UK pilots: The CAA and my potential £2500 fine!!

[dake]

New rules from the CAA. http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Informatio ... 014081.pdf

So what does it mean now.

Dake.

 

[BMEWS]

The CAA should really think about defining what a congested area is.

They have! See here ----> http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1428&pageid=8165

actually, they kind of have. It's a play on words and you could legally argue that they've not defined or articulated what a city, town, settlement within their interpretations in the ANO. Whilst we have an idea of what constitutes any of the referenced the law would have to have a specific meaning where one has not been provided for us. Makes for all sorts of interesting reading

If we fly sensibly and sensitively then they will most likely have no interest in us. If we don't? Then my guess is that they will. And of course they will want to tax the hell out of us if we give them enough opportunity to do so.

Just my humble opinion

Bmews

 

[BMEWS]

New rules from the CAA. http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Informatio ... 014081.pdf

So what does it mean now.

Dake.

err they're not rules. that's an information notice. nothing more. looks official but it's purely for information. If it's not in the ANO it's not legal and even then there's always a possibility it may not be lawful.

Just sayin

Bmews

 

[BMEWS]

Very useful information.

Would be interesting to have more detailed clarification from the CAA about Quadcopters and their like.

Now with devices like the Phantom taking photos/videos is perhaps an even greater reason for flying them.

There's CAP393 Part 22 Sections 166 & 167. They're pretty specific. If you then read the rest of the document you'll get a pretty clear picture of where they'd prefer you fly.

hope this helps

Bmews

 

[BMEWS]

Do all these rules apply to "real" helicopters with a "real" photographer taking pictures out the window?

If not, why not? Don't the same issues about invasion of privacy, etc. apply?

Next you'll have to get a license to take a picture of the London Eye from your Boeing 747 approaching Heathrow.

Bloody ridiculous.

err actually the ano applies to everyone. it's not about the imagery it's primarily about safety with a hunk of taxation thrown in for good measure

bmews

 

[dake]

I live near Birmingham airport, I fly my quad on a large field with no camera and just 10 feet above the ground,
and the field is about 2.4 miles as the crow flies.

I have seen some info from DJI Innovations on zones
Am i breaking the law or the CAA in flying that close to a airport, I just need to know if I am legal in doing this.

Cheers.

 

[DeweyAXD]

I live near Birmingham airport, I fly my quad on a large field with no camera and just 10 feet above the ground,
and the field is about 2.4 miles as the crow flies.

I have seen some info from DJI Innovations on zones
Am i breaking the law or the CAA in flying that close to a airport, I just need to know if I am legal in doing this.

Cheers.

If you are 2.4 miles from Birmingham international then you do need to be pretty careful. If you are flying 10 feet or 100 feet you are still technically in controlled/restricted air space.

To be safe you'd need to phone ATC at Birmingham and explain your situation, your location and see what they say. I did this with a local RAF base. They were really nice about it and appreciated that I was at least thinking about it. Basically they said if I was flying above 300 feet within a certain radius of their runway I should let them know so they could report me as 'possible traffic' to aircraft. That was not an international airport though.

The CAA rules state you need permission to fly anything within a 5 mile radius of any controlled air space so if you make the call and they say 'yeah whatever stop bothering us' then its at least on record that you did the responsible thing and asked. Thats not to say you then stick it to 400 feet dodging 737's of course :lol:

Personally I'd try and find a place a little further out.... it will allow you to enjoy the Phantom more with a bit more height and remove the risk. At the distance you will know if you are on a flight path of a runway (cause if a plane is over your head at 2.4 miles and isn't aimed at a runway then they are in big trouble!).

 

[dkatz42]

At the distance you will know if you are on a flight path of a runway (cause if a plane is over your head at 2.4 miles and isn't aimed at a runway then they are in big trouble!).

Or they're on downwind or base on a visual approach, even airliners.

