New UK CAA Information Notice

[IrishSights]

Just got an email this morning from the CAA containing a new Info Notice. It can be got from here http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?c ... il&id=6511

I cant see much change from previous notices that affects the class Phantoms fall into.

 

[The Editor]

I love the way the document jumps around between metric and imperial measurements randomly 'splattered' over the pages!

Typical government - can't produce a consistent document :roll:

 

[IrishSights]

Para 5.1.2 I think has been added to give guidance in flying near airports. Probably prompted by the recent Heathrow incident. We are exempt ( by weight category) from rules about flying in A, C, D and E but there is still a requirement to fly safely and that we should inform the ATC if wanting to fly in these airspace classes.

Also 6.1.3 is interesting " The standard CAA permission for SUA/SUSA in the 7 kg or less category gives an automatic exemption that allows flight within congested areas to within 50 metres of persons, structures etc. (or within 30 metres if the persons are under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft). This category cannot fly within 150 metres of open-air assemblies of 1,000 people or more."

I previously thought for SUSA i.e with camera, was limited to 150m not 50m. This is good news for me as I can now take aerials of archaeological sites that previously I was prohibited from. This para does seem to be contrary to the table presented earlir in the doc.

 

[Hughie]

Also 6.1.3 is interesting " The standard CAA permission for SUA/SUSA in the 7 kg or less category gives an automatic exemption that allows flight within congested areas to within 50 metres of persons, structures etc. (or within 30 metres if the persons are under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft). This category cannot fly within 150 metres of open-air assemblies of 1,000 people or more."

Thanks for posting.
I dont think anything has changed. The above refers to if you have applied for CAA permission to be exempt from the normal rules.

 

[IrishSights]

Thanks Hughie, for the context.

 

[Hughie]

However I do find this confusing regarding height limits.

It seems there is a 400' ceiling if

UAV is > 7kg
or
UAV is doing aerial "work" (i.e. for profit)
or
UAV is in a congested area.

None of those apply to me with my P2 and GoPro.
I thought there was a 400' limit regardless for UAVs without special permission.

What am I missing ?

EDIT : Rereading the ANO, there is no such limit that I can see for UAVs outside the three cases above. The only limitation is that you have to be able to see it, unaided.

 

[wildpalms]

Units is aviation have always been mixed regardless of nation. We use metric but all altitudes are given in feet. Same the world over for altitudes.

That documents makes no mention of FPV which does have an altitude limit (1000'). FPV operates under an annual exemption from one part of one rule by adding a load of conditions.

I've not flown my Phantom but my smaller RC fixed wing models can be hard to spot at 400'.

The catch all rules that often get overlooked is that about being able to safely make the flight and the reckless or negligent endangerment of people or property. This is the one that stops you flying at the end of an active runway

 

[The Editor]

......None of those apply to me with my P2 and GoPro.
I thought there was a 400' limit regardless for UAVs without special permission.

What am I missing ?

EDIT : Rereading the ANO, there is no such limit that I can see for UAVs outside the three cases above. The only limitation is that you have to be able to see it, unaided.

I believe you are correct! The ceiling for FPV flight is 1,000 feet (increased in April of this year - I do not believe this has changed between April and now) provided the craft can still be seen unaided for avoidance purposes.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4 No. 1011 Small Unmanned Aircraft.pdf

 

[spudmachine]

Just for my clarification, I have a Vision +, which is obviously in the 7kg or less category.

So as long as I fly at >50m, and below 400 feet over a congested area, and I judge that it's safe to fly then I should be compliant, is that correct?

I'd assumed that I can't fly over houses at all (ie. a congested area).

 

[IrishSights]

Just for my clarification, I have a Vision +, which is obviously in the 7kg or less category.

So as long as I fly at >50m, and below 400 feet over a congested area, and I judge that it's safe to fly then I should be compliant, is that correct?

I'd assumed that I can't fly over houses at all (ie. a congested area).

Only if you have specific permission from the CAA to do so. otherwise its outside of 150m

 

[wildpalms]

Exactly as IrishSights says.

The Vision+ is classed as a Small Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft and Article 167 Paragraph 2 states that you cannot fly over or within 150m of a congested area. This doesn't mean that you can fly over a congested area if above 150m in altitude either.

A ‘Congested Area’ is defined in Article 255 of the Air Navigation Order (ANO) 2009. The
definition states that a ‘Congested Area’ means any area in relation to a city, town or
settlement which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational
purposes.

This rules out most public parks, although the majority of them already have local byelaws forbidding model aircraft.

Ignoring any other violations this pretty much rules out 99% of the Phantom YouTube videos shot in the UK.

 

[The Editor]

And exactly how on earth is the CAA going to police this - especially after next Thursday when there will be an explosion in the number of UAV's/SUAV's being shot skyward.

I wouldn't mind betting that 98% of the 'Xmas Pressie' drones will be flown in violation of the ANO.

So.... Is the current circus clowns, sorry I mean government going to suddenly give the CAA a few million quid to have an army of sphincter police patrolling up and down the country? - I think not.

Are local police forces going to suddenly divert their already far too stretched resources to answer a call from a member of the public saying "Eeeekkkk... there a flying thing over my house" we all know the answer to that one.... Hell assuming that they even bother to send a patrol car round to take a statement from Mrs "I don't want them flying over my garden" whoever it was flying over said garden will be long gone, packed up, home and charging their Lipo's for another onslaught of ANO breaches.

