Following the recent conviction of a guy whose quadcopter lost signal and flew off and near to a nuclear submarine testing facility. Rading a bit more it would appear that our innocent little cameras on our phantoms are in fact classed as "surveillance" cameras !! :shock: Looking at Buzzflyers info about flying these : "First Person View RC Flying. FPV RC is a legitimate activity but there are limitations that you must observe to be both legal and insured. ANO Article 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. This is a strict legal requirement. The implication for FPV RC is that the pilot ‘under the hood’ cannot, by definition, be the pilot in charge of the model and that there must be a separate ‘pilot in charge’ at all times. After discussions with the insurers and the CAA, BMFA has been able to arrange insurance for the activity but ONLY if the following regulation is followed: When flying FPV RC, the pilots MUST use a buddy box system with the pilot in charge using the master transmitter. In addition, the model is equipped with a video camera and video link to the ground and will automatically be classed by the CAA as a small aircraft equipped for surveillance. Consequently, all of ANO Article 167, (Small unmanned surveillance aircraft) will apply to any flights made. This can be read in full in the section ‘Legal Controls over Model Flying’. Again, these are strict legal requirements." Was a bit concerned that common sense did not prevail in this court case if he ligitmately said he didnt know the facility was there, but maybe he should have foreseen that ? :?