nigelw Posted at 2016-4-14 18:35
That rule only refers to drones with a camera, which would seem to imply it's to do with privacy (C ...

Hi Nigel,

As it applies currently to the UK:

The designation is another broader brush; one of capabilities of surveillance, therefore the CAA regard anything with a camera (under 20Kg and with a Civil use - not Military) as a SUSA (Small Unmanned SUVEILLANCE Aircraft) and as such rather than one of privacy, it's one for the Data Protection Act.

Flying over your neighbour perhaps is morally objectionable, but the airspace is not owned by the neighbour and flying across it is not a violation of privacy - but what can be brought is a violation of the Data Protection Act - with or without an SD Card as there exists an insecure video link publicly streamed or broadcasting. It would probably need a test case to set the precedence though. But if you are flying persistantly over their garden then it might also be one of harassment or reckless endangerment .

CAP658 is specific to Model Aircraft. The SUSA under CAA regs is deemed to be an Aircraft not a Model Aircraft. Under 20Kg (and higher in some circumstances) it is exempt from an Airworthiness Certificate, but if you have PFAW then by the granting of that Permission to fly commercially given by the CAA you are flying thereafter an Aircraft.

To the person asking what he should do if someone walked into his 30 metre launch/landing zone - you should have it cordoned off and separated from the public anyway preventing them from entry therefore you are in breach of the CAA CAP722 Regs (which also incorporates Articles 166 & 167).

And if you say how can I do that, it's a public access or public area - then you shouldn't be flying there in the first place without landowner permissions and other safety factors in place.

My Ops Manual is about 45 pages long, less the Appendix just to comply with this stuff.

"And if you say how can I do that, it's a public access or public area - then you shouldn't be flying there in the first place without landowner permissions and other safety factors in place."

If the land you are flying from is public land e.g a beach, where does the requirement to get landowner permission come from and how can you possibly do that ?

and according to the CAA CAP722 only applies re commercial work - for hobby flying only CAP658 applies and it doesn't say anything about cordoning off a landing/take-off area.

ARM-001 Posted at 2016-4-14 18:58
Yup, agreed this part is really ambiguous and nowhere does it state that the distance between the d ...

I'll be very interested to hear what they have to say.  Personally I think the second interpretation is true for various reasons in their wording.  Also, it only accounts for drones with cameras, which would seem to imply it's a privacy thing rather than for safety.

nigelw Posted at 2016-4-14 18:26
That's just your interpretation, unless you can point me to a specific definition that says otherw ...

Hi Nigel
Altitude versus distance; it's very clearly laid out here in the special FPV exemption that allows us to fly up to 1,000 feet altitude when accomapnied by a colleague to spot for you.  They specifically mention 'over' as well as within 150 metres distance in d and e.  

CAA regs always use feet for altitude and metres for horizontal distance:
http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/1108.pdf
>>>>
4) The person in charge must not fly the SUA:
a) in  Class  A,  C,  D  or  E  airspace  unless  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 permission of any such air traffic control
unit has been obtained;
c) at a height of more than 1,000 feet above the surface (see Note 3);
d) over or within 150 metres of any congested area;
e) over or  within  150  metres  of  an  organised  open-air  assembly  of  more  than  1,000  
persons;
f) within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the
person in charge of the aircraft
>>>>

Spare Wheel Posted at 2016-4-14 19:47
To the person asking what he should do if someone walked into his 30 metre launch/landing zone - you should have it cordoned off and separated from the public anyway preventing them from entry therefore you are in breach of the CAA CAP722 Regs (which also incorporates Articles 166 & 167).

That's quite interesting to me, because I'm still trying to decide whether or not to bother with PfAW.

Most of my work will be on public access land, for example in the mountains of the Lake District or Scottish Highlands.  Does the area have to be cordoned off, or would it be acceptable to have enough visibility to avoid the problem?  I think I'll need to discuss it first with an NQE before parting with any cash.

I still find it all a bit over the top to be honest, to enforce such strict regulation just because money's changing hands.  Especially when you consider a working photographer/videographer has so much more to lose should there be a problem.  It's in their own interest to be careful, yet any fool can go & buy a 10kg octocopter & fly it around a park without any concerns whatsoever.

nigelw Posted at 2016-4-14 21:36
That's quite interesting to me, because I'm still trying to decide whether or not to bother with Pf ...