There really is no strongly defined concept of a "flight path of a runway", which is why the tower airspace to the ground around even small airports is 4 miles in radius (at least in the US). They may occasionally "turn around the airport"--the entire San Francisco Bay area, with three major airports, a military airfield, and four other towered airports over a span of about 40 miles, reverses direction during winter storms but otherwise generally always operates in the same direction, so if you don't see an airplane overhead all summer long, it doesn't mean that there won't be one there in January.

When there are fewer airports in an area, the approach directions tend to be more varied, since it requires little or no coordination with other airports. At my home airport in the middle of nowhere there is lots of bizjet traffic that arrives from any direction and may land on any of three runways (and two possible directions on each) based on the winds and the preferences of the pilots.

You just can't predict where they're going to be.

 

[timelapse]

If you are 2.4 miles from Birmingham international then you do need to be pretty careful. If you are flying 10 feet or 100 feet you are still technically in controlled/restricted air space.

Are you sure this is a problem? Article 166 says:

(4) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft which has a mass of more than 7kg
excluding its fuel but including any articles or equipment installed in or attached to the
aircraft at the commencement of its flight, must not fly the aircraft:
...
(b) within an aerodrome traffic zone during the notified hours of watch of the air
traffic control unit (if any) at that aerodrome unless the permission of any such
air traffic control unit has been obtained

So why would this be a problem with a Phantom? Seems to me you can carry on being sensible... doesn't seem that you would need permission?

Please could I get your opinions? I'm just about to take delivery of my first Phantom and intend to fly it inside an ATZ preferably without gaining permission first as per the rules above that suggest you don't need to.

PS: Don't worry - I'm an air traffic controller so know what's safe and what's not, but just want to make sure I don't fall foul of any laws.

TL

 

[VictorCordray]

Learning how to fly rc airplanes is a totally exhilarating experience, but it needs to be taken seriously. So, If you're thinking about learning how to fly rc airplanes then you've certainly found the right place.

 

[CameraOnFilms]

Hey All,

Recently joined the Phantom 2 owner ranks. Loving it so far and just using/practicing for personal use. It was kindly pointed out to me that I may have been breaking some regulations and I quickly swatted up on what is required. Since then been flying by the book and adhering to 166 and 167 as necessary. My aim is to get qualified at some point in near future so that we can then obtain CAA permission and begin conducting aerial work.

My question in relating to this post is as follows:

What does aerial work constitute exactly? I appreciate the definition is clear about gaining valuable consideration for your work but some of our fellow wedding film makers have been using drones in their work without licence or permission and claiming that they didn't need to because they were not being paid for it and that there is a grey area here. Now, they were being paid to make a film for the couple of their wedding but they claimed that the couple had not paid specifically for drone work but they were readily adding the footage to their films. Where does the CAA stand on this? My thoughts are that although not directly selling the footage one is essentially benefiting from the use of the footage (valuable consideration) in that the film produced would be deemed as superior to others without similar footage.

Interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[Meta4]

They are only fooling themselves. The CAA isn't that dumb.
The internet is great for multiplying stupidity like that.

 

[BMEWS]

Hey All,

Recently joined the Phantom 2 owner ranks. Loving it so far and just using/practicing for personal use. It was kindly pointed out to me that I may have been breaking some regulations and I quickly swatted up on what is required. Since then been flying by the book and adhering to 166 and 167 as necessary. My aim is to get qualified at some point in near future so that we can then obtain CAA permission and begin conducting aerial work.

My question in relating to this post is as follows:

What does aerial work constitute exactly? I appreciate the definition is clear about gaining valuable consideration for your work but some of our fellow wedding film makers have been using drones in their work without licence or permission and claiming that they didn't need to because they were not being paid for it and that there is a grey area here. Now, they were being paid to make a film for the couple of their wedding but they claimed that the couple had not paid specifically for drone work but they were readily adding the footage to their films. Where does the CAA stand on this? My thoughts are that although not directly selling the footage one is essentially benefiting from the use of the footage (valuable consideration) in that the film produced would be deemed as superior to others without similar footage.

