First UK conviction for illegal use of an unmanned aircraft by the CAA.

A

alib10

Member
Helihound said:
Just looking at the advice given on the CAA link

"An unmanned aircraft must never be flown beyond the normal unaided ‘line of sight’ of the person operating it. This is generally measured as 500m horizontally or 400ft vertically."

Does this include if the user is using FPV? Technically speaking his line of sight is actually on the quad. Just trying to be a smart @rse ;)

You have to admit though, the bridge crossing was low enough to hit a vehicle.
Click to expand...

if you are flying fpv, you need a spotter who always has visual of the UAS ie: 500m horizontally or 400ft vertically.
 

Benjamin Kenobi

Benjamin Kenobi

Easy? You call that easy?
Line of sight with the ability to spot incursions of your airspace by a manned aircraft. You can't get that with any FPV gear as it only looks in one direction and you can't monitor the aircrafts flight path in relation to others.

Commercially, the pilot must maintain 'unaided' visual contact with his aircraft.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

H

Helihound

Member
Benjamin Kenobi said:
Line of sight with the ability to spot incursions of your airspace by a manned aircraft. You can't get that with any FPV gear as it only looks in one direction and you can't monitor the aircrafts flight path in relation to others.

Commercially, the pilot must maintain 'unaided' visual contact with his aircraft.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clearing that up. You learn something new every day.

On a separate note, I have just seen your showcase on your site. Superb.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


M

mkheng

Member
Ben, everyone must maintain 'unaided' direct contact.

FPV RC is a legitimate activity but there are limitations that you must observe to be both legal and insured. ANO Article 166 (3) says the person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must maintain direct, unaided visual contact with the aircraft sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions. This is a strict legal requirement.

The implication for FPV RC is that the pilot ‘under the hood’ cannot, by definition, be the pilot in charge of the model and that there must be a separate ‘pilot in charge’ at all times. After discussions with the insurers and the CAA, BMFA has been able to arrange insurance for the activity but ONLY if the following regulation is followed:

When flying FPV RC, the pilots MUST use a buddy box system with the pilot in charge using the master transmitter. In addition, the model is equipped with a video camera and video link to the ground and will automatically be classed by the CAA as a small aircraft equipped for surveillance. Consequently, all of ANO Article 167, (Small unmanned surveillance aircraft) will apply to any flights made. This can be read in full in the section ‘Legal Controls over Model Flying’.
Again, these are strict legal requirements.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 

Benjamin Kenobi

Benjamin Kenobi

Easy? You call that easy?
Alas I am only familiar with commercial operations so don't really know the details of hobby FPV.

Thanks for clarifying Michael!
 


Benjamin Kenobi

Benjamin Kenobi

Easy? You call that easy?
Maybe it would be worth doing a thread on the law in the UK with a kind of synopsis or abridged version of the ANO and articles which would be easier to digest? We could actually list the main points rather than keep referring to the ANO etc or links to it, as the actual document is not entirely reader friendly, unless you plan on having a good nights sleep...:sleeping:

People are often asking about UK UAV law, or should I say RPAS law....
 




J

jimmygixxer

Member
Benjamin Kenobi said:
Maybe it would be worth doing a thread on the law in the UK with a kind of synopsis or abridged version of the ANO and articles which would be easier to digest? We could actually list the main points rather than keep referring to the ANO etc or links to it, as the actual document is not entirely reader friendly, unless you plan on having a good nights sleep...:sleeping:

People are often asking about UK UAV law, or should I say RPAS law....
Click to expand...

Good thinking!
The trouble is so many illegal videos on you tube and so on, people think i'm going to get one of them and do that.
Bullet point the rules would be so must easier for hobbyist or anyone new to the hobby who have no clue they are breaking the law.
 

H

Helihound

Member
I see the DJI Vision plus has a 15km fly zone and a 25 min fly time with a return to home feature. I would struggle to see 1km never mind 15km. Layman's terms of the law is a good idea. Until reading this thread, I wasn't aware of some of the rules/regulations relating to the safe use of a quadcopter.

Sent from my TegraNote-P1640 using Tapatalk
 

J

Jetstuff

Jetstuff
mkheng said:
Ben, everyone must maintain 'unaided' direct contact.

FPV RC is a legitimate activity but there are limitations that you must observe to be both legal and insured. ANO Article 166 (3) says the person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must maintain direct, unaided visual contact with the aircraft sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions. This is a strict legal requirement.

When flying FPV RC, the pilots MUST use a buddy box system with the pilot in charge using the master transmitter.
Click to expand...

That information was superceded last year, it is NOT necessary for the buddy box system, but the observer is still required, the pilot in charge, is the pilot that is controlling the aircraft (below 2.5 Kg for rotorcraft) ....... http://bmfa.org/Info/ModelFlyingTypes/FirstPersonView(FPV)/tabid/256/Default.aspx

Interesting to note that the exemption apparently just expired 31st March 2014...!!!........ ?? BMFA.....where are you??

john
 
Last edited by a moderator:


Benjamin Kenobi

Benjamin Kenobi

Easy? You call that easy?
Jetstuff said:
And one to follow in Australia too....... http://www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/...to-Triathlete-During-Race-Causing-Head-Injury

I read elsewhere that some 'professional operators' rejoice in the CAA action against a UK model aircraft flier, it could happen to anyone of us...don't assume that membership of some 'professional body' suddenly means that that you are exempt from an accident, failure or fly-away, however caused.
Click to expand...

Gosh, really, some people are rejoicing? These negative stories are never a case for rejoicing. I actually felt sorry for the guy since it was an accident. We all see plenty of videos of people deliberately flying irresponsibly, I had hoped one of those cases would make it to the courts first.

There's a long thread on that Australian incident on the forum. Lots of conflicting information so far.

Great to see you posting again Jetstuff! You've been off the forums too long. :nevreness: This is the best forum around!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.
Top