Welcome to PhantomPilots.com

Sign up for a weekly email of the latest drone news & information

New updated CAA exemption regarding FPV

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by IrishSights, May 5, 2014.

  1. IrishSights

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Bangor, Northern Ireland, UK
    UK flyers...Sorry if this was posted before but doesn't show in a google search. This ORS4 1011 exemption supersedes the previous ORS4 1009. Dated 23rd April 2014.

    Bssiclly lifts the 400ft ceiling to 1000ft, but still the observer must maintain unaided sight of the aircraft. Pretty difficult at 1000ft! Anyway here it is...

    http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4%20No. ... rcraft.pdf
     
  2. FlyingFox

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2014
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Cheshire UK
    Cheers , I hadn't seen the revision.
     
  3. RedRyderMedia

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2014
    Messages:
    750
    Likes Received:
    31
    This is for FPV flying, so this regulation does not apply to flying without goggles. Is there another similar document for non-FPV flying? Did I just miss that?
     
  4. IrishSights

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Bangor, Northern Ireland, UK
  5. Pull_Up

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,684
    Likes Received:
    48
    Location:
    South Oxfordshire, UK
    I spoke the the chair of FPVUK (who was instrumental in negotiating the first exemption, now extended) before I bought a Vision last year and he confirmed that flying with a Vision by using a screen and not immersive goggles would not class as "FPV" for the purposes of the ANO and this exemption. So if you use a phone, tablet or monitor and don't fly the aircraft beyond unaided visual range then you don't qualify as FPV and therefore your flight is legal - no need to meet conditions within the exemption.

    Depending on conditions I can keep visual with my aircraft at 1000ft altitude. It means some days it'll be fine, others not. I find a light overcast provides the best contrast. I also wear glasses so effectively my sight is corrected to 20-20, which helps. :)
     
  6. IrishSights

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Bangor, Northern Ireland, UK
    If you are solely using FPV just to view where you are flying that is not classed as FPV for the exemption by the CAA. It doesn't matter if it is a screen or goggles. If you have a card in your camera and record then it DOES apply in full. If you are wearing goggles you do not have unaided sight of the aircraft, which is a requirement, hence the observer requirement.

    Also there are other parts of the ANO that do apply to all us Phantomers and need to be understood by all pilots if they dont want to inadvertently get on the wrong side of the law.

    Sent from my Galaxy Note 8
     
  7. IrishSights

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Bangor, Northern Ireland, UK
    The interesting thing about the latest Information Notice is that it is a little clearer about aircraft weights I.e. less than 7kg. The ORS4 1011 does not mention less than 7kg. The thing is the Exemption is law, the Information Notice is not. Clear as mud, I know!

    Sent from my Galaxy Note 8
     
  8. Pull_Up

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,684
    Likes Received:
    48
    Location:
    South Oxfordshire, UK
    Actually I disagree with you slightly. The presence of a recording device is irrelevant to the definition of "FPV", but is relevant to whether or not Article 167 of the Air Navigation Order applies to your aircraft - because if it records, it's a "surveillance" aircraft and therefore the 150m rule regarding congested areas and the 50m rule regarding structures, vehicles, etc under your control applies.

    The FPV exemption puts the same limitations on your flying if you are FPV without recording equipment as I would be flying a Vision, for example, with recording. Actually it's more restrictive because it has a lower max weight limit than Article 167. It's also interesting that the CAA have put in a written exemption that you can fly FPV up to 1000ft provided your competent observer maintains unaided visual contact. I've always said people need to concentrate more on how far away they can still see it, not being limited by (or setting a target for!) a number - there's nothing in the ANO itself for our class of aircraft that sets a max height or range - only the quality of your Mark 1 Eyeball and the prevailing conditions. :)
     
  9. IrishSights

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Bangor, Northern Ireland, UK
    Pullup: I think I saw somewhere that fpv for purpose of flight navigation alone and not 'surveillance' was not regarded as FPV by the CAA. I'll try and find where I saw that and get back. I'm currently (when day job allows) working on plain mans guide post trying to see through all this mud! For discussion obviously! Thanks.

    Sent from Samsung S4 via Tapatalk
     
  10. IrishSights

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Bangor, Northern Ireland, UK
    OK here is the bit about FPV for flight navigation and not regarded as surveillance or data Acquisition.

    CAP 722 http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP722.pdf
    Article 3.4 in Section 3 Chapter 1 page 2 refers to this...
    “The provision of image 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 Article 167 for SUSA.”

    However if the video is captured in some way and used for other purposes the CAA considers the flight to have been for data acquisition and article 167 does apply.

    Sent from my SVJ2021V1EWI using Tapatalk
     
  11. Pull_Up

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,684
    Likes Received:
    48
    Location:
    South Oxfordshire, UK
    Yes, but flying FPV of any sort (i.e. unable to maintain unaided visual contact) is illegal unless you follow the procedures in the exemption, which includes the same restrictions as for surveillance aircraft (150m rule, etc) so recording or not you are then restricted further than a non-recording, non-FPV aircraft - including having an observer.
     
  12. IrishSights

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Bangor, Northern Ireland, UK
    I agree, what you say is absolutely right. The Exemption doesn't even mention Data or Surveillance.

    The definition of FPV is also interesting as in In Note 1 on the Exemption "First Person View flying is the ability to control a radio controlled aircraft from a “pilot’s eye” perspective through the use of an on-board camera and ground-based receiving and viewing equipment. The viewing equipment is normally a set of video goggles."

