Here ya go folks...

Nicely condensed version of the CAP documents for people to read.

I personally do not agree with the 'no minimum distance'. They can still cause lacerations and easily blind someone. 5M would at least set some kind of reasonable boundary for people to respect.

Interesting read!

That is one of the easiest versions with a really good overview that I have seen so far. - Thanks!     Would be great to have for every country in the world (althoug I know that DJI will not do this)

Nice share Bashy.  

A rhetorical question for anyone:
Do you ever comply with "rule1" on the list?

No mention of flying under artical 16, I assume that is still the same.

MS Posted at 12-6 05:52
A rhetorical question for anyone:
Do you ever comply with "rule1" on the list?

Taken literally the answer to your question is, that everyone surely almost certainly does, the drone is probably within VLOS at take off.     ................ Whether it is flown out of VLOS is a different matter,

MS Posted at 12-6 05:52
A rhetorical question for anyone:
Do you ever comply with "rule1" on the list?

Oh yes, of course, i have wing mirrors.........

UKMoose Posted at 12-6 05:59
No mention of flying under artical 16, I assume that is still the same.

Yeah, that will be in the ANO

wow, that's a lot of rules and regulations for someone who just wants to have fun flying their drone around the park for 30 minutes.  i plan to swing the golf club later today, hit a few balls....do you we have a 5-page pdf on all the laws that i need to review before i go out?  golf clubs and golf balls have done 100 times as much damages and hurt way more people than a silly drone so i bet there are all kinds of laws put into place (along with stiff fines, penalties, and sanctions for violations) to make sure the golf game is safe for everyone!  i am a registered class 6 golfer (fully tested) using a 55gr golf ball with no cameras for flight stability and i want to "practice" in my back yard more than an hour before dusk inside the city limits less than 50,000 folks....next year.  /s /s /s

Yeah but golf is typically played at designated places, such as it used to be for serious radio-controlled aircraft, here in the UK anyway, serious rules and regs only came about with drones because folks flew them anywhere and everywhere thus increasing the level of danger to the public, national security etc and lets face it, drones have caused problems more and more for the general public over the last few years. I hate the rules, but they are there for a reason although the no BVLOS is a tad too strict, i mean, they relaxed a lot for the sub 250g yet they appear to still be able to bring down a manned ac :/

If folks decided to take their golf rackets down the local park, or start shooting the balls from their back gardens in housing estates etc, laws and regs would soon start for golf too, btw, the USA probably has just as many regs for drones too...

Bashy Posted at 12-6 19:05
Yeah but golf is typically played at designated places, such as it used to be for serious radio-controlled aircraft, here in the UK anyway, serious rules and regs only came about with drones because folks flew them anywhere and everywhere thus increasing the level of danger to the public, national security etc and lets face it, drones have caused problems more and more for the general public over the last few years. I hate the rules, but they are there for a reason although the no BVLOS is a tad too strict, i mean, they relaxed a lot for the sub 250g yet they appear to still be able to bring down a manned ac :/

If folks decided to take their golf rackets down the local park, or start shooting the balls from their back gardens in housing estates etc, laws and regs would soon start for golf too, btw, the USA probably has just as many regs for drones too...

i just used golf as example, it could be swinging the baseball bat or tossing the football or riding the bike....all of which have, if you look at the facts, cause more property damage, hurt more people, and have killed more people than drones.  are you ignoring that and simply saying "out of control drones can kills millions if we don't have the rules?"  seems to me the "problem" should get the heavy fines and the harsh penalties now...or are just going to wait until those fatalities go thru the roof?

i agree with you, golf is typically played at designated places.  so let's say if you play golf at an undesignated place AND you hurt someone, mandatory jail time.  there should be no objections, right?  but there are, why?  and i say this tongue-in-cheek..."because golfer are so stupid to allow the government to apply such punitive sanctions to them where there is no criminal intent."
and the /s switch at the end of my post denotes the amount of sarcasm

what's my point?  (i know people will disagree) [recreational] drone flyers are allowing all these rules and regulations to be passed and while we don't have nearly as many in the usa and you have in the uk, more than one (the golden rule, fly safely) is one too many.

The Saint Posted at 12-6 21:04
i just used golf as example, it could be swinging the baseball bat or tossing the football or riding the bike....all of which have, if you look at the facts, cause more property damage, hurt more people, and have killed more people than drones.  are you ignoring that and simply saying "out of control drones can kills millions if we don't have the rules?"  seems to me the "problem" should get the heavy fines and the harsh penalties now...or are just going to wait until those fatalities go thru the roof?

i agree with you, golf is typically played at designated places.  so let's say if you play golf at an undesignated place AND you hurt someone, mandatory jail time.  there should be no objections, right?  but there are, why?  and i say this tongue-in-cheek..."because golfer are so stupid to allow the government to apply such punitive sanctions to them where there is no criminal intent."

We are not allowing anything, we have no choice, all we can do is abide by them or face the consequences.

