In response to the people who still buy this unit and then Fly it over a football match, school, Military base, Nuclear base/plant  etc...   
You and people like you will be the downfall of this Hobby, I sincerely hope the law serves a dish that you so deserve....

THERE IS AN ACTIVE ALERT FOR SUCH INSTANCES THROUGHOUT THE POLICE FORCES AND ANY USAGE THAT IS SEEN WILL BE QUESTIONED AND INVESTIGATED.

These units are now being classed as delivery devices for terrorism or related surveillance and even common thieves have been mentioned to be using such methods to keep lookout..........etc.....   just what we need,  more hype and bull.....


For the others who fly with respect and consideration that's required......

Models under 7kg. do not have any specific height limits, however Articles 138, 166 and 167 of the Air Navigation Order do apply to models.
Flying at an inappropriate height could cause you to be in breach of one or more of those Articles
- eg. "A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.
" and "The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fly the aircraft if reasonably satisfied that t he flight can safely be made."

There's lots more detail in CAP658, which gives guidance on how avitaion law applies to model flying.




UK Personal UAV/UAS Law
The use of personal UAV’s ( drones, quadcopters, model planes and the like ) in the UK is governed by the CAA ( Civil Aviation Authority ) and the legal bits and bobs is covered in the The Air Navigation Order “CAP393 The Air Navigation Order“.

If you are reading this I would assume you will fall under the “Small Unmanned Aircraft” section and if you have a camera attached to it also the “Small Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft” section.


The articles which are relevant to flying your R/C toy are: 138, 166 and 167.

CAP393 The Air Navigation Order
Article        Details
138        A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.
166        Small Unmanned Aircraft
(1) A person must not cause or permit any article or animal (whether or not attached to a parachute) to be dropped from a small unmanned aircraft so as to endanger persons or property.
(2) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fly the aircraft if reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made.
(3) 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.
(4) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft which has a mass of more than 7kg excluding its fuel but including any articles or equipment installed in or attached to the aircraft at the commencement of its flight, must not fly the aircraft:
(a) in Class A, C, D or E airspace unless the permission of the appropriate air traffic control unit has been obtained;
(b) within an aerodrome traffic zone during the notified hours of watch of the air traffic control unit (if any) at that aerodrome unless the permission of any such air traffic control unit has been obtained; or
(c) at a height of more than 400 feet above the surface unless it is flying in airspace described in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) and in accordance with the requirements for that airspace.
(5) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must not fly the aircraft for the purposes of aerial work except in accordance with a permission granted by the CAA.
167        Small Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft
(1) The person in charge of a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not fly the aircraft in any of the circumstances described in paragraph (2) except in accordance with a permission issued by the CAA.
(2) The circumstances referred to in paragraph (1) are:
(a) over or within 150 metres of any congested area;
(b) over or within 150 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons;
(c) within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft; or
(d) subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), within 50 metres of any person.
(3) Subject to paragraph (4), during take-off or landing, a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not be flown within 30 metres of any person.
(4) Paragraphs (2)(d) and (3) do not apply to the person in charge of the small unmanned surveillance aircraft or a person under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft.
(5) In this article ‘a small unmanned surveillance aircraft’ means a small unmanned aircraft which is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition.


Article 167 would lead you to believe the FPV ( first person view ) flight of your quadcopter or other craft would fall under this. This is not the case. 167(5) makes it out that a small unmanned surveillance aircraft is an aircraft equipped to “undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition” but
CAP722 (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.
CAA exemption from Article 166(3) for FPV fliers where the criteria of the exemption are met and the stipulations are followed:

They are talking about this in the EU parlament this month. In 6 months we most certain have new rules regarding UAVs.

Speculations are everything from 500 meters from people and buildings, to total ban except on dedicated areas like fly fields that RC clubs own.
We have a *bleep* from sweden that are sitting now in the parlament and voting for almost a total ban.

robbin.bergqvis Posted at 2014-10-25 02:47
They are talking about this in the EU parlament this month. In 6 months we most certain have new rul ...

