I remember that incident and the subsequent outcome.
I refer back to my opening remark of flying in an appropriate area and understanding the capabilities and limitations of the equipment being used. Things rarely fail for no apparent reason and in most cases can be linked to operator error. This is no different from a car accident as someone is always responsible, either through carelessness or failure to maintain the car. The operator claimed that while he had control of the model it was within visual line of sight, or rather being flown to such a distance that it would have been if he actually had a spotter. The claim was that he lost control which resulted in the model flying beyond line of sight. I find this difficult to believe as in the video it can be seen following the length of the estuary and appearing to be under control. I also seem to remember there was some questioning regarding the legality of the area he was flying from.
There were other factors which led up to his prosecution. Even though he was, at the time of the incident, a member of the BMFA, the BMFA nullified any insurance and legal protection as the radio equipment he was using was not licensed for use in the UK. This in turn garnered the interests of OFCOM. There were many things the operator could have done as a result of this flyaway which he failed to do which would have mitigated the subsequent prosecution.
How to deal with a BVLOS flyaway.
A few years back a very experienced member of our flying club, now sadly passed away, experienced a flyaway as a result of operator error.
He was flying a largish glow powered bi-plane when, while in the process of performing a loop, all control was lost. The cause of this loss of control was due to his failure to secure the receiver battery properly and it was ejected from the model during this high G manoeuvre.
Without this receiver battery the control surfaces and the engine would not transition to a failsafe condition and the model kept on climbing and flying further away. Next is why this incident differs from the one in the video. The operator immediately alerted the nearest airport, in this case LBA, and the regional police force. On top of this all members at the flying field downed tools in an attempt to follow the now very distant model.
In the days following this incident the operator chartered a small aircraft to search the area in the hope of finding what might be left of the model but to no avail. He’d also alerted the BMFA of the incident and filed a report with the CAA.
After this incident the operator purchased a dozen or more GPS trackers to fit into all his remaining models. Thankfully this was in a very rural area and the risk of third party damage/injury, while still very probable, was much less than if in a more built up area. This was of no comfort for the operator as after this incident he never flew again. He passed away within a year. Some attributed this very distressing incident as the primary contributor to his sudden downturn in his health.
The two major differences between these two incidents are the areas in which they occurred, one being sparsely populated and the other a busy built up area. The second as where one person made it a point of alerting the authorities immediately while the other was brought to the attention of the powers that be because his model washed up in a sensitive area and his name and address was on the model.
