Hi....i know in the uk i cannot fly my i1 within 50m of another person or building but does that mean i can fly over a person or building if im flying at 50m in height or more?  Just a bit confused about this.

You can fly over a building or a person if you have control of that person or building. So you could fly over your house and someone (or a small group) in the garden for instance - as long as it's 50m away from others. But you cannot fly over a crowded area or buildings etc.

But I've read you cannot fly over large groups of people ie 1000 or more.....so surely if you if it's less then you can....  all very confusing as I see lots of videos on YouTube where a drone is flying over buildings at about 400ft and small groups of people

Thanks Paul. That's cleared up a lot for me. Just want to be safe for others and stay legal.

Just read all regulations.......think you need to be a genius to understand all that......got the basics but wish the they would just produce a condensed version for us drone flyers lol

maclean156 Posted at 2015-9-18 17:37
Just read all regulations.......think you need to be a genius to understand all that......got the ba ...

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1995/CAP%201202UAVsafetyrules.pdf

Hows that?

Thanks.. seen that before....its very ambiguous  about the 50m rule..... it can be read in a few ways and I can see where confusion comes from.

The problem with the 50m rule is the way the CAA have worded the rules in CAP722.
"...within 50 metres of any person, vessel, vehicle or structure not under the control of the Remote Pilot;..."

If for example, you are conducting an aerial shoot over a specific building and there are other adjacent buildings within 50m, you will never have legal control over those adjacent buildings because you are not the legally registered owner of the building, so how can you claim to have control over the building if you are not the building owner.  What can you do to prove you have control over that building?

The key issue is that you try to control and reduce the risk of persons coming out of the adjacent buildings during operations, but you can't legally stop them entering or leaving their property.  Best you can do is obtain written permission from adjacent property owners to fly within 50m within or over their property, vehicles etc.  and politely request they stay in their property during aerial operations for safety.  However the area of operations will need to be monitored throughout and the Pilot in command will make any decision to terminate the operation or fly the aircraft away from the person to maintain the safe exclusion zone.  How do you manage this?  Well you employ Observers to keep the Pilot informed of anyone entering the 50m exclusion and where necessary use additional observers and perhaps also two-way radios to keep and maintain clear communications to the Pilot.

If you don't obtain approval from adjoining owners then you will be unable to present any defence that you have tried to control the area of operations within 50m as you will not have consent of the legal owners to fly over their property and therefore according to the CAA regulations you can't fly within 50m.  However, what could be a defence is that you controlled the operational area by using observers and two-way radios to keep the pilot informed of anyone entering the flight area, thus maintaining the Pilots control of the area.

In my opinion, the ambiguous and grey area is "under the Control"  does this mean legal ownership or simply that the Pilot knows what is and is not within the area of operations.  For example if a vehicle is parked in the adjacent property, but no one is in the vehicle during the proposed operations and the observer maintains visual sight and keeps the Pilot informed, it could be said that the Pilot is in control of the vehicle as it is not going anywhere without a driver and its not going to affect the mechanics of flying the aircraft.   So in this scenario, the Pilot could be said to be in Control and compliant with the CAA regulations.  Very grey.

I raised this in the past with EuroUSC and they simply were of the opinion that I was worrying too much.  I simply stated that I was trying to seek clarification on the legal implications and interpretation of the CAA wording, but got no further clarification.  As for the CAA, I have in the past left emails and numerous telephone messages to discuss and clarify and no one has ever got back to me from the CAA.  The current communication process with the CAA is a joke.  You simply are wasting your time even trying to start a dialogue as they even have a message on their answer phone that they are unable to answer any calls relating to unmanned aircraft vehicles.  This is a disgrace really especially when many are trying to operate a commercial business, but are restricted from communicating with the very people who license the industry.

What is needed is specific unambiguous wording and what the CAA interpret as "under the control of the Pilot".  At present, it will only be clarified after a court case, which is when the CAA wording will be tested and a precedent set.  Until then, you need to maintain a professional standing, without compromise and without any undue risks to persons and property within 50m.

