rrTV-PHOTO   New HD TV
HOME   rrTV-PHOTO   GALLERIES   MY GALLERY   HELP-FAQ
myHOME PM pmRR MEMBERS 283 ONLINE 19 EVENTS SEARCH REGISTER  START HERE
 
9 pages [ <<    <     5      6     ( 7 )     8      9     NEXT    >> ]5723 viewsTOPIC CLOSED
Modefo's RC Helicopters . XHELI.COM . Autography FlightPower

.
.
Aerial Photography and Video > CAA new regulation proposals
 
 
pigs dont fly
Key Veteran
Location: Ruined UK

"Aerial work, as I'm sure you know, essentially means that you will be paid for the activity"

That line summed it up for me, with regard to hobby flying.

I'm happy being certified next year, I can do all the failsafe come auto landing on signal loss, or bailout with a parachute on mechanical failure, if they want that too.

However I just hope they dont slip something in at the last moment, that messes up everyones hobby AP.

Warning...This hobby is very addictive and may damage your wealth
08-07-2008 02:30 AM
 
 
patrickegan
Veteran
Location: Sacramento, CA

I will say that I am a little concerned, I hope you guys have at least made contact and voiced something… This CAP 722 is being referenced in the EUROCAE WG-73 and the sUAS ARC here in the U.S.
08-07-2008 03:21 AM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
ki-gas
Senior Heliman
Location: All over Europe

I'd rather be paranoid and proven wrong than assume I know what they mean.

There is no definition given for 'Recreational flying' and no mention in the proposed wording (Annex 1 of the impact assessment) of recreational flyers not having to obtain a permission if they want to stick a camera on their model.

The CAA could easily say that as soon as you put a camera on a model it is no longer 'recreational flying'. Dot the I's and cross the T's. You've got to remember the ANO is worded by lawyers so you have to interpret it as a lawyer and never assume, assumptions can get you into trouble.
08-07-2008 03:05 PM
 
 
BigguyOz
Key Veteran
Location: Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Well why on earth are you expecting anything written in this forum to carry any weight? You have obviously already decided that nothing said here, even direct quotes from a senior CAA representative, such as "we are only looking to regulate aerial work not recreational flying" will satisfy your paranoia.

Well just go and pay for a professional legal opinion....

Tony Stott
Scenefromabove.com.au
13.3m mast
AP hot air balloon
AP kites
08-07-2008 03:58 PM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
Leonidas
Heliman
Location: UK

You've missed the blokes point OZzzzzzzz!
08-07-2008 05:35 PM
 
 
patrickegan
Veteran
Location: Sacramento, CA

Today is the last day!
08-11-2008 04:16 PM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
ki-gas
Senior Heliman
Location: All over Europe

You're on the ball.
08-11-2008 05:23 PM
 
 
patrickegan
Veteran
Location: Sacramento, CA

Email to CAA UK sent
08-11-2008 05:33 PM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
ki-gas
Senior Heliman
Location: All over Europe

Do we get to see what you wrote?
08-12-2008 09:37 PM
 
 
patrickegan
Veteran
Location: Sacramento, CA

Mine was a question about the types and number of public comments. I don’t really feel that I can add much more than I did at UAS 2008. At UAS 2008 I gave a copy of the RCAPA “Proposed Guidelines” to both Mr. Whittaker and Mr. Dodson, and asked that they kindly forward any feedback they may have. Please understand that we, the RCAPA only have a few members in the UK. Your group or representation should have (in my opinion), been at UAS 2008 to air and discuss you concerns in person. I would also have hoped that my advice would have been heeded about making contact with UK CAA.

If any of those would made contact would like to share I’d be very interested…
08-12-2008 11:51 PM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
ki-gas
Senior Heliman
Location: All over Europe

I've spoken to about 5 people who have all written. We will see the outcome. I got the feeling that they are mainly concerned about the police and fire services that wish to fly over people and the non line of sight UAV's, as for the light of sight operators they just want you to register if your are commercial. This will mean quite a bit of paperwork for the under 7kg boys so only the serious will register, knowing the CAA, if you get caught without operating commercially and you are not registered you could be in for some trouble. Of course the future could be very different.
08-13-2008 12:28 AM
 
 
patrickegan
Veteran
Location: Sacramento, CA

Well, that's good to hear...
08-13-2008 01:26 AM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
High Spy
Senior Heliman
Location: UK

This thread has taken all kinds of twists and turns, most comments seem to have been made by people who haven't read CAP722. My earlier comments remain the same.

The reason there are only a few RCAPA members in the UK is that we are not interested in being represented from outside the UK. In fact we don't actually require representation, the CAA has never banned the use or stopped us from operating. They have simply come up with a set guide lines on how we should operate. They have acted responsibly to a growing market. I am confused as to why RCAPA has any UK members, other than to try and promote themselves (I have seen the list of UK members).

I have in the past shown a copy of a CAA exemption certificate on this forum. I showed it because I was concerned at what I was seeing the under 7KG helicopters doing. Examples of their images displayed proudly on this site, other forums and their web pages. I suggested to avoiding legislation, they should adopt the same working practises.

