- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 55
- Reaction score
- 2
UK remote pilots might want to familiarise themselves with the following document released yesterday by the Civil Aviation Authority - http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/InformationNotice2014081.pdf
Whilst some of the document refers to CAA permissions the document as a whole is a useful summary on the restrictions and risk mitigation strategies one should adopt. Section 7 is a reminder that the ANO (CAP 393) is based around Criminal Law and the CAA will enforce it:
7 Regulatory Enforcement
7.1 The CAA takes breaches of aviation seriously and will seek to prosecute in cases where
dangerous and illegal flying has taken place. The first such prosecution in the UK took place in
April 2014 when an individual was convicted of two offences including flying a small
unmanned surveillance aircraft within 50 metres of a structure (bridge with traffic) (Article 167
of the Air Navigation Order 2009). The individual was fined £800 at a District Magistrate Court,
plus costs of £3,500.
7.2 This conviction followed the case of a photographer accepting a caution for using a SUA for
commercial gain without permission. The photographer had sold footage from his quadcopter
to media organisations.
Whilst some of the document refers to CAA permissions the document as a whole is a useful summary on the restrictions and risk mitigation strategies one should adopt. Section 7 is a reminder that the ANO (CAP 393) is based around Criminal Law and the CAA will enforce it:
7 Regulatory Enforcement
7.1 The CAA takes breaches of aviation seriously and will seek to prosecute in cases where
dangerous and illegal flying has taken place. The first such prosecution in the UK took place in
April 2014 when an individual was convicted of two offences including flying a small
unmanned surveillance aircraft within 50 metres of a structure (bridge with traffic) (Article 167
of the Air Navigation Order 2009). The individual was fined £800 at a District Magistrate Court,
plus costs of £3,500.
7.2 This conviction followed the case of a photographer accepting a caution for using a SUA for
commercial gain without permission. The photographer had sold footage from his quadcopter
to media organisations.