BMFA Safety Review Committee (SRC)

Summary of Incident Reports

October 2025 to April 2026

SRC meeting, 14^th April 2026

This summary covers 10 ‘Mandatory Occurrence Reports’ submitted over a period covering from October 2025 to April 2026. This figure is less than might be expected for this period of time, but is possibly a reflection of the poor weather conditions that were prevalent for much of the early part of 2026, which would inevitably have restricted the opportunities for model flying.

These 10 reports are those logged using the BMFA ‘mandatory occurrence reporting’ system that required onward submission to the AAIB. They represent approximately 10% of all initial submissions.

This report is intended for circulation to all members, as well as Area and Club committees.

Feedback from earlier reports included a request to include a sample of an incident report. To this end, an anonymised report (from the ten submitted in this period) has been included in this summary report. The report included was chosen by the AAIB, as it provides an example of one that they will follow up and report on, because it involves damage to 3^rd party property.

The SRC includes representation from BMFA Staff (including the CEO), the AAIB, the CAA, the BMFA insurance brokers & underwriters, the ASRC and Areas Council.

The aim of this summary report is to provide a better understanding of the nature of the reported incidents and identify any trends or common factors to help members avoid similar incidents in the future and hence reduce the risk to uninvolved individuals and property.

Summary: –

Control System	No. of Incidents	Percentage
Free Flight	None reported	0%
35MHz RC	None reported	0%
2.4GHz RC	10	100%
Total	10	100%

Principal Causes

• Pilot error – something that the pilot did/didn’t do which put the model in a poor situation, and/or followed by inappropriate corrective actions.

• Technical – failure of the model structure or systems, or failure with the control system.

• Inconclusive – insufficient report data, and/or pilot’s opinion.

Principal Cause	No. of Incidents	Percentage
Pilot error
Loss of sight – orientation/distance	2	20%
Loss of sight – sun, haze, mist etc.	4	40%
Inappropriate model for wind strength	1	10%
Mishandling	0	0%
Pre-flight check oversight	0	0%
Sub Total	7	70%
Technical
Electrical failure / control system	3	30%
Structural failure	0	0%
Dead-stick	0	0%
Sub Total	3	30%
Inconclusive*
Lack of report detail, opinion	0	0%
Total	10	100%

Model Recovery

Model Recovery	No. of Incidents	Percentage
Recovered	5	50%
Not Recovered	5	50%
Total	10	100%

Third Party Involvement

3rd Party	No. of Incidents	Percentage
3rd Party Involved	0	0%
3rd Party Not involved	3	30%
3rd Party Damage	2	20%
3rd Party Injury	0	0%
Unknown	5	50%
Total	10	100%

Principal Causes

• Approximately two thirds of the incidents featured in this report were simply due to losing sight of the model by flying too far away, across the sun, into cloud, haze, mist, etc., or the pilot being distracted.

• A significant proportion of the incidents were caused by the pilot choosing to fly in sub-optimal conditions, something that may be a consequence of the persistent poor weather conditions, which were prevalent for an extended period early in the year.

• Together with trying to fly a small lightweight model in a strong wind, two thirds of all incidents directly involved the pilot’s choice of actions either before or the during flight, hence these incidents are preventable.

• It is disappointing to see that, once again, at least one of the incidents involved an inappropriate location (close to housing) for the flight.

• Over this period, there was no significant correlation of incidents with generic model type.

Model Recovery

• 50% of the incidents in this report involved models that have not been recovered. Thankfully, this represents a decrease compared to previous reports. This is important, as models that aren’t recovered cause concerns with the AAIB, primarily as there is no information regarding any potential injury to uninvolved individuals and or damage to property.

• In most cases, not recovering the model also means that the cause of the incident may never be known.

• Because of the importance of recovering the model, the reporting system has been modified and now gives members the option to return to their submission, to update the record if the model has been found at a later date.

• We should take every opportunity to encourage members to fit some form of tracking device to their aircraft to aid recovery in the event of a fly-away.

Recommendations

• We should continue to encourage members to fully report incidents, this way more data and trends can be analysed.

 

• We should encourage members to consider whether the environmental conditions are suitable, before they commit to flight, and what actions they will take if something should go wrong.

• To this end, clubs should actively encourage the use of SWEETS (and SMART) and the other BMFA pre-flight and pre-take-off checks as a routine.

• We should encourage pilots to be mindful about flying at the limits of visibility, and also of the need to undergo regular eyesight tests. Uncontrolled flight out of sight presents a serious risk of injury or damage to “non-involved” third parties.

 

• It may be counter-intuitive, but it is far better to take action to bring the model down nearby, than risk a fly away.

• When flying with similar models, keep a significant distance apart, and never take your eyes off your model.

• Encourage club members to support one another as informal observers and be prepared to alert pilots of problems and promptly step in with support.

• If flying alone, pay extra attention to maintaining visual contact.

• Encourage knowledge of fail-safes and how to set them, and regularly check their operation before flying sessions.

• Encourage members to fit location finders or other aids to help recover lost models and or perhaps make use of onboard GPS telemetry.

D R McClure

SRC Chairman

14^th April 2026