CAA "Within" Is Over Without ?

[Hughie]

Under CAA rules, (assuming the area is a not one where the 150m rule applies), if there is an object you cannot fly within 50m of, does that mean that you can still overfly it without CAA permission as long as you are more than 50m above it ?

"The person in charge of a SUSA must have permission from the CAA to fly within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft"

"Within" to me implies that you cannot overfly, but, the 150m rules states "over or within". Which is explicitly stating for 150m overfly is not allowed. The 50m rule does not state no flying "over", does that mean it is allowed.

How are you interpreting these woolly rules ?

 

[p fandango]

i understand its the same as the 150metre & not over or within

 

[Hughie]

i understand its the same as the 150metre & not over or within

Although the language is confusing. If Within also means Over, why use Over at all in relation to the 150m rules. The 50m rule just states Within, and not Over.

I fly in a quiet park which has a rugby posts. I make sure I dont take off or land or fly within 50m horizontally of them, but when I am up at 100m, to fly around them at that height seems mad.

 

[IrishSights]

Re: CAA "Within" Is Over Without ?

Been looking at this myself recently. Like so many of these terms they can be a bit ambiguous. I have come to the conclusion that 'within' means 'coming no closer than'. That would be from no matter what vantage angle. I think it would have been specificlly stated if there was an overhead exclusion.

I know in congested areas its different but shows their thinking. For those with PFAW flying overhead of persons and vehicles is not allowed...IN 2014/190 states " 6.1.4 In any circumstances or weight category, it should be noted that flights directly overhead persons and vehicles will not be allowed at any height in a congested area unless they are under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft"

Another point would be if you consider what a structure is. In rural and remote areas where I do most of my flying there are nearly always structure around, farm buildings, tractors, cars on country roads, and the like. Its pretty hard to avoid flying over such structures at some point. In having a few email conversations with the CAA, they seem to be trying to get across that sensibility should be emphasised and whether or not the flight can be safely undertaken - their catch all. So if you were loitering over a structure, vessel, vehicle or person at any height I think they would consider this as unsafe.

Good discussion topic, Hughie.

 

[jason]

i understand its the same as the 150metre & not over or within

Although the language is confusing. If Within also means Over, why use Over at all in relation to the 150m rules. The 50m rule just states Within, and not Over.

I fly in a quiet park which has a rugby posts. I make sure I dont take off or land or fly within 50m horizontally of them, but when I am up at 100m, to fly around them at that height seems mad.

You might just need a barrister to help with the legal mumbo jumbo of that question. :?

 

[Hughie]

Re: CAA

Been looking at this myself recently. Like so many of these terms they can be a bit ambiguous. I have come to the conclusion that 'within' means 'coming no closer than'. That would be from no matter what vantage angle. I think it would have been specificlly stated if there was an overhead exclusion.

This is my thinking too - but in trying to simplify the rules, I think they have made them pretty muddled.

 

[Hughie]

i understand its the same as the 150metre & not over or within

Although the language is confusing. If Within also means Over, why use Over at all in relation to the 150m rules. The 50m rule just states Within, and not Over.

I fly in a quiet park which has a rugby posts. I make sure I dont take off or land or fly within 50m horizontally of them, but when I am up at 100m, to fly around them at that height seems mad.

You might just need a barrister to help with the legal mumbo jumbo of that question. :?

And this is exactly my point. In order to follow laws, one first need to be able to understand them.

 

[IrishSights]

Re: CAA "Within" Is Over Without ?

Been looking at this myself recently. Like so many of these terms they can be a bit ambiguous. I have come to the conclusion that 'within' means 'coming no closer than'. That would be from no matter what vantage angle. I think it would have been specificlly stated if there was an overhead exclusion.

This is my thinking too - but in trying to simplify the rules, I think they have made them pretty muddled.

All the better to eat you with! lol

 

[jason]

Re: CAA

Been looking at this myself recently. Like so many of these terms they can be a bit ambiguous. I have come to the conclusion that 'within' means 'coming no closer than'. That would be from no matter what vantage angle. I think it would have been specificlly stated if there was an overhead exclusion.

This is my thinking too - but in trying to simplify the rules, I think they have made them pretty muddled.

All the better to eat you with! lol

Do humans taste like chicken? :lol:

 

[Hughie]

OK so, "not within 50m", does mean that you just have stay 50m away, even if you are 50m above an object, you are still 50m away. That is what a reasonable interpretation of Article 167 suggests. Fine. All sorted.

Until I noticed this little parethesised nuance

.....SUA/SUSA of 7kg or less, are able to fly over or within 150 m of any congested area, however all of the other restrictions continue to apply (no overflight or within 50 m from persons etc). ....