All representation by RCAPA (Patrick Egan) to the UK CAA should be made public, it is important that non members have access to all mails sent and replies. There is no requirement for a US based association to be lobbying on our behalf, especially as we have never asked them to do so.
08-13-2008 10:56 AM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
JohnC
Veteran
Location: East Yorkshire, England

After reading that Patrick has given the 'Proposed Guidelines' to the CAA, I tried to find them on the RCAPA web site. There are lots of links telling me how to join and where Patrick will be next week - but I can't find THE most important information of all : what they are campaigning for.

Can someone point me to the right place ?.

From what I remember from the last time I read it, they have one weight threshold of 5Kg, then one somewhat higher (presumably to include the high gasser count over there compared to the UK).

I hope this document doesn't encourage the CAA to adopt the 5Kg limit as opposed to the 7Kg limit. Many people in the UK have been working to the 7Kg threshold for a long time and will be very upset if they suddenly fall into a higher category because of this.

The other relevant point here is that the deadline which has just passed is just for the change to the ANO. This was going to happen whatever anybody said.

The real time for people to have their say is to try and influence the mythical 'list of condition' which must be met for permission to operate. From some reports up to now, they could be quite reasonable and fair. We don't need to make a big issue of it until we know otherwise.

JohnC
08-13-2008 11:16 AM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
coffman
Senior Heliman
Location: NL

I did express my concerns earlier in the post about outside interference with our regulatory body and that we should know who is representing us and exactly what they are saying. The CAA seem to be taking a very sensible approach on the matter (so far) and I’m sure that there will soon be a UK association representing the interests of the UK’s UAV photographers and cinemaphotographers, even if I have to start it.

From speaking to the CAA I would say that the ANO will definitely be amended to remove the minimum 7kg limit so that everything commercial will have to apply for a permission, this will bring some paperwork and conditions but I would imagine they may think of reducing minimum distances for the lighter machines. I hope you operators have approached them, I have supported you in my correspondence although the changes won't affect me.
08-13-2008 05:50 PM
 
 
patrickegan
Veteran
Location: Sacramento, CA

I know the site is very obscure in some instances and is currently going through a format change to resemble more of a newspaper (easier interface)
http://wcs_bbs.tripod.com/RCAPAProposal_11-LATEST.pdf

As stated in previous posts, I’ve personally been at this for 4 + years, and have a fairly good handle on the thinking and process of the global airspace integration effort. My motives serve the interests of the RCAPA membership who are primarily commercial operators. Again, we have a stake in this as the CAP 722 document is a reference document for efforts being made in other countries (Global Harmonization). The RCAPA integration effort has always been one that is proactive…
08-13-2008 06:33 PM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
ki-gas
Senior Heliman
Location: All over Europe

'Got a handle on it', know that's terminology to be wary of.

'Global harmonisation', Europe have been trying to get their selves harmonised for years but it has not happened yet, people can't even live in peace so don't hold your breath for numerous country's aviation authorities to get harmonised.

'Airspace integration' is to be considered when UAV's that fly out of sight and above 500' but for most of us here, we fly model helicopters with a camera bolted to it, in line of sight and under the minimum altitude of 500' agl so there is no real integration problem only when working near the app/dept to a runway, then you need to be cleared by ATC anyway. OK, so there are small unlicensed airstrips but they are few and far between and diminishing all the time so a model would pose no more risk than a pissed crow.
08-13-2008 09:44 PM
 
 
patrickegan
Veteran
Location: Sacramento, CA

Well, maybe you have a better handle on it and should be interfacing with them directly as the head of some sort of advocacy group.

Global harmonization does happen, e.g. the Chicago convention…

Here, all aircraft without a pilot on board are deemed UA’s (unmanned aircraft), those flying for hire are UAS and need to be integrated into the airspace. That goes for RC in VLOS too…
08-13-2008 11:26 PM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
ki-gas
Senior Heliman
Location: All over Europe

The CAA are very aware that there are very distinct difference between 'line of sight' and 'out of sight'.

Oh, and 'interfacing', what's wrong with 'talking' or 'liasing'?

That was in 1944 when international air travel was in it's infancy.
08-14-2008 12:14 AM
 
 
patrickegan
Veteran
Location: Sacramento, CA

You could even carrier pigeon with them…

The Chicago convention has been revised and is relevant, as is ICAO.
08-14-2008 12:51 AM
HOMEPAGE  
 
 
9 pages [ <<    <     5      6     ( 7 )     8      9     NEXT    >> ]5723 viewsTOPIC CLOSED
Advantage Hobby . Revolution Models . CarbonXtreme

.
.
Aerial Photography and Video > CAA new regulation proposals
 PRINT TOPIC Advertisers 

Subscribe to This Topic

Friday, November 21 - 8:46 am - Copyright © 2000 - 2008 runryder.com | email | link to rr | runryder needs cookie