God bless the CAA in all their under-funded, inconsistent, ambiguous and excessively bureaucratic glory! One of the key reasons I gave up manned flying: 1 hour pleasure flight requires over half a day of non-flying work.

wellsi Posted at 2016-4-14 21:29
Hi Nigel
Altitude versus distance; it's very clearly laid out here in the special FPV exemption tha ...

This is exactly my point.

As you say, they specifically state over as well as within 150m in d. & e.  This would imply, by virtue of the fact that they've omitted the word over from f. & g., that you can actually fly over any vessel, vehicle or structure or person not under your control as long your aircraft stays more than 50m away from them in any direction.

nigelw Posted at 2016-4-14 21:50
This is exactly my point.

As you say, they specifically state over as well as within 150m in d. & ...

That's exactly how I interpret it too.  If it is a single house, or a bridge, or similar, you can fly more than 50 metres directly over it. Just like any hot air balloon. Or plane. Or paraglider....    People do not control all the space above their house....

Spare Wheel Posted at 2016-4-14 19:47
CAP658 is specific to Model Aircraft. The SUSA under CAA regs is deemed  to be an Aircraft not a Model Aircraft. Under 20Kg (and higher in some  circumstances) it is exempt from an Airworthiness Certificate, but if  you have PFAW then by the granting of that Permission to fly  commercially given by the CAA you are flying thereafter an Aircraft.

To the person asking what he should do if someone walked into his 30  metre launch/landing zone - you should have it cordoned off and  separated from the public anyway preventing them from entry therefore  you are in breach of the CAA CAP722 Regs (which also incorporates  Articles 166 & 167).

And if you say how can I do that, it's a public access or public area -  then you shouldn't be flying there in the first place without landowner  permissions and other safety factors in place.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs ... %20March%202015.pdf

I am intrigued by this;  Where do the regulations state that any SUA becomes a full blown aircraft just because it's got a camera?  It becomes an SUSA and that has more sepcifc rules on proximity, but I don't see it suddenly reclassified as a full blown aircraft.

And also, where does it state that all flights made by a PFAW are deemed to be aircraft, even if he's flying a SUA?  As by that argument, an unqualified pilot can fly his drone in a park without any cordoning off, whilst the PFAW guy must cordon off the land because he's certified?  That doesn't make any sense.

Ian

As with the case of a man flying around Buckingham Palace, a very prestigious place with lots of security. When approached by the police they instructed him to keep 50m away from the building... No mention of direction.

wellsi Posted at 2016-4-14 21:56
That's exactly how I interpret it too.  If it is a single house, or a bridge, or similar, you can  ...

What we need is a test case, someone to irritate people (from 50m above, but not directly above a person) to the extent they have to get a lawyer to defend themselves in court...I vote Tintin.

nigelw Posted at 2016-4-14 22:13
What we need is a test case, someone to irritate people (from 50m above, but not directly above a  ...

Ha.... I don't see we need a test case though.  If it's not in a town or village, and not congested, then you can fly over it, more than 50m....  As said, many other aircraft of various types do this all the time.......

But I reckon we may be seeing TinTin versus the Madleys soon!

And no mention at all of cameras.

But it is relevant to FPV flying which by its nature uses a camera

Aardvark Posted at 2016-4-14 22:22
But it is relevant to FPV flying which by its nature uses a camera

Exactly.....

I've had three months of flying around my village and no negative comments. My village is Bucks countryside and has 30 houses tops, it's 3 miles from a shop and 6miles from somewhere with more than one shop...it's fairly remote. Just earlier this week I had a complaint from a landowner on the edge of the village that they thought it creepy and asked me not to fly over their farm (small holding really - 10 acres tops). I sent them the details from the CAA (I was flying over 50m high etc etc) and it's gone quiet.....but I suspect more from them.

I am conscious that they make a bit of noise, but not a lot at 50m and I don't hover over people's properties. I think it's just 'new' and people think about privacy, not knowing that you can't identify people at 50m etc.

Flying over Buckngham Palace is asking for trouble....

What's the definition of congested ? My village certainly isn't.....what about the next village with 50 houses.....then the local market town with 750 ?

wellsi Posted at 2016-4-14 22:15
Ha.... I don't see we need a test case though.  If it's not in a town or village, and not congeste ...