Looks like we will be going underground........  

Yes it does

The problem is going to be the insurance, here in sweden if you have a good house insurance, you also have a "responsibility insurance".
That means if i damage someone elses property or harm someone, my insurance will take care of that.

If these things get banned, my insurance won't cover it anymore. And that can be a sad story, if it is a so called flyaway or pilot error doesn't matter, i put that thing in the air.

So i will not have my number on it, i have bought a tracker. And if it flies straight into someone's face, i will just get away from there as quick as possible.

robbin.bergqvis Posted at 2014-10-25 03:31
Yes it does

The problem is going to be the insurance, here in sweden if you have a good house in ...

yes, lol,  gonna have to put some kind of self destruct in the tracker,  send a txt and bye bye drone...    oh dam ,  gonna be arrested for terrorism now,  everything is monitored...lol

In the scheme of very recent things - like a rocket full of who knows what exploding and throwing debris all over, an aircraft crashing into a air safety building killing two or was it four people, Virgin's space aircraft crashing from a great height and a Thomson Tours jet dropping bits over England.  Then there was the Malaysian Jet that just vanished killing hundreds and the other shot down over Ukraine.  Our little quadcopters just melt into nothing to worry about.

talk2t_c@hotmai Posted at 2014-11-1 20:59
In the scheme of very recent things - like a rocket full of who knows what exploding and throwing de ...

Yes, but they will still try and use them as the main attraction for their pre election circus.....

They want to control the air, its owned by them, how dare you attempt to use it...
Be lucky you are allowed to breath it untaxed....  Even though you breath the mass amount of pollution they throw in the air that are 100+  times more dangerous than any drone..

They will need drones to police drones ........ unless they have some form of failsafe installed in all machines to enable regulatory control...  

Might help if people didn't refer to them as drones, I prefer quadcopter, as I don't perform surveillance or aerial attacks. It's not a male humming bee either.

I agree, but on a basic level of publicity and with current and future plans to use such equipment by government / private companies.
They need to control and start slicing up the skypie and claiming what they can.

Drones is the easiest way to identify with the majority of the population, often used in not so good news stories and other media to demonise the equipment.

In the Phantoms case... 4A remote-controlled pilotless aircraft or missile. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/drone

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/drone
2. a. an unmanned aircraft or ship that can navigate autonomously, without human control or beyond line of sight:
"the GPS of a U.S. spy drone."
b. (loosely) any unmanned aircraft or ship that is guided remotely:
"a radio-controlled drone."

Ground station capabilities, whether used or not make this a programmable drone, Jazz it up as much as you like...........

I have a $3,000,000.00 insurance policy.
Umbrella.
Its not expensive to get.

jamesnns@gmail. Posted at 2014-12-4 07:49
I have a $3,000,000.00 insurance policy.
Umbrella.
Its not expensive to get.

But, check the actual usage conditions, any breach of FAA/CAA rules voids it....  there's other clauses....
Small print is a killer....

Now let's get things into proportion - a car is a far more dangerous thing than a 2kg drone. If you look at the Draconian laws in the UK at the end of the 19th century regarding mechanically propelled road vehicles (cars etc.). The maximum speed limit was 2 mph in cities and a man carrying a red flag had to walk in front - surely we don't want to move in this direction. We, in this forum, should be pointing out that the risks are minimal to the general public from these small drones (say less than 5kg) especially compared to a car driven at 30mph down a busy pedestrian filled street. The fact is that it is extremely unlikely that a drone, operated by a responsible person, would cause injury to people or property. Let us pull together against Draconian laws.

If somebody breaches the rules of FAA/CAA and gets into trouble, I hope their insurance IS invalidated.  I have no problem with idiots losing their houses and everything they have.  I just joined AMA (Academy of Model Aeronautics).  Membership includes a pretty nice liability insurance policy.