the sea that's right in the middle of our civilian landing aircraft paths, yet designated for kite flying or parasailing up to 500ft. There's no kite flying allowed in Seng Kang or Punggol or Pasir Ris or Tampines or vast tracts of East Coast park.

The classification system looks like it's done by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. Kites are allowed to fly higher because they are heavier than air and will sink when the strings are severed? CAAS never fly kite before issit. If the string snaps and there's wind (and there will be wind, I mean that's why you're out flying a kite...) your kite flies unpredictably, including up and away. The bigger kites can just lift people off the ground in sufficient wind.

Also, a 500mm wingspan foam micro flyer is very different from a 2200mm wingspan carbon fibre and balsa sport glider (same for different sized helicopters), and should be treated differently. Just like a kite surfing kite is very different from a kite made from satay sticks and thin paper. And this goes to different categories of flying objects, too: I've seen those triangular super fast kites being flown in ECP making an angry buzzing noise as they zoom about in the sky - those are, somehow, safer than my pz micro sukhoi?

The height limit seems arbitrary, but I hope there is some reason behind it. For e.g., X km out of a runway, a passenger plane will be flying at X ft high. But why can't I fly a plane 300ft up if there are no obstructions, clear line of sight, and no planes will be flying in the area?

Why are we measuring distances in feet anyway? Aren't our units metric?

I intend to post feedback on this public consultation. I completely agree with the principles of safety to flying aircraft and others around you, but this way of going about things is mangled, half baked and illogical.

[foxkilo]

By the way, to answer your question, heights are given in FEET, because this is the standard for altitude measurement in Aviation. Aircraft altimeters and ground feature heights are all quoted in feet.

Back to the topic, the authority seems to be very obsessed with PROPULSION.

NO PROPULSION and CAPTIVE (e.g. held by strings) and HEAVIER THAN AIR = SAFE
NO PROPULSION and CAPTIVE but LIGHTER THAN AIR = LESS SAFE
WITH SELF-PROPULSION and NOT CAPTIVE = errr...

They don't make a distinction between various types of model aircraft. RC helis don't "drift away" very away. Pure gliders have no propulsion, but under the right conditions can keep up in the air for long period of time. Propelled airplanes with different sizes and wingspans also have different capabilities. Electric powered models don't go very far, and especially if fail-safe has been properly set. And what about micro-flyers?

They must be thinking about commercial UAVs when coming up with these rules...

What you said: "The classification system looks like it's done by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about." could be true. But it is more likely that they come up with such simplistic blanket rules in order to make it easier for them to enforce. They can't be bothered to check whether your model is the right size and specifications.

Personally I think "parkflyer" models (as defined by AMA) should be allowed closer to the "no-fly zones".

Actually these "rules" show us that it is perfectly fine to fly in the "shaded green" areas as the controlling agency of the AIRSPACE is CAAS. So those "no flying" signboards planted by other agencies, e.g. HDB, are actually redundant because these "ground-bound" agencies don't control the air. We could stand on the sidewalk just outside the boundary of state land, for example, and fly whatever, as long as within the "shaded green" marked on the map

[Cycross]

When one superimposes the satellite photo with the restricted markouts, one will realise the rules have not been proposed to change for model aircraft and to some effect, even worse. Are there any decent sized fields (outside of Tuas which Mindef complained recently btw) in those areas left in dark green to fly?

Why worse is because after this, CAAS can claim 'public endorsement' to their cause to enforce. Sad to say, the usual fields I know of are all within in the 5km zones. Where does that leaves us?

my two cents.

[nic]

Article in Page B4, Straits Times June 20th. Grab a copy to read it.

Highlights to get you reading the whole article. Please read the whole article to prevent the below to be taken out of context.

Rules of flying model aircraft likely to stay

For model aircraft, the authority has suggested keeping the regulations as they are,
in a move that has been welcomed by the hobby's enthusiasts.

(snip: please read the whole article before commenting)
"The rule applies more for individual hobbyists rather than trained members of aeromodelling clubs," said Mr Yap Wai Chong, 39, an aviation instructor at Temasek Polytechnic.
Mr Anthony Low, 55, an interior designer and president of Radio Modellers Singapore, said the authorities could do more to presue their hobby of flying model aircrafy with clubs - as members can guide them and ensure safety cautions are taken.
(snip: please read the whole article before commenting)

Personally, I think it is a *hint* that the govt is going to start clamping down, or at lease better control RC flying activity.