Interested to hear your thoughts.

"Valuable Consideration" has been defined and quoted earlier within this very thread. The bottom line is, if you earn anything from your flight and you don't have a permission for aerial work (PFAW) then you may be liable to prosecution. That's the risk part. so, take some video, build a website out of it and get paid for the web development work? then the theory would say you've gained from it. The proving of it may be difficult but that's the risk. They (the CAA) would HAVE to prove that you've gained from the flight. There's a couple of thoughts behind it. If millions of folks all started charging then the system would just break (the CAA have not the manpower or appetite to chase everyone. They would have to prove you took the imagery (whoever you actually is). So, if you obtained the footage and you didn't fly the drone? Then the burden of proof would be that the pilot gained (which they (in this case) didn't). Can you see just how convoluted this can/will get?

What if, you obtained your footage from a stock site? You pay someone for their flying. Should YOU? be penalised??

licencing is just taxation. nothing more. If you fly in an unsafe manner, there are a myriad of other rules to chase you with. One's that make sense.

just the humble opinion of an aged git

Bmews

 

[RPAS]

Hello.
Please excuse this post if it appears vague, however I wish to ensure that I do not breech the terms and conditions of forum use.

I am a Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) Specialist for National Air Traffic Services (NATS). Most of you may be aware that NATS is responsible for the safe and efficient provision of Air Traffic Control throughout the UK, and is regarded by many as world leaders within this domain.

NATS is embracing the rapidly growing 'domain' of RPAS operations, and we are keen to progress towards the safe integration of operations with other airspace users. Much of the context within this thread is around regulatory confusion, and as a certified RPAS operator I can sympathise.

NATS is therefore pleased to announce the launch of our CAA approved RPAS course which will be delivered in Scotland and England. We equip independent operators and organisations with the required knowledge, and examine flight capabilities expected to obtain 'CAA Permissions/Exemptions for Aerial Work'.

It would be unfair for me to stipulate more detail within this thread. However as this forum, its administrators and all aviation professionals will be keen to work together and ensure compliance and awareness, I encourage you to contact us at, [email protected] , if the above course may be of interest to you.

It is essential that as a community we maintain a stringent and professional approach to support growth. May I take this opportunity to commend all those that participate and view these threads to ensure a uniform step forward.

Kind regards

William Brown

 

[Fyod]

Probably the most sensible drone "regulation" in the world:

EASA Proposal to create common rules for operating drones in Europe
http://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/205933-01-EASA_Summary of the ANPA.pdf

Current aviation regula tions (Regulation (EC) No 216/2008) require that drones (also called ‘unmanned aircraft’) above 150kg are regulated in a similar way to other aircraft (manned aircraft). Those below that weight are to be regulated by each Member State of EASA as they see appropriate. However as the use of drones has significantly grown in recent years, Member States had to react quickly, potentially leading to a fragmented market. In addition, drone weight is not the only criterion to use.

Proposal 1:
It is proposed to regulate commercial and non‑commercial operations as the same drone might be used for both commercial and non‑commercial activities
Note: this means that there is no difference between these two types of flight and rules should apply equally

OPEN CATEGORY
‘Open’ category (low risk): In this category safety is ensured through a minimum set of rules, operational limitations, industry standards, and the requirement to have certain functionalities. Enforcement is done mainly by the police. For this reason, the proposals below aim to describe a set of limitations for operating drones without presenting a regulatory burden or restricting innovative uses, but at the same time ensuring safety for all third parties (individuals and property). For example, ‘Open’ category operation requires constant visual contact with the drone, weight of less than 25 kg, flying the drone below 150 meters high and the concept of geo‑fencing.

Proposal 14:
Create three subcategories in the ‘open’ category:
— CAT A0: ‘Toys’ and ‘mini drones’ < 1 kg
— CAT A1: ‘Very small drones’ < 4 kg
— CAT A2: ‘Small drones’ < 25 kg

http://easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/A-NPA 2015-10.pdf

 

[hexhome]

Just a note to add that those weights do include batteries.