PaulKerry Posted at 2015-9-18 16:56
Just because others fly illegally, doesn't mean that you should, too.

If you want to know the rul ...

Sorry to disagree, but I don't see any reference to horizontal distances. In my opinion if you are > 50 m height above a building or person that is not in a built up  / congested area or a gathering of > 1000 people, then you are legal.

PaulKerry Posted at 2015-9-19 05:03
GB44,

I cannot agree more with this statement:

Paul,

I reckon the CAA should get him extradited.  Unless he has diplomatic immunity he should be hauled back and put in front of the Judge for his actions.  Thats what the US would do, just look at Lesange who has been in a safe haven in the Ecuador London Embassy for a number of years to avoid extradition.

Interesting and really valid points in this thread Paul.

I wonder if some of the Instructors on these courses have ever tried themselves to obtain written consent from owners of buildings within 50m.  

I would be nice to get a formal answer from the CAA on their intepretation of under the control of the Pilot, as commercial licenses to operate also reiterate the conditions in the CAP722 regarding the 50m rule.

What if consent is not obtained from adjoining owners, but you employ suitable remedial measures to reduce the overall risk assessment to an acceptable level, such as using additional observers, radios.  Is this justifiable and then within the control of the Pilot.  If you carry out your commercial risk assessment for the specific project and identify possible areas where consent may not be obtained, but in your opinion the risk reduction measures you propose safety reduces the risk to an acceptable level, then you have at least some quantifiable evidence that you can demonstrate to ensure everything is in your controls as far as reasonably practicable.

These words "as far as reasonably practicable" are contained within many statutory legislation and regulations and wonder if this would be more appropriate for the "under the control of the Pilot, as far as reasonably practicable under the circumstances".

I am not for one minute suggesting deviance from the CAA rules, but I do feel that the CAA needs to clarify its wording for the benefit of all.  Indeed, I am of the opinion that the Qualified Entities (Training providers)  approved by the CAA need to seek clarification from the CAA so that their training is more specific and without ambiguity.  At present, you can complete the commercial training, get licensed by the CAA as an approved operator yet still be unsure as to what Under The Control of The Pilot actually means in real terms.

I wonder if anyone has obtained any clarifications from the CAA on this wording.  When regulations are brought into question, it is quite common for regulators or training providers not to provide comment or interpretation of wording and would rather wait for a court case to set the precedent.  I would rather seek that clarification in advance to remain on the right side of the law and act in a responsible and professional manner.

It would be nice if the CAA reciprocated and provided a service where anyone can communicate with them regarding Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and seek clarification and advice.  However, until such times that the CAA accept their responsibilities and provide a service where one can enter into dialogue via telephone or email, we have to make responsible assumptions ourselves.  

So until there is some meaningful interpretation from the CAA, we must apply our common sense and ensure that safety prevails.  If their is some doubt in regard to proposed flight operations, thats probably a good indicator not to proceed unless further risk reduction measures can be introduced accordingly.

This is obviously a subjective thread and I accept some may feel there is no ambiguity in the way the CAA have worded the regulations.  I however like things to be black and white and crystal clear, which in my opinion the current regulations present some doubt over the choice of words used in its attempt to set conditions precedent to flying safely.
If anyone on the forum in the UK has obtained any clarification or comments directly from the CAA on this matter, please post for everyones mutual benefit.

PaulKerry Posted at 2015-9-19 04:36
Your opinion is not in line with that of the instructors from whom I just received my training.
I w ...

I understand your point and still stand to be corrected but "within 50m" has no reference to distance horizontal, lateral or otherwise. It is a 3 dimensional proximity statement and as such is measured by a straight line or vector between two objects.  This is further substantiated by the CAA statements regarding congested areas and organised open air gatherings of > 1000 people where the words "over or" are specifically included and indeed in the CAA video they specifically addd the words "at any height" when referring to organised open air gatherings of > 1000 people - although even that is superfluous in that case as to be outside 150m overhead you would be above the legal AGL restriction.

https://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1995&pageid=16842
An extreme example would be if the moon or the International Space station were directly over my cottage that I would say it was within 50m - clearly nonsense.

