Basics of UK regulations

[Bartman]

I've posted this elsewhere but was wondering if it could be proofed by you guys

please feel free to add important points i've left out

the basic gist of the UK regulations is this....

the UK's Civil Aviation Authority has approved a process whereby private companies run classes and testing to certify pilots.

to certify sUAS aircraft there is an inspection process also done by private companies. sloppy builds that will likely be unreliable and unsafe are rejected and there are realistic standards to which the aircraft must be built

pilots must demonstrate competence in a flight test of the aircraft that they are seeking to certify

the company must also have operating guidelines established that include emergency procedures as well as how they will deal with non-normal conditions

from what I've seen a lot of it is common sense such as the operating limits
....line of sight at all times
....below 400 ft
....within 400m of the point from which you took off

once all of the conditions have been met you are free to go out and begin taking jobs.

enforcement is provided by the UK's Civil Aviation Authority and there have already been instances where non-licensed operators have been prosecuted. the community of commercial sUAS operators in the UK are a functioning professional group that support each other through websites like this and others.

there's no reason why an identical situation couldn't be established here sooner rather than later.

please sign the petition at
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...ately/2vbvcC0C

thanks for reading.

bart

 

[genesc]

Signed

 

[Droider]

I've posted this elsewhere but was wondering if it could be proofed by you guys

please feel free to add important points i've left out

the basic gist of the UK regulations is this....

the UK's Civil Aviation Authority has approved a process whereby private companies run classes and testing to certify pilots.

to certify sUAS aircraft there is an inspection process also done by private companies. sloppy builds that will likely be unreliable and unsafe are rejected and there are realistic standards to which the aircraft must be built

pilots must demonstrate competence in a flight test of the aircraft that they are seeking to certify

the company must also have operating guidelines established that include emergency procedures as well as how they will deal with non-normal conditions

from what I've seen a lot of it is common sense such as the operating limits
....line of sight at all times
....below 400 ft
....within 400m of the point from which you took off

once all of the conditions have been met you are free to go out and begin taking jobs.

enforcement is provided by the UK's Civil Aviation Authority and there have already been instances where non-licensed operators have been prosecuted. the community of commercial sUAS operators in the UK are a functioning professional group that support each other through websites like this and others.

there's no reason why an identical situation couldn't be established here sooner rather than later.

please sign the petition at
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...ately/2vbvcC0C

thanks for reading.

bart

NOPE. it aint quite that straight forward

CAP722 and CAP393 are the basic rule books.

the biggest hurdle over here is the 'Operation Manual' Each applicant that has done all the tests must have an operations manual. Right now mine is at 68 pages.

I am sure the FAA are watching us in the UK and how it pans out over the next 6/12 months. One thing for sure it will get harder and much more expensive to operate.

The new notification CAA - IN 2014/081 is a big step toward clamping down and making it harder to get permissions especially in congested/urban areas.

D

 

[Benjamin Kenobi]

Hi Bart,

Almost there. Our aircraft are not deemed airworthy or their flight worthiness is not tested per se. If it flies during the flight test then that is about the only check that takes place. Airworthiness certificates will come into force for over 7kg aircraft by the end of this year. This will probably just entail a bloke looking at the MR and going 'it's okay' and then taking £2000 from you.

I should mention weight categories quickly. Currently no airworthiness certificate is needed upto 20kg. There is another divide between over and under 7kg.

Our operating parameters are:

VLOS - Visual line of sight.
400ft above ground level.
500m radius from the pilot.
150m from a congested area of town or city (for over 7kg aircraft)
50m from the public during flight, reduced to 30m during takeoff and landing.
150m from a gathering of 1000 or more people

Over 7kg aircraft must also notify air traffic control towers if flying within an air traffic zone.

Notice the difference between over and under 7kg aircraft?

Hope this helps.

 

[Av8Chuck]

Hi Ben,

have you seen, and signed the petition? Curious what you think? I'm fielding quite a few questions from people asking what is the UK standard and what I'm finding is that, first we should have sorted this out before the rush to launch the petition, but it is what it is now, and second that the UK standard is difficult for me to understand, and I've been flying MR's for about six years so I can't imagine what it would be like for anyone who might be just starting out to comprehend this.