 

[Skylark]

I really do hope I am not flamed for this suggestion. Given we are all ambassadors for our hobby and the onus is on us to fly responsibly and within the rules and regulations currently in force, would it not be wise to ask our Admin to consider deleting posts which are from the "look how far and l and look how high" brigade. I realise of course it is always interesting to read this stuff but they simply give oxygen to the anti-drone naysayers in the general public as well as encouraging draconian regulation which will ultimately throttle or even destroy our hobby.

I know this sounds like censorship but if those who publicise their illegal exploits continue on these forums without intervention from the moderator, then it will ultimately be to the detriment of everyone. (Seeking shelter in an abandoned nuclear shelter....lol)

 

[Fyod]

Imo, that's each individual's responsibility. People post speeding in cars too.

 

[Ian Stark]

I hope you won't object to another 'is this legal' question . . .

I am not a commercial operator, although I am considering becoming certified as I am a professional videographer and aerial work could be another useful string to my bow (albeit only occasionally used in my specific field of business to business video production). The costs and admin effort might outweigh the benefits, though, and I may well be better off hiring a pro as needed. So, for the time being I am an amateur enthusiast. Now, my question:

As a pure amateur, I recently shot about 60 seconds of footage of a steam locomotive from a safe distance and height, on private property with the quadcopter position and orientation locked, i.e. fully compliant to the best of my knowledge.

If at some point in the future I was to make a documentary about steam locomotives and included some of this footage, and I was to sell it as a DVD, would this constitute a breach of regulations? It is highly unlikely I would actually make any profit from sales, although clearly there would be revenue. Case in point - a few years ago I made a documentary about an RAF aerobatics team from the 1950s, The Black Arrows. I actually originally funded it myself as a personal project, although I was so pleased with it I produced it as a DVD and sold it online. It actually sold quite well (and was described in a major aviation mag as 'the best aviation DVD of 2012'!) but I can easily demonstrate that the costs FAR outweighed the sales revenue . I have no doubt this would also be the (provable) case if I were to produce a film about steam locomotives (although then the question of what would happen if the DVD was a runaway success comes into play, however unlikely that event).

Now, if it's a clear cut situation that there would be a breach of regulations (and I suspect this is the case) then I simply wouldn't use the footage - but that would be a shame! I guess my question is around whether 'gaining valuable consideration' means 'making a profit' or whether it relates to any financial transactions resulting from use of the footage.

In a related vein, if I drive my car to the middle of a field then shoot some footage of it using my quadcopter and at a later date decide to sell the car online and use footage or stills from that aerial session, is that a breach? What if I shoot the footage specifically for the purpose of selling my own car?

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts - to me they seem like grey areas that would be difficult to prove, but I'm not looking for loopholes to exploit, just clarification - if any is possible!

 

[Meta4]

As a pure amateur, I recently shot about 60 seconds of footage of a steam locomotive from a safe distance and height.....

If at some point in the future I was to make a documentary about steam locomotives and included some of this footage, and I was to sell it as a DVD, would this constitute a breach of regulations?

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts - to me they seem like grey areas that would be difficult to prove, but I'm not looking for loopholes to exploit, just clarification - if any is possible!

This hypothetical scenario highlights the stupidity of the rules that apply to commercial use.
It is quite legal to fly and photograph without a licence if you comply with safety rules ... unless you sell the photos.

So if you fly and photograph quite legally and 6 months or a year later, sell the images, what's the crime?
That you flew illegally? No - at the time of the flight, you were completely legal.
That you sold some photos? - When did that become a crime and when did it become a concern of civil aviation safety authorities to determine who can and who cannot sell photos?

That a legal flight can become illegal at some time in the future is a ridiculous concept.
It has absolutely nothing to do with aviation safety and everything to do with an unreasonable restriction of trade.