Another CAA Conviction in the UK

[iceman]

Just read this http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2364 It's good to know our interests are being protected. Just recently I received an email from a video company who were advertising wedding cinematography workshops, when I visited their website I saw they were advertising aerial filming services to other wedding videographers for £300 and when I inquired if they had CAA permission for aerial work the service was removed from their website within minutes!!! I did receive an email from the company in question and all they said was "sorry I don't offer quadcopter filming services anymore as I was just getting silly enquiries asking me to film Brides walking down aisles!" Read into this what you will but this is what we are up against. Just do a Google search for wedding video aerial filming and you will find others!

 

[Flydigital]

Very interesting. What about going up way high above the clouds. I've seen lots on YouTube though so I wonder what the rule is there? It says no more than 400ft, yet lots of rule breaking going on. Do the CAA follow these up?

 

[iceman]

Very interesting. What about going up way high above the clouds. I've seen lots on YouTube though so I wonder what the rule is there? It says no more than 400ft, yet lots of rule breaking going on. Do the CAA follow these up?

400' Agl maximum (more only with an exemption from the CAA) and Operations should be clear of cloud and in sight of the ground so anyone above the cloud is not flying within the regulations (same apply to model RC) and yes it looks like they are now starting to look at online footage for evidence. I even heard a rumor that a company with PFAW are being investigated following the broadcast of footage showing aerials of houses in a congested area for a TV property type show.

 

[hexa]

Old trick the governmentals get the people to be police. Come now why wasn't the towers security the one who phone the police. Not like ram ageing through YouTube for vids of folks flying the phantom then reporting it to police will make their filming company makes more money.
I smell jealousy

 

[Carapau]

The CAA do follow up when they have the proof although this has only recently started as their resources have been limited.

Rules are there to protect people's safety not to mess us around. The CAA are genuinely applying a minimalistic approach to regulation and I think to good effect. The reason for not going above 400ft is so that you dont mix with other aircraft and present a danger to them. They in turn can't ordinarily fly below 500ft thus there is a degree of separation. If this were not the case then all drone flights would be illegal unless you had expensive sense and avoid systems, transponders etc so I think we should all be greatful for that the fact that a/ The CAA has found a way to let everyone from Phantom pilot upwards fly and have fun and that b/ the regulation is not over burdensome.

 

[hexa]

There is a vid on the tube right now with a guy flying in London taking shots of the London eye he even did a nice close up shot of my friend Big Ben. This guy ain't hard to find he is all over the web. Why hasn't the Caa fine this guy? Seems only some folks are able to break Bend the air rules

 

[Benjamin Kenobi]

If you mean Team Black Sheep, then they avoided the CAA by leaving the country.

The CAA needs the right evidence to prosecute someone, this is often hard to get.

 

[hexa]

Just hope the Caa. Keep it sweet and do not put any restrictions on the hobby pilots out here that use a lot of common sense when out flying.

 

[Benjamin Kenobi]

There are already restrictions in place for all hobby fliers. They have been there since long before the commercial ones.

Try not to think of them as restrictions. Think of them as guidelines for safe flying.

The laws that are in place are common sense. You don't go higher than 400ft so you don't crash into a plane. You don't fly further away than 500m because you can't see the aircraft at that distance. You keep 50m from the public so you have time to react if something goes wrong. Simples. :02.47-tranquillity:

 

[Carapau]

Just hope the Caa. Keep it sweet

The CAA are one of the real anomalies in Government (well the RPAS part of them is) in that they are wholeheartedly trying to take a minimalistic approach to the regulation so they are genuinely doing their level best to 'keep it sweet'. At times I think they keep it almost a bit too sweet as there are a couple of small areas (relating to commercial use, not hobby use) that could do with tightening up. Rest assured though, they are really on side to enabling us all to maximise our use of the air, safely.

