UK Drone Law

[IrishSights]

It still strikes as odd that most of these rules as to how close you can fly to an area is because of privacy rather than safety. And that most flights you see posted on Youtube etc are at least bending the rules somewhat. I would hope that eventually there would be more flexible rules when using a multirotor with camera fitted. Even if that involves doing some sort of test to qualify.

bill

I dont think the rules will change much for enthusiasts and certification openings do exist at a higher level, BNUC-S etc. If you have completed this course and subsequently applied for permission for aerial work it is possible to further request permission to fly in congested areas - still with some limiations. But this is all pretty expensive for enthusiasts, probably not much change out of £3000 in the first year. Subsequent years resassement and CAA fees are really not that expensive. Insurance (commercial level) is not too bad either, around £500-£600 a year. I got a friend who has been through all this, hence just a little insight. I'm actually starting my process in the Spring.

 

[Hughie]

It still strikes as odd that most of these rules as to how close you can fly to an area is because of privacy rather than safety. And that most flights you see posted on Youtube etc are at least bending the rules somewhat. I would hope that eventually there would be more flexible rules when using a multirotor with camera fitted. Even if that involves doing some sort of test to qualify.

bill

I find this odd too. I am very happy with the rules for SUSAs, but personally would use those margins for safety first and foremost (even though as you say they are there for privacy). I think the same 150m distance rules should apply for SUAs. I think one has to be mindful of the fact that quad could drop out of the sky at any moment.

... until we can rely on something like this at least
http://techcrunch.com/2014/03/05/quadco ... fe-system/

 

[noiseboy72]

I agree that a blanket 50M only rule would work for non-commercial SUSAs under 7KGs and remove the 150M restriction. This keeps them a safe distance away from people and property but would not prohibit city dwellers from finding a bit of unused ground to fly their birds in safety.

 

[taxino8]

These rules are designed to protect the public - both in terms of direct physical harm and also from the perceived threat of intrusion of privacy.

I really don't see where the grey areas and need for interpretation comes into it. You should not fly in built up areas - even in green spaces and you should keep away from people and isolated buildings when flying in rural areas. People are trying to suggest loopholes and grey areas so that they can continue to fly unlawfully, but eventually this will come back to bite them.

I do totally understand that just filming fields is boring and objects and people much more interesting and challenging, but a line has to be drawn somewhere. We are not flying toys, but serious recreational aircraft and the CAA is keen to remind us about our responsibilities. I would draw parallels with the problems around unlicensed and kids motor cycles and mini-quads. So often these are bought by people with no land to use them on, leading to illegal use on private land and even public parks. Don't buy a quadcopter unless you have access to a suitable flying area.

Sorry, I know it sounds harsh, but I really am concerned that the illegal actions of a few could wreck it for the many. The guy that flies over UK football stadia and fun fairs gets amazing shots and huge YouTube numbers, but he is putting people at risk and eventually someone will get seriously hurt.

For all of this, I would like to see a "park flyer" category for mini-quads under 300g and fitted with a basic camera that cannot be operated from the ground. These are to all intents and purposes toys and should be allowed to be flown in back gardens and parklands, as the risk of harm is so much lower.

Well said, I totally agree.

 

[Hughie]

I agree that a blanket 50M only rule would work for non-commercial SUSAs under 7KGs and remove the 150M restriction. This keeps them a safe distance away from people and property but would not prohibit city dwellers from finding a bit of unused ground to fly their birds in safety.

Just to be really clear .. I am no lawyer, although I note the following :

3.4 The provision of images or other data solely for the use of controlling or monitoring the aircraft is not considered to be applicable to the meaning of 'Surveillance or Data Acquisition' covered at ANO 2009 Article 167 for SUSA.

from
Section 3 Chapter 1 Page 2 of http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP722.pdf (Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK
Airspace – Guidance)

This suggests to me that a small unmanned aircraft which is FPV equiped is NOT a SUSA providing the data stream is not being used for anything other than FPV. If it is not a SUSA then it is not bound by the 150m SUSA rules. However, I expect that if the data is being recorded by the aircraft or the ground station, it is operating in surveillance mode and is therefore a SUSA.

I think that all non commercial forms of SUA, SUSA, and FPV SUA should be bound by the 150m rule. I am not sure this exception above is helping to keep people safe.

 

[noiseboy72]

You are correct as the law stands. A camera purely for FPV does not come within the 150M restriction.

My suggestion is that this restriction also be lifted for Phantom sized machines, as with a GoPro or Vision+ type camera, the level of detail @ 50M is very low indeed. Reading number plates or personally identifying a person would be quite tricky, even using post production zooming on a 4K stream.

I would not object to a drone flying more than 50M of my home and would not consider it an intrusion of my privacy, so I put the suggestion out there for debate.

 

[Hughie]

You are correct as the law stands. A camera purely for FPV does not come within the 150M restriction.

My suggestion is that this restriction also be lifted for Phantom sized machines, as with a GoPro or Vision+ type camera, the level of detail @ 50M is very low indeed. Reading number plates or personally identifying a person would be quite tricky, even using post production zooming on a 4K stream.

I would not object to a drone flying more than 50M of my home and would not consider it an intrusion of my privacy, so I put the suggestion out there for debate.

Fair point. My main concern is that all three classes are not treated the same and I think they should be. However I dont think a 50m margin on the ground gives that much scope for safety if a quad with lateral inertia drops out of the sky from 400'.

 

[noiseboy72]

Of course, the CAA's catch all is that we are required to ensure that each and every flight is safe and all risks controlled. Whatever the other parts of the rules might say, this is the first hurdle to overcome.

In the event of an accident, this is the first thing you will need to demonstrate. It might well be that we need to start to use pre-flight check lists, check wind speed and have VFR maps to show that we understand the existing air users in the area. If you drive a commercial vehicle, it's much the same, with drivers needing to complete vehicle checks at the start of each shift.

Personally, I hope not and that the government continue with its policy of deregulation, not making things harder for us all!

 

[sergekouper]

For those who want to know what these rules are, please refer to the UK CAA articles 137, 138, 166, 167, 255, of CAP393, and CAP 722.