"But I reckon we may be seeing TinTin versus the Madleys soon!  "

Do I detect a wicked streak

Flipperman Posted at 2016-4-14 22:49
What's the definition of congested ?

http://forum.dji.com/forum.php?m ... 76474&fromuid=85336

ARM-001 Posted at 2016-4-13 20:02
Ok people, we have officially left logic and coherence in our rear view mirrors.........

We lost logic long ago!!!

Here in my neighborhood of relatively new homes (15 years old),  we had an incident when the homes were new and under construction.

A homeowner built a new house, across the alley from a previously built (and occupied) home.   Some time after completion, he realized that the existing home was 2 story, with windows on the back.  And,  HORROR!! , someone at those windows could see in his new backyard!   His solution - sue the existing homeowner to get the windows removed!!!!    Of course he lost, but what an idiot!!!!

We are officially a nation of idiots, whiners, and wussies.

sid

nigelw Posted at 2016-4-14 23:26
http://forum.dji.com/forum.php?m ... 76474&fromuid=85336

OK.....so....

What's the definition of 'Area' ?

My village has a separate farm bordering one side of the road and another bordering the opposite side of the road. If you take 'area' to be the space that you are 'permitted' to fly in i.e. within sight.....which has been suggested is up to 500m (for arguments sake), then the area is a circle with a radius of 500m from the pilot.

Congested Area: This is defined in relation to a city, town or settlement: any area which is substantially used for residential, commercial, industrial or recreational purposes

My 'area' of 500m radius is not substantially used for residential, commercial, industrial or recreational purposes - its substantially farm land.

So it sounds like I'm ok.....and every 'hamlet' or small village in the UK is ok as well.....

Flipperman Posted at 2016-4-15 14:20
OK.....so....

What's the definition of 'Area' ?

Again, it's all open to interpretation.  Basically though, if you're reasonably happy with your interpretation, then go for it.  I'd say the size of the area is irrelevant & that just a few houses dotted around isn't a congested area.  If there are several streets lined with houses, then that would be considered a congested area to me.

Anyone else find it amusing that, in the age of social media, selfies, security cameras, GPS tracking etc etc, that "privacy" is suddenly important because of drones?

dkruseski Posted at 2016-4-15 18:23
Anyone else find it amusing that, in the age of social media, selfies, security cameras, GPS trackin ...

I was thinking about this today...if the general public got what they wanted, i.e. no-one being allowed to take a photo of you or your private property, then no-one would be allowed to use a camera outside of their own home.  The general public aren't very bright unfortunately.

nigelw Posted at 2016-4-16 03:38
I was thinking about this today...if the general public got what they wanted, i.e. no-one being al ...

The general public aren't very bright unfortunately.

Sadly, truer words have never been spoken.

dieselwind Posted at 2016-4-13 19:16
It's just a matter of trying to find that happy medium of not pissing people off.  In America, if  ...

I never said i fly in other people's backyards, that would be stupid and hurt the attitude towards drones in general. I said when i have to cut through people's back yards (walking) to the spot where i'm trying to launch from and film, i've had the cops called on me. I would never disrespect someone's privacy by flying a drone in their yard without their permission.

FatedFilmsNC Posted at 2016-4-15 16:41
I never said i fly in other people's backyards, that would be stupid and hurt the attitude towards  ...

I was just talking in general.  Sorry if you thought I meant you were flying in backyards.

nigelw Posted at 2016-4-14 17:13
What we need is a test case, someone to irritate people (from 50m above, but not directly above a  ...

So, we have a response from the CAA on this, disseminated via ARPAS-UK. Although this might change in the future, this is the CAA's own formal position on the matter. Personally I think it's the logical interpretation.

50M CLARIFICATION STATEMENT FROM THE CAA
As a result of numerous direct enquiries to the CAA, ARPAS-UK has received the following statement from the CAA regarding the 50m rule. The statement is word for word and has not been adjusted in any way.

‘’The absolute legal distance requirements are set out in article 167 of the Air Navigation Order, and they state that you must not fly ‘within 50m of a person, vehicle, vessel or structure that is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft’ – This is how it is written in law. It doesn’t mention anything about horizontal distance I’m afraid, so in absolute legal terms, you would need to think of it as a bubble.

