Leonidas
Heliman
Location: UK
| John,
Those conditions are printed on a typical certificate of ‘Permission’; I think they are typical for all 7kg to 20kg operators.
Like you, I am not dead against commercial operators under 7kg having to obtain a 'Permission'. I would say that the vast majority of people that do this sort of thing commercially conduct themselves in a very safe and professional manner, even if they are not aware of the ANO. I also think that modellers (non-commercial) should be able to fly their models with a camera attached with no permission which I believe is what is suggested in 4.4 of the ‘Impact Assessment’ linked to below. If we are not careful we will soon be able to do nothing without being certificated which means being trained and examined which means extra cost etc. etc. Our kids can’t even have climbing frames in the school playground anymore because if they fall the stupid parents would sue the school. If you over regulate you stifle progress, without a certain amount of ‘free rein’ dreams are not realised, today we can see HD footage shot from a model helicopter, if we had been regulated from the beginning this may never have been achieved. If the CAA makes it illegal for the recreational flyer to fly with a camera, how will it be enforced?
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1727/2008...tAssessment.pdf
From the link above, this bit concerns me: "The objective of this consultation is to seek industry views on whether regulatory intervention is required for UAV’s under 20 kg (particularly for UAV’s under 7 kg)", In saying "particularly for UAV's under 7 kg" it suggests that regulatory intervention may also be required for UAV's above 7kg up to 20kg although the consultation was entitled “Proposal to amend the Air Navigation Order to bring Unmanned Aircraft of less than 7 kg mass within the scope of regulatory oversight.”. This bracket is already regulated and to be honest if they regulate it much more they'll make it unworkable. The fact is that a camera ship operated under the CAA 'Permission' is far safer than your average modeller flying a T-Rex 450 as the modeller does often fly over or close to people whereas the pilot operating under a 'Permission' cannot do this. Also he has to keep records of maintenance and log each flight and also one of those lovely 'Risk Assessment' has to be done for each job.
I read somewhere that there were suggestions that UAV's should be operated on a similar basis to Full Size. I've maintained and operated full size for many years and to expect a model helicopter with a camera straped to it, flown only in line of sight, to be operated like a full size is ridiculous. OK, UAV's that clatter off on a mission out of sight of the operator may well require more stringent operating procedures than they currently have.
I know I keep mentioning it but I really think there must be a distinction between a model helicopter with a camera on it (although the camera makes no difference) flown in sight of the pilot and the 'out of sight' jobbies. I believe that a model flown in line of sight with PCM failsafe (by the way, you must have this for a CAA permission) is not truly ‘unmanned’ as, if something mechanical fails on the helicopter the pilot still has authority over the machine, he may not be able to land it conventionally but he can cause it to fall virtually vertically on command, conversely, if the model is flying fine but the radio suffers a failure the model will still fall to earth in the same manner. Unmanned machines that fly out of sight of the person responsible for their launch and are reliant on electronics making the decisions about trajectory, altitude heading and emergency actions, are truly UAV’s, Aircraft flown in line of sight that are at all times under control of the operator (other than the few seconds after the plug has been pulled) should be categorised as ‘Remote Piloted’ and be regulated differently to UAV’s
In fact you could say it is safer than the full size, because full size do fly over people, they are bigger and if there is a mechanical failure the pilot is not going to pull the plug and stuff it vertically into the ground, he's going to try and save his neck which may mean he eventually lands/crashes somewhere populated.
It also says in the Impact Assessment: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1727/2008...tAssessment.pdf
“The proposed regulatory change will apply equally to all operators, except the Police who will operate UAS under the provisions of an Air Operator’s Certificate”.That’ll be interesting – this is the official description and criteria for the requirement of an AOC - “An AOC is a document that an organisation or individual is required to hold prior to operating public transport (Commercial Air Transport) flights. For operators in the United Kingdom, it is issued by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). If the passenger is asked to contribute in any way towards the cost of the flight, “valuable consideration”, the flight is likely to be for the purposes of public transport, and the operator of the flight is legally required to hold such an AOC. It is important to note that the legal term, “valuable consideration”, can include methods of payment other than money, e.g. free advertising or payment in kind.” - But there are no passengers!!!!!
I think the Police and their daft ideas of buying a small UAV and expecting pc plod to operate it with no experience of building, maintaining or flying models is what has highlighted this whole thing, and to think that they can just fly over people that are not under their control with a machine heavier than air is crazy. This type of operation is a far cry from the likes of aerial photography/cinematography where on the odd occasions the director requires a few people to be in the shot and closer than 50m they will be under the control of the aerial filming company and be briefed accordingly. I would like to know the conditions of the AOC that will apply to Police!!
All interested parties, whether currently operating UAV’s/Remote piloted aircraft or thinking of doing it in the future should make your comments known to Chris Finnigan at the CAA before 11th. August 2008 - http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?c...=90&pageid=9644
People from countries other than the UK should write too as all aviation authorities generally follow suit, keeping quite suggests to the authorities that there is no voice out there!!!! Next thing you know ….. it’s all too late!
I'm sorry if my post seems to be a bit disjointed in places, I'm just writng this as it comes into my head.
Good luck,
Leon |