I also don't think we can send out "our" condensed version, as the "group authors" of the petition, although its not a conflict of interest I could see how some might percieve it as disingenuous.

Would you mind looking at this? http://www.unmannedtech.co.uk/regulations.html

For people asking about the UK standard do you think this is an adequate response? We should also provide a link to the full up version but my concern is that the reader would be overwhelmed and decide not to sign the petition.

Oops, sorry, actually being in the UK I don't think you can sign the petition.

 

[Bartman]

..........first we should have sorted this out before the rush to launch the petition..........

chuck,

whatever ax you're trying to grind you should get over it. there is a deadline of July 25th for the public to submit comments to the FAA for the "interpretation" that is currently pending. once it is accepted into the public record it will be difficult to overturn and we'll be stuck with it short of an expensive court battle or act of congress.

hence the rush, and the effort to get the gaps filled in on the fly.

what is your background? someone mentioned a legal presence in another thread, was that you that they were referring to?

bart

 

[Bartman]

http://www.unmannedtech.co.uk/regulations.html

that link has some good info but it mixes in a lot of extraneous information where we are trying to concentrate on the sUAS standard. less than 7kg is not quite enough to do serious aerial work whereas a 20kg limit is plenty, IMHO.

 

[Droider]

that link has some good info but it mixes in a lot of extraneous information where we are trying to concentrate on the sUAS standard. less than 7kg is not quite enough to do serious aerial work whereas a 20kg limit is plenty, IMHO.

They are only extracts. go read CAP722 as a start off. Maybe you should reference the documents I have previously mentioned as part of your case in the US.

 

[Bartman]

i'll look at them but I have to go to a kiddie birthday party this afternoon, i have to dig out around my pool so i can lay rocks around it (yay!), and i have to fix my suburban so my brother-in-law and his family can use it next week while they are in town. that and about fifty other projects to get the house fixed up and sold as well as fixing heli's, completing product reviews, trying not to let another summer blow past me, etc., etc., etc.

ain't life grand!?!?

i'll look at it tonight sometime and try to get a better summary going.

thanks for all of the help.
bart

 

[Droider]

In the UK serious operators of sUAV, RPA, UAS or WTF you want to refer to them are members of http://arpas.co.uk/

Phil Tarry started this with with a common sense approach to what we needed in the UK. It started as SUB20 and has matured to the current organisation. We have members representing uk operators in Brussels putting our case over, (thanks Angus) and with the CAA and NATS. IF the US opertors are serious about getting the FAA to listen then use ARPAS as a shinning example of good old Brit determination.

ANYONE in the UK operating sUAS, RPA or what ever you want to call um FFS join http://arpas.co.uk/ and help protect your investment, its a really small price to pay to have a unified voice.

 

[Benjamin Kenobi]

that link has some good info but it mixes in a lot of extraneous information where we are trying to concentrate on the sUAS standard. less than 7kg is not quite enough to do serious aerial work whereas a 20kg limit is plenty, IMHO.

Yeah those regulations looked a bit too restrictive, at least the first part. The rest seems reasonable.

I'm a sub 7kg flyer and have filmed for most of the major TV networks and even a low budget movie. You can do a lot with a light aircraft! Over 7kg in the UK simply means a little more paperwork and an extra phone call before a shoot. No biggy. I'll be getting a heavy lifter before November to lift red epics and the like as I would very much like to film some high-end cinema type stuff (especially the new Star Wars movies as my name would look awesome in the credits!).

I don't see why the FAA don't just copy the UK regs like many other countries. They work and we have quite a bit of freedom.

 

[Droider]

I'll be getting a heavy lifter before November to lift red epics and the like as I would very much like to film some high-end cinema type stuff

Well you'll need a good camera operator for that.. I have a shed load of guys that can help you out there..