Come on guys, lets get real shall we..... Nothing is going to happen !! The only thing we will see is the odd prosecution for somebody who has an accident/injures somebody.

The rest of the noobs will carry on in blissful ignorance without even knowing what the Air Navigation Order is !!

My case in point is someone like this idiot https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQsyuNiqC5ERlqdvl5ak9jg/videos

If you care to look through his videos there has actually been comments from the CAA UK advising the jerk he could be in breach of certain regulations. He has carried on regardless and is still posting regular videos of flying in stupid places. There is even video showing his face on some of his uploads. However, have the CAA done anything.... of course not, they are too overstretched as it is worrying about passenger carrying big flying things and computer meltdowns in the air traffic control system :lol:

 

[wildpalms]

Whilst many folks will get away with it, it is fair to say it is becoming more of a lottery. I've been flying RC since I was a teenager (some 30 years ago now) and even when fatalities were involved I never heard of a prosecution although there were a number of investigations. There have been 2 prosecutions this year and I heard there were another 4 in progress.

Given the number of posts on YouTube from the CAA and the recent guidance documents they seem to be taking a very proactive approach to education. There will still be hundreds of flights over the holiday where they know nothing of the rules or even have a basic understanding of the technology and what they are doing.

I think the bigger issue will be the lack of even basic liability insurance from most of these operators. In an urban environment I can see someone getting a shock on boxing day.

 

[IrishSights]

...
Come on guys, lets get real shall we..... Nothing is going to happen !! The only thing we will see is the odd prosecution for somebody who has an accident/injures somebody.

The rest of the noobs will carry on in blissful ignorance without even knowing what the Air Navigation Order is !!
...

Still not a reason to break the law. IMO. I believe we have a duty to encourage others to obey these rules and stick to them ourselves irrespective of enforcement. Anything else is gross irresponsibility and dishonorable. So lets 'get real' and stick to the rules.

 

[Hughie]

Exactly as IrishSights says.

The Vision+ is classed as a Small Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft and Article 167 Paragraph 2 states that you cannot fly over or within 150m of a congested area. This doesn't mean that you can fly over a congested area if above 150m in altitude either.

Indeed, and in any case if a SUSA/SUA has to remain within line of sight and when above, this is said to likely be <400' (122m), so if you were 150m above a congested area you would probably be breaching the Air Navigation Order rules anyway.

 

[Hughie]

And exactly how on earth is the CAA going to police this - especially after next Thursday when there will be an explosion in the number of UAV's/SUAV's being shot skyward.

Judging whether to stick to laws based on whether you are likely to get caught or not is something only you can decide is right or not.

For me, I prefer to look behind a law and understand what its objectives are and whether they make sense to me. The ANO laws at the moment do make sense to me.

One day soon there may well be an accident or an injury.

 

[The Editor]

Firstly let me say I DO stick to the rules! - That's why I get on my high horse when people do not (like the jerk I posted in my post above).

I think the CAA regulations make for a common sense approach for hobby flying. My point is and my reason for saying 'let's get real' is simply because we all know that technology will always move faster than the glacial pace of governments/regulations and we all know that trying to police the explosion in ownership and flying of UAV's will be impossible. Even if the CAA brought an outright ban to all of them there would still be idiots like the one above flying over football matches.

CB radio was a case in point in this country - The Home office could never stop it, they simply had to 'adjust' to the overwhelming demand and legalise personal radio communications within the UK spectrum. We now have 446 radio which still does not require a license to use or operate - and nobody died !!!

I am not advocating breaking the law and I will continue to attempt to 'educate' anyone I see flying anything RC in violation of the ANO however, I am just being a realist given the huge increase in popularity recently of multirotors and the inevitable upward spiral of numbers we will see in the coming months.

Now.... don't even get me started on how the CAA can consider a flight to be perfectly safe and legal and then retroactively consider it illegal because someone got paid after the event ! :lol:

 

[spudmachine]

Thanks for the clarifications, guys. I do want to stay within the guidelines. My goal for tomorrow will be to take a nice still-photo panorama of the city, and for that purpose I can be far enough away (and over open land) to be OK.

One thing that was said above. How are we supposed to know about local by-laws? "Ignorance is no defense", but if by-laws aren't published or posted at a given location how are we supposed to know about them? I checked a couple of websites and it looks like most of the places you would think are OK to fly quadcopters are actually against the local bye-laws.

There's bound to be an explosion of quads in the air after Xmas, as somebody already said. The thing that scares me slightly is that the more flagrant breaking of laws there is, the less likely the police will be to just give a warning to somebody who may be genuinely trying to stick to the guidelines.

 

[IrishSights]

I agree about the bylaws, they should be easily and prominently displayed. Council websites would be the place to publish them. However my own town council does not have them on the web. I would have to go into the council offices and ask. It doesn't affect me personally but with the anticipated landslide of new owners I think it will have to be addressed by necessity.

I remember not that long ago getting a draft document from fpvuk.org produced by the CAA. It is a proposed to be included in the retail box of every craft that falls under the ANO. Can't post a PDF from tapatalk, ill try later.

 

[IrishSights]

...
I remember not that long ago getting a draft document from fpvuk.org produced by the CAA. It is a proposed to be included in the retail box of every craft that falls under the ANO. Can't post a PDF from tapatalk, ill try later.

Here is a link to the CAA doc they are proposing to go into retail boxes: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1995/CAP%2012 ... yrules.pdf