From Para 3.2 of http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Informatio ... 014115.pdf

Which confuses matters. Why are they mentioning "overflight" here in regards to the 50m rule, when they dont say that in ANO Article 167.

Blimey. :?

 

[jason]

Wonder what medication the author was on when articles 3.1 and 3.2 were written. But article 3.2 rules regarding crafts under 7kg had to be written after he took the second medication. :lol:

What happens after you take the camera off?

 

[IrishSights]

Re: CAA "Within" Is Over Without ?

OK so, "not within 50m", does mean that you just have stay 50m away, even if you are 50m above an object, you are still 50m away. That is what a reasonable interpretation of Article 167 suggests. Fine. All sorted.

Until I noticed this little parethesised nuance

.....SUA/SUSA of 7kg or less, are able to fly over or within 150 m of any congested area, however all of the other restrictions continue to apply (no overflight or within 50 m from persons etc). ....

From Para 3.2 of http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Informatio ... 014115.pdf

Which confuses matters. Why are they mentioning "overflight" here in regards to the 50m rule, when they dont say that in ANO Article 167.

Blimey. :?

Hughie, I thought the parentheses bit was just reinforcing our conlusion rather than confusing it. Another thing I was reminded of, is that the Information Notices are important documents in trying to help operators understand the application of the ANO, however they are not the law, the ANO is. They are an attempt to see through the mud - doesn't always work fully though!

Just get the vessel, structure, vehicle or persons under your control then you can fly as close as you want, and with a PFAW even in congested areas, solves the problem

 

[J.James]

Well being this is a law written by bureaucrat it almost dont really matter what any ones understanding of the wording of the law means being they can and will interpret it to mean any dam thing they feel like as long as they can use what ever interpretation they come up with to make some one guilty of violating the law or rules. If they want to say you cant fly with in so much distance of ANY object. They mean you can really fly it any were being its not possible to even take off or land with out being near some sort of object. esp if they want to say the ground is an object. or any other object that is near by. So if you are even standing within 150m of it when taking off of landing with the controller in your hand thats an object. After all this is govement officals we are talking about here and rational logical thinking is not a trait they are known for.

 

[IrishSights]

Re: CAA "Within" Is Over Without ?

Well being this is a law written by bureaucrat it almost dont really matter what any ones understanding of the wording of the law means being they can and will interpret it to mean any dam thing they feel like as long as they can use what ever interpretation they come up with to make some one guilty of violating the law or rules. If they want to say you cant fly with in so much distance of ANY object. They mean you can really fly it any were being its not possible to even take off or land with out being near some sort of object. esp if they want to say the ground is an object. or any other object that is near by. So if you are even standing within 150m of it when taking off of landing with the controller in your hand thats an object. After all this is govement officals we are talking about here and rational logical thinking is not a trait they are known for.

I think you missed the point.

 

[SteveMann]

Re: CAA

Do humans taste like chicken? :lol:

Does anyone remember the episode named "To Serve Man"?
What was the series?

 

[dirkclod]

Re: CAA

Do humans taste like chicken? :lol:

Does anyone remember the episode named "To Serve Man"?
What was the series?

 

[jason]

Re: CAA

Do humans taste like chicken? :lol:

Does anyone remember the episode named "To Serve Man"?
What was the series?

I thought for sure I would go unnoticed with that comment. :lol: Well we humans aren't finger licken good. :lol:

 

[Hughie]

Re: CAA

OK so, "not within 50m", does mean that you just have stay 50m away, even if you are 50m above an object, you are still 50m away. That is what a reasonable interpretation of Article 167 suggests. Fine. All sorted.

Until I noticed this little parethesised nuance

.....SUA/SUSA of 7kg or less, are able to fly over or within 150 m of any congested area, however all of the other restrictions continue to apply (no overflight or within 50 m from persons etc). ....

From Para 3.2 of http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/Informatio ... 014115.pdf

Which confuses matters. Why are they mentioning "overflight" here in regards to the 50m rule, when they dont say that in ANO Article 167.

Blimey. :?

Thank you for your comments IrishSights.

Hughie, I thought the parentheses bit was just reinforcing our conlusion rather than confusing it. Another thing I was reminded of, is that the Information Notices are important documents in trying to help operators understand the application of the ANO, however they are not the law, the ANO is. They are an attempt to see through the mud - doesn't always work fully though!

As it is written, to me this is a direct contradiction of the 50m rule in Article 167. My interpretation of 167 (assuming outside a congested area) is that you can overfly as long as you are at least 50m above. This Information Notice is saying you cannot overfly at any height. I do wonder whether any of the authors read these back after they are written.

Just get the vessel, structure, vehicle or persons under your control then you can fly as close as you want,

very true, though not necessarily possible in all cases.

and with a PFAW even in congested areas, solves the problem

That is a fair point, but due to other commitments, one I will not be able to follow up at this time.