D

 

[Av8Chuck]

chuck,

whatever ax you're trying to grind you should get over it. there is a deadline of July 25th for the public to submit comments to the FAA for the "interpretation" that is currently pending. once it is accepted into the public record it will be difficult to overturn and we'll be stuck with it short of an expensive court battle or act of congress.

hence the rush, and the effort to get the gaps filled in on the fly.

what is your background? someone mentioned a legal presence in another thread, was that you that they were referring to?

bart

Not sure why you think I have an axe to grind? I've been contributing with this petition process at every opportunity. As of this writing we have 124 signatures, that's pitiful. I, along with others pointed out that we are getting question from people who responded to the request to sign the petition about what the UK rules are, we don't have an adequate response and I think that's probably a big reason for the lack of signatures. So its important that we resolve that issue quickly.

The problem with filling in the gaps on the fly is that you won't get a second chance to fill in those gaps with people who have read the petition and already moved on because they didn't have sufficient information to decide to sign the petition. If you agree with that then it means that all of us, not just you, who participated in the thread to develop the petition screwed up. But I did mention either before or shortly after the petition went live, I had no idea when you were posting it:

"we need to be working on the next thing. Along with a link to the UK's commercial sUAS standards we need to provide a link to our PAC's mission statement and how people can join and get involved. I hate to use this term but we're also going to need talking points. If we get any traction then the media will certainly start asking questions, if they bait us into a debate about what we think the rules should be we will squander any hope for positive PR. Our talking points should be well though out and trend predominately towards our desire to protect the rights of small businesses to operate in this industry."

This is probably all mental masturbation, with such a lackluster response to the request to sign the petition it probably won't matter anyway. I also think that many here have an unrealistic expectation, even if the petition gets the required signatures of what that will accomplish. The White House has stated on several occasions the goal for these petitions is not to change policy, but to provide people the opportunity to organize around a common interest. Which is the real value in what your doing.

The goal should not be to change the minds of the rule committee with a petition, that was never going to happen. Don't you think that everyone on that committee know's how other countries regulate sUAS's? If they were inclined to go that direction their rhetoric would be very different. The FAA's recent rhetoric regarding sUAS's has been all about the "passion" for flying. Do we need Rosetta Stone to translate the government speak for us?

I don't have an axe to grind, quite the contrary I think your doing a good job, you've got a great site, leverage your membership, see if you can get the other sites to join in your effort, not by creating a post on their website but by really contributing to the discussion. You get enough people talking, doing actionable things then at some point the FAA will have to listen. It would probably take at least 20k members. You can call it a different site, you can call it what ever you like, as far as the FAA is concerned its called a PAC.

I don't know what's going to happen with this, its a little unprecedented, we have a government that is trying to use regulatory procedure to circumnavigate a court case that they lost. So I doubt that a) the deadline is the end of the comment period, b) that "interpretation" will be legal and c) that it can't be overturned. But I do know this, if we [or somebody] don't create a sizable organization to represent and protect the rights of small businesses in the US to operate and remain competitive in this industry, commercial sUAS will be relagated to the dust bin of history along with the eight track tape machine.

 

[Bartman]

......I don't see why the FAA don't just copy the UK regs like many other countries. They work and we have quite a bit of freedom.

Yes!!!

 

[Bartman]

Not sure why you think I have an axe to grind? ......................

if you don't then that's fine but we have to be consistent and all pull in the same direction. if you want to go the PAC route then be my guest, you've got this site as a resource and my intention is to make it more representative of the overall multi-rotor operating community (pro and hobby) as we go.

 

[Carapau]

Thanks for the pitch there Dave! Seriously though, ARPAS UK along with all the other European National Associations are having a big impact in Europe and are shaping the European legislation (as well as their own national legislation) without doubt. If we acted as individuals then we simply would have no influence. Full stop (or should I say Period!). Bart- as ARPAS's legislation rep, please feel free to email or PM me and I will clarify everything I can. In the US, do you have a national association of professional drone operators? If not, then all it takes is one individual to get it started and you might then carry much more sway with the FAA. Just a thought. This is exactly what has happened in Finland where thanks to one guy the Finish are now progressing with SENSIBLE legislation.