You do not think you have as many but when you look into your ANO equivalent, there will be a lot more than what the general recreational flier is aware of, the ones that you are aware of are pretty much the default and easy for everyone to understand and hopefully follow. I do not know what the FAA's ANO equivalent is called else i would go look, but in the UK the CAA's is called the Air Navigation Order (ANO), there are many Article's within that order for the skies aka (CAPs), one of those is specifically for UAV's CAP 722, this is the primary guidance document where all of the smaller ones for drones comes from. My point is, there is a lot more in there that we should follow, but we are not made aware of it, we are given the condensed set. If something should go wrong on a flight and it ends up in courts, and we are asked about such and such that is found in the ANO and we say, "i didn't know about that", that right there is not acceptable in court, in this case, ignorance is NOT bliss. As a UAV pilot, it is down to us to find out all of the regulations that are applicable to our flight.

My rambling point is, your FAA will have exactly the same setup, you are given a very condensed version of the rules/regs thats primarily aimed at the rec flyers, its just that the UK has pulled more from the main regulations than the US has, but even for you guys, the onous is on every pilot to be aware of the full version, ignoring it, pretending it doesn't exist wont cut it in court.

One of our Article's is 241 - A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.

This is quite a big catch-all and would be a major point for the prosecution in any court case.

Anyhoo, you pretty much know this because we've already batted this around the park already ;)

Cheers Bashy,   I have saved those away.

Bashy Posted at 12-6 22:09
We are not allowing anything, we have no choice, all we can do is abide by them or face the consequences.

You do not think you have as many but when you look into your ANO equivalent, there will be a lot more than what the general recreational flier is aware of, the ones that you are aware of are pretty much the default and easy for everyone to understand and hopefully follow. I do not know what the FAA's ANO equivalent is called else i would go look, but in the UK the CAA's is called the Air Navigation Order (ANO), there are many Article's within that order for the skies aka (CAPs), one of those is specifically for UAV's CAP 722, this is the primary guidance document where all of the smaller ones for drones comes from. My point is, there is a lot more in there that we should follow, but we are not made aware of it, we are given the condensed set. If something should go wrong on a flight and it ends up in courts, and we are asked about such and such that is found in the ANO and we say, "i didn't know about that", that right there is not acceptable in court, in this case, ignorance is NOT bliss. As a UAV pilot, it is down to us to find out all of the regulations that are applicable to our flight.

i think you've made my point.

we do have a choice.  we're just weak.

we have been fooled into believing we have bought an aircraft and we are actual pilots.
watch this video:

https ://youtu.be/rjpJvLr3c5g

Thanks Bashy. Most useful.

CloudVisual Posted at 12-6 03:34
Nicely condensed version of the CAP documents for people to read.

I personally do not agree with the 'no minimum distance'. They can still cause lacerations and easily blind someone. 5M would at least set some kind of reasonable boundary for people to respect.

Agreed. Yet even at 5m one false move could cause an incident (particularly in Sport mode).
But as you say a boundary guideline could mitigate the risk.

The Saint Posted at 12-7 08:32
i think you've made my point.

we do have a choice.  we're just weak.

What about military drones, are they an aircraft or not? FYI anything man-made that flies is an aircraft, you don't have to like the rules/laws, we the public vote for those in office, whether or not our vote won, we then have to put our trust in those in office, then we have to follow what laws are made, like it or lump it. Thats just the way of the world.

Blériot53 Posted at 12-7 15:09
Agreed. Yet even at 5m one false move could cause an incident (particularly in Sport mode).
But as you say a boundary guideline could mitigate the risk.

5m is actually better than 50m, 1m is better than 5m, this is because the drone will not have built up enough speed.
I should also add that its not so much about the speed, its the kinetic energy...

...that said, we then have,

Article 241, A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.

This tells us not to fly in a manner that would hurt someone, this includes flying at head height. Just because there is no law specifically telling us not to fly close to people for sub 250g drones when in fact there actually is, Article 241, its a catch all, if something were to happen with a sub 250g drone against a person then in court, Article 241 would be the prosecutions go to, being ignorant of said law will not work either as the onus is on the Pilot, unless the person is under (insert age) to understand all of the drone laws. The CAA has also made it clear now that we should read Cap 722, wereas before the CAA just told us the read the easy to read drone pamphlet, we were still supposed to read Article 722 mind but the CAA did actually tell us that, only the last few years have they changed this.

Is this how you guys read this?

From what i can see, the UK has done away with MTOM, its now back to "flying weight".

C2 Class Aircraft with an A2 CofC (Transitional for non C marked), see 2nd image in 1st post.
It also needs a low-speed mode which limits the maximum speed of the aircraft to 3 m/s (approx 6.7 mph).

During the transitional period, if we have the A2 CofC, we can fly sub 2kg within 30m of peoples (not groups of though) and if i say fly my P4P in tripod mode (its under 3m/s) means i can fly within 5m of uninvolved peoples. If the latter is true then that means i can take off and fly from my garden with my P4P as long as its in Tripod mode, if i fly down the gardens  and stick to roads, this should be possible, yay or nay?

