patrickegan
Veteran
Location: Sacramento, CA
| Leon
That is correct!
Ki
Here they (PPL) are a very powerful lobby with 413,000 members. In the U.S. it is 500’ above structures and people not just AGL.
I’m on my second/third read of the CAP 722 document as part of my research for commenting on the WG-73 paper. Funny, CAP 722 references the RTCA, I’ve worked with the SC-203 group too.
On page 1 of the Revision History
3 Impending Changes to Regulation
3.1 The CAA is in the process of a consultation with industry over a proposal to amend the Air Navigation Order which will require operators of UAS with a UAV component of less than 7 kg mass to obtain a CAA permission, as is currently the case for UAVs
with a mass of 7-20 kg. This proposal intends to ensure public safety by applying operational constraints to UAVs of less than 7 kg mass, as deemed appropriate to the type of operation envisaged and the potential risk to members of the public.
3.2 If the consultation exercise approves the proposal, it is likely that the ANO Amendment will pass into law in December 2008. Potential operators of UAS with a UAV component of less than 7 kg should ascertain, before commencing operations, whether or not they are required to obtain a CAA permission.
NOTE 1: Impending Changes to Regulation
The CAA is in the process of a consultation with industry over a proposal to amend the Air Navigation Order to require the operators of UAS with a UAV component of less than 7 kg mass to obtain a CAA permission, as is currently the case for UAVs with a mass of 7-20 kg. This proposal intends to ensure public safety by applying such operational constraints to flights of a UAV, or UAVs, of less than 7 kg mass as are appropriate to the type of operation envisaged and the potential risk to members of the public.
If the consultation exercise approves the proposal, it is likely that the ANO Amendment will pass into law in December 2008. Potential operators of UAS with a UAV component of less than 7 kg should ascertain, before commencing operations, whether or not they are required to obtain a CAA
permission. Section 3 Chapter 1 Page 2
In the absence of such Qualified Entities, the CAA may accept
representations from other sources on a case-by-case basis where
acceptable evidence of their expertise is presented. In all cases the CAA will expect to be presented with evidence that the standards applied are at least as demanding as those applied by the Large Model Association to large recreational model aircraft (20-150 kg).
The inclusion of an operations manual covering the procedures to be
followed for all envisaged operations of the UAS is a key requirement to enable the CAA to accurately assess the application and the safety case it makes, before deciding whether to grant an exemption or permission.
3.3 Application for an Exemption or Permission should be made to the CAA Flight Operations Inspectorate (General Aviation), using the contact details below, stating the mass, configuration and performance details of the UAV. It is vital to be clear who
is the operator (defined in ANO Article 155(3)). The operator, i.e. the person having management of the aircraft, and not another person who may, for example, have
contracted with the operator to have work done, should apply for an Exemption or Permission. Section 3 chapter 1 page 4
So you can apply for an exemption (good luck on that one) or permit to fly issued by CAA. In most other countries you have to prove you are safe (impossible to do without data), before they’ll give you permission fly.
Does anyone know what system they will copy, the Canadian SFOC, which is before each flight (have been working on a yearlong permit), or the American experimental and COA?
One other thing that concerns me is the use of “Accredited body” or “Qualified entity” If either of those turn out to be a military contractor e.g. BAE, you’ll be on the bottom rung for the foreseeable future. |