    So P2V, P2V+ with smartphone or P2's with camera monitor clearly fall under this definition and the Exemption does apply.

    Good to talk out all these things
     
  13. Pull_Up

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,684
    Likes Received:
    48
    Location:
    South Oxfordshire, UK
    If you are flying within visual line of sight and not using a monitor as a sole piloting reference (i.e. mainly for framing shots) then my understanding is that this would not be classed as FPV. Beyond line of sight/visual range then Vision flying / using a monitor would be.
     
  14. IrishSights

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Bangor, Northern Ireland, UK
    Here is another bit of mud I'm having diffs seeing through...

    We are flying what the CAA regard as a SUSA <7kg. In the Information Notice IN–2014/081
    a SUSA is defined as "‘SUSA’ means a SUA which is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition."

    This Notice quotes the ANO and says that this:

    "166(4) The person in charge of a SUA which has a mass of more than 7 kg 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 —
    (a) in Class A, C, D or E airspace unless the permission of the appropriate air traffic control unit has been obtained;
    (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; or
    (c) at a height of more than 400 feet above the surface unless it is flying in airspace described in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) and in accordance with the requirements for that airspace."

    Apparently, according to the Notice this does not apply to our craft - as the column for <7kg is unticked yet the FPV Exemption says it does apply. Am I right in thinking a SUSA is a FPV equipped SUA? It would help greatly if the Exemption mentioned which parts of it apply to <7g craft, indeed if any of it does, as the Notice clearly without a doubt, says.

    I know the Exemption is law and the Notice is guidance but the the nature of the term guidance means that they define what they expect us to follow. Which is it? Oh the mud!
     
  15. Pull_Up

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2013
    Messages:
    3,684
    Likes Received:
    48
    Location:
    South Oxfordshire, UK
    None of that section of the ANO applies if you are less than 7kg all up weight, full stop. The FPV exemption actually mentions an even lower weight limit for FPV flight of 3.5kg. SUSA = SUA equipped with video recording capabilities. If you're not recording, you're an SUA even if you have a camera (so for example if you take the SD card out of your Phantom Vision, it's an SUA and the congested area and 50m rules no longer apply. Stick the SD card in and it magically becomes an SUSA and the distance limits apply again.

    Once you have the basic rule set for your class of aircraft (< or > 7kg, SUA or SUSA) then if you want to fly FPV you must follow the criteria in the exemption - remember it's an exemption to the standing rules that you must fly with unaided visual contact at all times. If what you are flying weighs more than 3.5kg you are unable to use the FPV exemption per 3(c) of the exemption
     
  16. IrishSights

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Bangor, Northern Ireland, UK
    OK thank you for you help. Thats clear.

    Sent from my Galaxy Note 8
     
  17. FlyingFox

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2014
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Cheshire UK
    In relation to Data Protection etc, my understanding of this for us flying Multi rotors is that it doesn't apply.

    The data protection act was designed to protect individuals from companies ie banks , local authorities, law enforcement, and others from collecting personal data on an individual or company etc,who can be identified from the data and this data used to profile the individuals , companies activities. The retention of that data by such bodies has to be justified for retention, ie that individuals human rights under that act, it has to have a purpose, ie for Prevention of crime, or to assist the bodies in a lawful purpose, ie Heath records, or for banks to see if they will give you a loan etc, the list is massive..

    However it all pertains to one thing... Can the individual be identified and was the purpose of the say" photography" directed to capture the individual which I would suggest in the case of the majority of film photos it isn't

    If it did capture someone in a park or on a walk etc, does or can the data be used for a purpose, generally not.

    It's the same as you taking a photo in your town or village , those images are not subject to the data protection act.

    Anyway I could go on , but that's my understanding, it only becomes "surveillance " if it's specifically directed to an individual or company for a purpose that relates to that company or individual .
     
  18. IrishSights

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2014
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    37
    Location:
    Bangor, Northern Ireland, UK
    Flyingfox: thanks for that. Very informative. One question, if a video containing images of identifiable people is upload to Youtube or the likes or even displayed in a personal blog or website, is that classed as a 'purpose' for Data Protection purposes. Or because it is an individual and not a company the deciding factor?

    Sent from my Galaxy Note 8
     
  19. FlyingFox

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2014
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    11
    Location:
    Cheshire UK
    I think an example could be, I am sat here watching Manchester City on Sky, I can see people in the crowd, I may even be able to recognise one of them , however the footage is not there to collect information on that individual or even individuals playing on the teams for a purpose under the act so the TV footage does not fall under data protection.

    However if sky were asked by the club, or local,authority or police to train one of there cameras on an individual they wanted to watch covertly (surveillance) this is targeted and would have to be for a purpose ie intelligence or law enforcement , and would fall under R.I.P.A ( https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... 7/ripa.pdf )

    A lengthy document for regulation of surveillance for law enforcement for authorities and police etc.

    So a broadcast for entertainment on you tube or other public channel would not fall under data protection.

    Oh data protection can relate to individuals or companies
     
  20. zenoshrdlu

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2014
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Totnes, Devon
    I think Simon's treading on thin ice when he says that if there's no card in the camera then the craft is not a SUSA. It may not be recording up there, but it is transmitting video to a phone or tablet down on the ground. And that might be seem to be surveillance as far as the CAA are concerned.

    The thing I find most curious about all this is that in general the CAA regs are about safety, but the SUA/SUSA distinction is not about safety but about privacy, something the CAA have never bothered about before.