New updated CAA exemption regarding FPV

[FlyingFox]

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.

Disagree, surveillance is a directed activity for a purpose for a use ,,targeted, sending your phantom up to photograph the local church with people who happen to walk into your picture is not surveillance

I will try to expand a little, who uses surveillance most?

Police and local authorities , not the CAA.

How is surveillance defined in law? My above post re RIPA defines the rules for types of surveillance

Your local CCTV in town is not directed surveillance as it is not targeting individuals or anything specific , if an event happens ie a theft and the operator then scans through and finds the individual it's still not surveillance but the footage then would fall under data protection as it's being used for a purpose ie law enforcement.

However If the CCTV was specifically to target an individual and follow him/her and it was pre planned it would fall under surveillance and rips.

I hate typing surveillance

 

[IrishSights]

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.

Pullup: I understand what your saying but I can't find any reference in the docs to not using a monitor as a sole piloting reference not being FPV...I know 2 'nots' in the same sentence is bad!

Sent from Samsung S4 via Tapatalk

 

[Pull_Up]

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.

No, I'm jumping up and down on the ice and it's pretty thick. CAP 722 ( http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP722.pdf ) article 3.4 in Section 3 Chapter 1 page 2 refers: “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.” If the video is captured in some way and used for other purposes, like sticking on YouTube, for example, then it's an SUSA.

No recording, no surveillance - unless you are deliberately using the downlink for anything other than hooning the quad around, but that's not what I was referring to.

 

[FlyingFox]

Just because a phantom has a camera on with an sd card in recording doesn't mean it's a surveillance device in criminal law.
It depends on how it's used as I've stated earlier.


Another example , your neighbour has a CCTV camera in their garden for security, however you suspect it also points into your property and your house also.

As bitter as it is, tough!

No criminal law properly covers this, you may possibly have a case for harassment, probably not.
Invasion of privacy I hear you shout , there is no British legislation under criminal law which makes this a specific offence.
Voyeurism - nope that has to have a sexual motive.
You may seek civil action, an injunction or other order , but the is no act or statute which covers this.

So it's back to the definition of surveillance as mentioned earlier.

My belief as this inclusion in the CAA paper is aimed at military, police and persons using it specifically as a surveillance device to collect data for purpose under data protection mentioned also earlier ,then by virtue it is.

 

[IrishSights]

The docs always talk about 'surveillance or data acquisition' clearly 2 seperate nouns so if its not surveillance they get on they get you on data aquisition bit. Its probably also worth remembering that a DVR on the ground side is still data aquisition even if there is no card in the camera. Also Pullup is right CAP 722 is clear.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 8

 

[FlyingFox]

The docs always talk about 'surveillance or data acquisition' clearly 2 seperate nouns so if its not surveillance they get on they get you on data aquisition bit. Its probably also worth remembering that a DVR on the ground side is still data aquisition even if there is no card in the camera. Also Pullup is right CAP 722 is clear.

Sent from my Galaxy Note 8

Every device capable of recording video ie your mobile phone can be determined as a data collection device, it all comes back to why your recording, for what purpose, so if you stick to the aviation rules ie don't fly near sensitive areas and fly safely, you will not be prosecuted for filming the local pond, beach and posting it on YouTube etc.

 

[Pull_Up]

Don't forget that here we are taking about the definition of surveillance only to determine if its article 166 or 167 that applies. Other aspects of law, like data protection or trespass, may also apply to flying activities and may be actionable separately outside the scope of a CAA-instigated prosecution for breaches of the Air Navigation Order.

But the gist of it all is pretty much "don't fly like a d!ck and respect others" and we'll all be fine and not fined!

 

[FlyingFox]

Exactly

 

[zenoshrdlu]

Of course you are right (as ever), Simon. I was merely pointing out that removing the card does not, of itself, turn a SUSA into a SUA because with the right ground equipment regulation-breaching surveillance is still possible. I guess equally if the card is in the camera, but I never press the 'shutter button' of the App then it's not a SUSA either.

It is of course legally possible to take aerial photos that would, if taken with a Phantom or similar 'drone', breach the regulations severely. That's because the CAA regulations specifically exclude (page 5) kites and tethered balloons.Like quite a few others, I've taken (and published in the KAP Group on FLICKR) thousands of such photos using a radio-controlled camera rig lofted by one of my kites over the last 10 years. Since kites can't legally fly above 60m AGL without CAA permission, it's almost impossible not to be close to the group of people, vehicles or structures (often in congested areas) that you want to photograph. See for example this photo I took vertically above Tate St Ives in Cornwall.
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2471/3947532898_f7c1598514.jpg

Now here's a conundrum for you. Suppose you are flying your FPV-equipped Phantom in a non-recording (legal) mode, but I capture the 2.4GHz video stream with my PVR-equipped receiver and publish the result on YouTube, did I turn your Phantom into a SUSA and potentially cause you to breach the regulations?

 

[IrishSights]

Great thread this, informative and well mannered. Thank you all for helping me (I am sure others too) to shape my thoughts a little clearer round CAA compliance and related privacy issues related to flying the Phantom. The definitions discussion of FPV, surveillance is also great.