Bashy Posted at 12-7 17:51
What about military drones, are they an aircraft or not? FYI anything man-made that flies is an aircraft, you don't have to like the rules/laws, we the public vote for those in office, whether or not our vote won, we then have to put our trust in those in office, then we have to follow what laws are made, like it or lump it. Thats just the way of the world.

military drones are military aircraft because that is what they are primarily used for
commercial drones are commercial aircraft because that is what they are primarily used for
recreational drones are toy aircraft because this is what they are primarily used for

each should have their own rules based on those factors

i don't carry people on my aircraft so the rules need to be different for me than aircraft that carry people
my equipment puts zero people in danger so the rules need to be different for me than aircraft that kill people and damage property on a daily basis

allowing drones to be dragged under the umbrella of federal government rules and regulation is only going to make sure the drone industry never becomes a thing.  again, the situation is not super onerous right now but i predict it will be....eventually.  we don't have and we don't want all those conditions and classification that i see you talking about in your post before this one.  it might be somewhere tucked away on the box but right now, it's not a thing.

in america, the people give orders to the government; not the other way around

The Saint Posted at 12-7 20:50
military drones are military aircraft because that is what they are primarily used for
commercial drones are commercial aircraft because that is what they are primarily used for
recreational drones are toy aircraft because this is what they are primarily used for

A UAV is a UAV,  no matter who uses it, look at Ukraine for example ;)

The rules/laws are different for manned vs your UAV.

I am not on about the classifications, that was for the UK and the EU, primarily, although no longer for the UK now.

I am talking about the FULL regulations for pilots in the US, not the condensed version that you see every day. I should have known already, its your 14 CFR part 107, now whilst that is primarily for commercial work, a lot of it is applicable to all SUAS pilots.

No matter how ya look at it, we all have these rules, regs, laws and we have to live with them, no getting away from that and there was nothing any of us could have done to stop it.

I bet you would be very upset if someone shot one of your drones from the skies, luckily for you, they fall under the Code of Federal Regulations. ;)

Bashy Posted at 12-7 22:20
A UAV is a UAV,  no matter who uses it, look at Ukraine for example ;)

The rules/laws are different for manned vs your UAV.

im not asking that, im asking for much different rules for "recreational" use.  the exception is bogus.

no we already have state laws covering using a firearm to destroy someone's property whether it's a car or a drone or a bicycle or a skateboard.  we don't need addition (federal) laws to cover that.  besides, the federal government is not going to prosecute anyone for shooting down a drone.  THAT would be the one time your drone ISNT an aircraft.  thanks for providing that perfect example.  LOL

just so we are clear, i wish there was no federal law (among other federal law) covering shooting at or shooting down a drone.  don't need it, don't want it.  we already have too many bogus laws like that are ineffective and only really used to jam up the honest person.

OK, im confused, i will leave it with you.

The Saint Posted at 12-7 20:50
military drones are military aircraft because that is what they are primarily used for
commercial drones are commercial aircraft because that is what they are primarily used for
recreational drones are toy aircraft because this is what they are primarily used for

That is the way it is SUPPOSED to be. But, it ain't any longer!!!

Bashy Posted at 12-8 18:27
OK, im confused, i will leave it with you.

give it a few more years, it will all become more clear when the recreational hobby is all but non-existent because recreational flyers remain "confused" about what is happening to the hobby right under their noses.  thanks for helping out.

i just hope people are more like me who can abide by the rules and at the same time speak out against them; who recognizes the absurd and will use every opportunity given to me to reasonably push back instead of voicing support for more rules/laws and providing support and justification for the law-makers by agreeing to even the most ridiculous new laws that are passed.

just like everything else good, ultimately we're going to have to eventually litigate our way out of the mess which is going to take years, if not decades.

latest example; based on information from the video.  seems a pilot who was minding his own business, not hurting anyone, flying his drone caught the attention of the authorities and after they shake him down, they find out he doesn't have a trust certification.  its going to be interesting to see if his drone is registered as well (or if he actually needed to).  but the real issue is, this isn't the faa/federal government charging him but instead, the state/local authorities are doing it.  apparently they have a local law that says you have to abide by federal laws which means even if the feds don't take action, state can take action for not following a state law which says follow all fed laws.  that's straight-up b.s. and i hope this guy has a lawyer and fights this (as long as he is righteous).  but i don't blame him if he doesn't because most everybody probably don't care for him flying a drone and even the majority of the drone community thinks it ok for any government to pop you for not having any and all the paperwork demanded from you and showing it to anybody who asks.  if he fights it, he won't get support from the majority of the drone community who is perfectly ok with states and cities enforcing all drone laws.  if his fine is $10,000 the drone community will rejoice, that's how we are.  imagine if he was standing in the stadium parking lot and instead of flying a drone taking pictures he was racing rc cars in and around parked cars and cutting off some of the patrons.  he would be told to leave, right?  apparently homeland security responded so that alone is enough to make anyone take a plea....for not taking the trust test online and having proof in your possession regardless if you did anything else wrong.  ridiculous.

Lots of ranting about US rules and regs that have no relevance at all to the UK rules.

military drones are military aircraft because that is what they are primarily used for

Not true and as a result are banned from most areas of controlled airspace worldwide, just as other unmanned aircraft are.