Note also however, that this article only applies to ‘small unmanned surveillance aircraft’, so for a drone that does not have a camera fitted to it, or for R/C model aircraft (fixed wing or helicopters), there are no specific ‘avoidance distances’ set down.

So, the 50m ‘rule’ only applies to surveillance (by this we basically mean ‘camera’) equipped ‘drones’, and it can only legally be taken as being a ‘bubble’ – perhaps with hindsight, this regulation should have been written slightly differently, but it was thought to be acceptable at the time it was written – we know that articles 166 and 167 need a revision, partly to make the wording more understandable for the general public, but also to make the requirements more easily enforceable for the Police (how do you really ‘measure’ what 50m is?), and this is what we are starting to do at present.

However, that is not necessarily the complete story – it doesn’t mean that someone flying a non -camera fitted drone can do what he/she likes without any fear of arrest/prosecution. - ANO article 138 (Endangerment – “A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property”) is the overriding article that can be used at any time if it is considered that a person is operating a drone (which is still defined as an aircraft) inappropriately. - You can also refer to ANO article 166(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” as well in that he/she is responsible and must take reasonable steps to ensure the flight is conducted safely.

So, in the case of someone hovering a drone ‘51m’ directly above/almost above someone, yes – it is ok with regard to art 167, but this could easily fall under endangerment, especially if the person flying it has not taken any reasonable steps to satisfy him/herself that the flight can be conducted safely.

At the end of the day, we must consider what the ‘intent’ of the regulations is – in simple terms, the intent of the regulations is to protect third parties (ie. people and properties that are not involved in the operation), and so this is the primary consideration that should be made when making an assessment of whether or not an offence has been committed, or when considering a prosecution.

These regulation apply to all small unmanned aircraft (20kg or less) – there are no differences for above 7kg or 7kg or less. With regard to Permission holders, the bottom line is that it depends on what is written on their permission. We normally issue permissions to the 50m ‘limitation’ (so no difference) but if an operator has been able to demonstrate to us that his/her operation can be flown safely to within a lesser distance (and we are satisfied with this), then the text in the permission will reflect the shorter distance.

wellsi Posted at 2016-4-14 17:15
Ha.... I don't see we need a test case though.  If it's not in a town or village, and not congeste ...

In case you don't get an update alert automatically wellsi, I've posted the CAA's formal response to this issue.

I agree with most of the people that have commented. Just because you can do it doesn't mean you should. I think we should be respectful of our neighbors. Most won't care if they know what is actually going on. I try to touch base with those close to me , and not go hovering over their property for and length of time, no matter what altitude. Especially flying real low over a house or something like that without asking. Nobody like the idea of someone being able to capture a photo of them without their knowing.....even though we all know it is possible with the satellites and such that the government has. A little common sense goes a long way as far as I am concerned. Not everyone shares the same passion about fancy or new technologies like some of us might.

I can understand Richard and Judy complaining that Judy has a habit of popping her baps out in the strangest places, F*** the begrudgers

ARM-001 Posted at 2016-4-25 16:12
So, we have a response from the CAA on this, disseminated via ARPAS-UK. Although this might change ...

This is very good to read and pretty much confirms NIgel's and my own interpretation of the 50m rule.  It is, in effect a bubble, so that means you can fly over someone's house more than 50m and not fall foul of the law.

But, as I have often said, many of these laws exist to stop behaviour when that behaviour becomes unreasonably troublesome and generates complaints.  I have flown over several houses, probably more around 30 -40 metres, and likewise along the empty beaches I am closer than 50 metres to people.
Would I fly around 20-30 metres on a crowded beach?  No! And if I did, then there are regulations in place that can be used to stop me.  Likewise with houses. And pretty much all our flying.
It's good to have rules so we know our own flying rights when challenged by an idiot. But it's also important to remember basic manners and it's fully understandable that people will get annoyed if a drone is hovering above their house.  
That is another key point; to most people, a drone hovering means it's looking at you. A drone flying straight over without stopping is not perceived as such an intrusive threat as it's moving fast and looks like it's just flying to get to a particular destination.

Ian

ARM-001 Posted at 2016-4-25 16:12
So, we have a response from the CAA on this, disseminated via ARPAS-UK. Although this might change ...

Nice bit of clarification there, thanks.