Funny there is nearly always a 'however' lol

We know that the CAA defines SUSA as this "‘SUSA’ means a SUA which is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition."

The operative word I think to look at here is 'equipped'. So its not the purpose, its the equipment for the purpose of.... that defines this.

Whether an on board camera's SD card slot is empty or not or indeed if it is not empty and not being written to, I suggest is irrelevant. As an analogy - a car is equipped to drive whether or not there is fuel in it or not or the headlights have no bulbs, so can be driven. If there is no SD card slot on board it is still equipped to be capable of carrying out surveillance. What I think the CAA are saying is that if the equipment is <b>capable</b> of surveillance or data acquisition (not actually what you use it for) then its a SUSA and the relevant parts of the CAA regs apply.

??

Progress, I can now spell surveillance without the spelling checker correcting me, heha!

 

[IrishSights]

...Now here's a conundrum for you. Suppose you are flying your FPV-equipped Phantom in a non-recording (legal) mode, but I capture the 2.4GHz video stream with my PVR-equipped receiver and publish the result on YouTube, did I turn your Phantom into a SUSA and potentially cause you to breach the regulations?

Personally I think it would be regarded as Data Acquisition and therefore a SUSA, and its rules apply. Put this way I would not recommend taking a chance, if it was me I would be complying as if its a SUSA in this case. Not worth the risk IMHO.

 

[Pull_Up]

See for example this photo I took vertically above Tate St Ives in Cornwall.
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2471/3947532898_f7c1598514.jpg

That's a great shot!

 

[pyrophantom]

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

Thats an interesting one !! You will always say that the fpv facility on the phantom is for controlling and monitoring, which it is, so guess this means we dont have a surveillance drone !?

 

[zenoshrdlu]

See for example this photo I took vertically above Tate St Ives in Cornwall.
https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2471/3947532898_f7c1598514.jpg

That's a great shot!

Thanks Simon - my avatar is a snippet from another photo taken by a kite-lofted camera that would be illegal using a Phantom Vision. Here's a somewhat enlarged version - look carefully and you can see me on the castle mound and the kite string going up.

It makes little sense to me that the CAA are happy for me to take such photos using a kite but not using a drone.

 

[Pull_Up]

I guess it's a matter of one being tethered and one bring free-flying.

 

[IrishSights]

Sorry about more muddy bits, however I think I have got to the bottom of this myself - unless you no different

CAP 722 says 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.
"

But they also define a SUSA as "‘SUSA’ means a SUA which is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition."


At first I found it a challenge to reconcile these 2 statements...but then the light came on.

As a flyer only used to a P2 and no previous RC experience in my nievity I forget that fixed wings RC'ers have been having cameras on their aircraft for years and using it solely to control the aircraft - not surveillance or data acquisition and not a SUSA, hence the bit in CAP722 (2009 after all!)

The official definition of a of a SUSA talks about 'being equipped' in other words being 'capable' of undertaking such.
For me anyway I am taking it that this covers P2's with a GoPro, because it is 'capable' - whether or not there is a card it or the record button pressed. As is a P2V or PV+ - they are all 'capable'.

I know this law stuff is exactly that - law, however for me I have settled on this above interpretation so if I stick to it then I will not be in any doubt about being in breach.

That me done - settled in my mind anyway!

I'm away for a fly...

 

[pyrophantom]

I would be very surprised if the CAA would take data acquisition in our cases, ie leisure photography & video as falling under the definition of something which is outside of the essence of "controlling or monitoring the aircraft" ?? (apologies for the crap english)

As long as we fly responsibly and are not doing it as a business, then we would be OK pretty much doing what we are doing within visual range or with spotters if beyond visual range.......well thats how I interpreted it anyway ??

 

[IrishSights]

Even with a spotter beyond unaided visual sight is not allowed. What's the use if even a spotter can't see it!

Sent from Samsung S4 via Tapatalk

 

[pyrophantom]

Even with a spotter beyond unaided visual sight is not allowed. What's the use if even a spotter can't see it!

Sent from Samsung S4 via Tapatalk

Sorry mate dont understand what you are saying ?......whats the point on having a spotter if they cant see the aircraft ?? Item 3 (b) states you are exempt if the 2 other items plus this one, are in force, in this case an observer who can maintain unaided visual contact....

 

[IrishSights]

Even with a spotter beyond unaided visual sight is not allowed. What's the use if even a spotter can't see it!

Sent from Samsung S4 via Tapatalk

Sorry mate dont understand what you are saying ?......whats the point on having a spotter if they cant see the aircraft ?? Item 3 (b) states you are exempt if the 2 other items plus this one, are in force, in this case an observer who can maintain unaided visual contact....

ANO 166 (3) says."The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must maintain direct, unaided
visual contact with the aircraft sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other
aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding
collisions."

There is no weight limit or exemption of the observer from this. ORS4 1011 FPV Exemption basically transfers the onus from the 'person in charge' to the observer for maintaining VLOS