 

[bobdaz]

I am getting increasingly fed up with the people who are not only operating illegally but the companies who use them too! Most of us people who stick to the rules to run our companies within the rules are being kicked in the teeth on a daily basis with a flood of vids on YouTube/vimeo, often breaking every rule in the book!
The CAA should be more proactive to stop these people, firstly on a safety angle and secondly to give more active policing to us guys who pay money to them!
I also think companies like EuroUsc should take an active part to help stop this disregard of the rules.
I went to my local Maplins and was looking at the phantom model they are promoting, In a flash the sales guy was on me! I asked a few probing questions both technical and legal, The guy new Jack s**t! Ok rant over. Phil Dowell pfaw registration 322.

 

[iceman]

There should be a system in place where we can forward details to the CAA of operations that take place without a PFAW, I have now seen a number of operators advertising aerial services/operating without a PFAW and wouldn't hesitate to make the authorities aware of them. Having said that you need to also concentrate on your own work and business and worry less about others.

 

[Benjamin Kenobi]

We should worry less about those operating without a PFAW. You can't get insured without one and the big companies will need this. We don't want those £100 jobs anyway.

Huge changes next year anyway, so any discussions we have now will probably be rendered mute with time.

 

[iceman]

We should worry less about those operating without a PFAW. You can't get insured without one and the big companies will need this. We don't want those £100 jobs anyway.

Huge changes next year anyway, so any discussions we have now will probably be rendered mute with time.

Some of the companies I have seen operating are not small organizations and are charging good money for the service, the problem is they offer aerial photo/video as an addition to the service they already provide and simply don't know or even realise that regulations exist, I imagine that some may even think that their existing PLI will cover them. They go to major dealers that sell the "Drone" and how wonderful and easy they are to fly but fail to explain the legal bit. If the new legislation forces dealers to somehow register the sale with something like the equivalence of say a TV license then the powers at be would at least have a list owners/users that have been informed that might be a start.

 

[Benjamin Kenobi]

Honestly, I think it will go the other way. Less regulation I'm afraid...

 

[iceman]

Honestly, I think it will go the other way. Less regulation I'm afraid...

What makes you think that Ben? I thought there was a big debate regarding RPAS in the houses of parliament to enforce regulation not lessen it, having said that you are right in that anyone working for professional broadcast production companies will find they will always be looking for those with the right experience, knowledge, permission and insurance etc.

 

[Benjamin Kenobi]

Erm, whispers on the aether?

The House of Lords debate is mostly just so they can be seen to be discussing the issue. Mostly it's privacy that gets debated but those laws are already in place so don't expect any big changes.

It is so hard to enforce the regulations and the CAA are slightly stuck with what to do with hobby fliers. Does it really come under the umbrella of 'aviation?' They are radio controlled models after all.

 

[cootertwo]

I still fail to understand all this BS. More laws, more rules and regulations. Holy cwap, it's as simple as dirt. You do something that causes harm to someone, or someone's property, you pay! The laws are already there. If I walk next door, and poke my neighbor in the eye with my finger, are fingers going to be subject to rules and regulations? Same as if I hit him over the head with a 2X4, or throw a rock through his window right? Sure there are such things as "hit and run", where the perpetrator gets away, but that's life. Problem is, in my opinion, we have far, far, too many chiefs, for the amount of Indians. The chiefs have to continually stir the pot, to try to make themselves look useful to us UN-educated morons that will kill ourselves if left to our own devices. "Just sayin"..................I still have 5 nitro powered helies, and was into that faze of the hobby for quite awhile. A few people KILLED DEAD by those flying lawnmowers, NEVER heard of any kind of cwap like whats going on now with our battery powered devices.
P.S. If anyone wants to fly a Phantom, S800/900/1000 or some other craft through my window, please do. I'll replace the window, keep the wrecked craft for parts, and still be ahead in the game. And BTW, I'd have to personally witness a multirotor going completely through a roof, before I'd believe it.

 

[Benjamin Kenobi]

Dude! Where did that rant come from? We were talking about less laws coming in next year, not more.

Of course it will go the other way in the USA for the next 5 years, but you'll get there in the end.

 

[cootertwo]

I know, I'm sorry. I am in the US, and a hermit. I am just sick and tired of some gobment "A" hole telling me what I can, and can't do, when I'm not bothering a soul. Guess it's time for my medication. Ha!