So my point is that you could take off > 30m from any person or >50m of vessel,  structure or vehicle and fly over it / them as long as you are > 50m higher than the person / object.
And for the avoidance of doubt here is article 167 from the CAA specific regulations - Air Navigation Order 2009 amended 2015.
Article 167

• 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.
  
• 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.

  
  
• Subject to paragraph (4), during take-off or landing, a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not be flown within 30 metres of any person.  
  
• 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.
  
• 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.
  

The language and letter of this law is clear and un-ambiguous and would allow you (notwithstanding privacy) to fly over a beach at a height >50m as long as  if there were >1000 persons (albeit that on a UK beach that could be considered congested :-)) and they were not organised, whether or not they were under your control (subject to Risk Assesssment).
I do however agree that there is a very grey area around "persons under your control".

As for your theory test, assuming it was based on what your instructor believed or had been advised then you would of course have scored 100% and in any event your response would have been less risk than the regulation stated by the CAA.

Additionally whatever the CAA rules, then a sensible risk assessment should always be carried out and will no doubt be in your operations manual.

I make the point, because otherwise you would struggle to fly anywhere where there was any possibility of there being any person, vehicle or structure - eg wall / derelict cottage - on the ground.

PaulKerry Posted at 2015-9-19 13:14
I have no argument with your points. I agree.

My subjective interpretation of "under the control  ...

Paul,

I agree mate.

In regards to the CAA, they  have been understaffed until around August time, but I believe they started some more staff to get through the backlog of commercial applications.

I dont think there is any excuses though for the CAA as they simply have chosen not to enter into dialogue in regard to any UAV queries period, not what you want when you are trying to operate a safe business.

Very interesting comments.  Looking at rules I believe you can fly over buildings as long as it's not a built up area as long as you 50 metres or more away in any direction, horizontally or vertically. Then it says you can't fly over groups of 1000 or more which suggests if it is less than that you can as long as your at least 50 or more above them.

Safety is paramount and you have to use common sense, I would never consider flying above a beach in summer time with families or groups of people below even though looking at rules it is legal. If in doubt then there is no doubt is very true.

maclean156 Posted at 2015-9-22 13:10
Very interesting comments.  Looking at rules I believe you can fly over buildings as long as it's no ...

Just had a read through these posts and have wading through the regulations yet again! I have to agree that it's all very confusing but hopefully I can add some clarification. Anyway here goes:

Article 167 only applies to small unmanned surveillance aircraft (SUSA) and imposes tighter restrictions on top of article 166. The distances being talked about must therefore be to ensure privacy, not safety as they do not apply to non-surveillance aircraft (SUA). As such it is my understanding that the 50m rule is in any direction, and when I enquired this was confirmed by my BNUC-S flight examiner. The 150m rule can be applied in the same way so long as you are not flying directly above a gathering of people or a congested area.

Requirements for flying in a congested area are covered in detail by CAA IN-2014/190.

Article 166 covers the safety aspects of flying eg VLOS (500m radius) and 400ft max alt (but only if over 7kg - you can go higher if less than 7kg).

BUT if you fly your drone commercially under a CAA Permission For Aerial Work (PFAW), the Permission (confusingly) applies the same rules whether flying SUA or SUSA, and the wording changes such that:
- the 50m rule for people, property, etc. not under your control also states 'not directly overhead' so in this case it appears they have imposed a safety element.
- there is no reference to flying in a congested area for aircraft under 7kg, this is effectively covered by the 'under you control' requirements. It is 150m etc. for aircraft over 7kg.
- the max altitude is limited to 400ft for all aircraft up to 20kg.

To seek exemption from some of these regulations a Congested Areas Operating Safety Case (CAA IN-2014/184) can be submitted in advance to the CAA. Be aware that it will never be possible to fly directly overhead persons and vehicles at any height in a congested area unless they are under the control of the pilot in charge. (You will need a manned aircraft / helicopter to do this) So I don't know what the rules are in the USA but we see loads of videos of Inspires being flown over towns.