[foxkilo]

Article in Page B4, Straits Times June 20th. Grab a copy to read it.

Highlights to get you reading the whole article. Please read the whole article to prevent the below to be taken out of context.



Personally, I think it is a *hint* that the govt is going to start clamping down, or at lease better control RC flying activity.

nic,

Yes, reading the whole article makes more sense. I agree with the comments in context, that since we are forced to choose, we'll ultimately choose the lesser of two evils, i.e. so that flying is allowed in the "restricted" zones but under approval, rules and supervision. Better than total clamp-down and no flying at all.

The alternative, relaxing the rules, may lead to all kinds of flying activities by fliers regardless of skill/judgement level in all sorts of locations, ultimately will result in mishap, and then even worse clamp-down. Back to square one, and possibly worse.

Just wait and look at kite-flying (which has been liberalized under the new rules)... there may eventually be more tangled strings in places where there shouldn't be tangled strings, or injury to others, and maybe will lead to their rules to be tightened again

[rayonnair]

Actually these "rules" show us that it is perfectly fine to fly in the "shaded green" areas as the controlling agency of the AIRSPACE is CAAS. So those "no flying" signboards planted by other agencies, e.g. HDB, are actually redundant because these "ground-bound" agencies don't control the air. We could stand on the sidewalk just outside the boundary of state land, for example, and fly whatever, as long as within the "shaded green" marked on the map

If I recall my property laws correctly, the air above and the ground below a plot of land also belongs to the land owner. The government has a carve out (easement) that allows it to use the airspace without reference to the land owner, but the airspace still belongs to the land owner. Hence the land owner can indeed tell you to get off. My property law knowledge is extremely rusty as it is not my area of practice, so I could be totally wrong about this, and don't quote me on that.

Just wait and look at kite-flying (which has been liberalized under the new rules)... there may eventually be more tangled strings in places where there shouldn't be tangled strings, or injury to others, and maybe will lead to their rules to be tightened again

Yeah, this is where I think CAAS has got it wrong. They're going to have a problem on their hands if it is forcibly demonstrated to them that not all kites and not all planes are created equal. Our authorities are likely to react by clamping down on anything that can stay in the air. I really hope nothing bad happens, because I've seen some seriously scary buzzing kites in ECP, and if the concern is damage to life and property then an angry buzzing kite concerns me much more than foamies.

Article in Page B4, Straits Times June 20th. Grab a copy to read it.Personally, I think it is a *hint* that the govt is going to start clamping down, or at lease better control RC flying activity.

I've read the article. First thought that came to mind is: "You only interviewed the hobbyists with a vested interest in club flying?" Personally I think you should be able to fly slower and smaller foam aircraft and micro helicopters anywhere (subject to safety and space considerations, of course). It will just be more work to enforce and I don't think CAAS wants to go around checking the wingspan and AUW of people's models. Also, the guy at the end of the article said something funny:

Mr Khoo, who is a commercial pilot, said although the rules should be kept for beginners, he hopes CAAS can relax the rules for more experienced pilots.

Experienced as decided by who? :rolleyes3eparately, I have a question about the 200ft ceiling. AFAIK, the AMA rules allow rc flying within 3 miles of an airport, but with a 400ft ceiling. What is the rationale for limiting flying activities to 200ft outside the 5km radius of an airport?

[Caine]

Something interesting

Saw this interesting notice board at Carpark F2/buspark which is at the east coast park, quick check on my map to find out distance to Changi Airport ...to be 12.5 km..excluding the u-turn still about 7 ..8km? (was trying to quote the rule of "Areas within 5km of an airport or military aerodrome constitute no-fly zones for model aircraft. Beyond this, aerial activity is banned above 200ft, roughly the height of a 12-storey block of flats."...so why is this place banned from flying?

[foxkilo]

Maybe you have to check with the exact map provided by CAAS in their ruling.

The no-fly area is not a perfect circle of 5km round a centre point at the airport; it's more of an oval with the long axis aligned with the runways.

I believe the no-fly area also stretches to cover the takeoff and approach paths taken by aircraft, but a more detailed map would be needed to confirm.

Anyway, I've seen somebody openly para-sailing in waters off the "D" carparks early this month, and also a group of people attempting to launch their kite on the beach.