In practice I imagine that it is only SUSA that are used commercially which is why the PFAW doesn't distinguish between SUA and SUSA. It also appears that (sensibly), some additional thought has been given to safety when flying commercially by not allowing flight directly overhead of people. property, etc. not under your control. I would suggest that it is prudent for non-commercial flying to follows this guidance.

Just remember that the overriding issues when flying are not to 'endanger anyone or anything' and communicate so that people do not feel threatened or take offence in any way.

Such rules spoil safety. Most people will (if they even know) ignore them anyway because there is no other way. Or should I enslave any people in the way to obtain control? Actually this would be the conclusion. Seems that some regulators wants that people buy camouflage stickers though then with a shorter LOS it will be just less safe for all. I didnt change the black white until now for visibility reasons it turned out the black can be seen in the sky and the white against the wood. Camouflaged it will be hard to detect in lower altitudes or near a wood maybe thats the way to avoid trouble with the CAA in Britain. I am not flying in cities but I will not change the path because there are 5 people sitting under a tree or there are some houses.

If they want more safety then they should force the manufacturers to construct safer drones. Its like it would not be allowed to drive a car near people because it could loose a tire and crash. Now is there a law to stay away 50m from unenslaved people with your car or are there more secure cars?

oh and not to forget:

For any poor noobs in UK the Phantom 3 Standard is on sale at affordable price for all and the UK dealer has a nice video to it violating all of the mentioned CAA rules. (2-3 people may belong to the crew but not all withing 50m and sure not the buildings around)
Now whats the point: just realize how unrealistic and strange this rules are will there even be ONE single person flying after this rules?

http://www.heliguy.com/dji/phantom-3/phantom-3-standard.html

I must have to agree with some pointers given ."persons or buildings under control"
Please can someone explaine this utterly stupid statement  as a pilot how can you ever have control of a person unless you have strings attached like a puppet .you could never predict what a person is going to do weather in a crowd or one persons in a feild .statisticly speaking hitting one person in a feild say of 500mtrs sq is about 1in  500000   In a veil where ther are 1000s of people chances are 1 in 25 chance  but could be Lowe dependent on how they are spaced out, regarding control of a property this is utterly obserd do you shout at it to tell it to move out of the way ,well you could do but really? Only mental people do that and expect it to get up and do as they say . AIRCRAFT FLY OVER CROWDS OF PEOPLE AND ANY  BUILDINGS THE DESIRE so can you explane the rules regarding them, some at Less than 400feet as in police halicopters /jets taking off from runways which have houses at the end of their air strips  over traffic on motorways as in London  when you put the rules to practical testing they often breakdown . Understand rules should be their for everyone but should be put into place using a bit of  common  sense

Yes they should explain the redundancy of a police helicopter when a motor fails or the rotor breaks

I believe the CAA accepts that the current rules regarding the 50m restriction is unworkable.  This is why they are looking to remove the 50m rule when they revise the regulations.  It is anticipated this will be revoked for the <7KG class of small UAV when the new UK CAA regs come out next year, in line with the European Aviation Safety  Agency consultation that is currently underway.  This will be a bonus for the commercial operators using the smaller UAVs, however, don't get complacent here, as a commercial operator you will still be required to undertake specific risk assessments for each and every project.

From recent discussions with the CAA and just to clarify for new guys, if you have any building etc that is within 50m of your proposed flight, you need permission from the adjoining owners to comply with the current regulations, at least until they are amended next year.

To be absolutely clear regarding the avoidance of people and cars (ie. things that ‘might appear’) – the CAA only expect you to react to these if they appear, and so manoeuver your aircraft away from them, or land, until they have moved away.  However if you have not got permission from adjoining owners within 50m then you can't proceed unless you submit an Operating Safety Case (OSC) as per CAP 722, where you will have to outline your proposed flight and how you intend to control the area in detail.  Unless you get that permission from the owners etc. of adjacent buildings, it is unlikely under the current regulations that permission will be granted by the CAA, even after submitting an OSC where an adjoining building is present within the 50m separation.