If you can fly one multi rotor can you fly them all ?

[ZAxis]

It strikes me that all multirotors are now essentially identical in flight dynamics, you push the stick this way and it does what it was asked to do. You can fly them all with two joysticks using any flight controller, airframe configuration , motors or speed controllers. You do not need to relearn things from the ground up every time you want to fly a different configuration yet certification authorities and their 'qualified entities' remain convinced that you do. I want to gather opinions on this and our forum seems the best place to do so. Ideally I'd like to get enough information to present a rock solid case to the authorities that it is time to consider multirotor aircraft within defined ranges can be flown by already qualified pilots. We need to get them away from thinking about quad/hexa/octo copters, MK / DJI/ hoverfly controllers, 10/12/14 inch props and to think about approval by classification rather than by individual type.
Opinions please...

andy

 

[ZAxis]

anyone?

 

[MombasaFlash]

Well I'd say that if you can sit in a chair you can fly a multi-rotor.

Was that helpful?

 

[Bowley]

Andy, this is something I feel very strongly about, It could actually be a show stopper for me and I'm sure many others, if I have to haul *** down south and fork out another wedge for a retest every time I upgrade something. I also find it ludicrous that the test has to be done with payload....like what you have to be certified for that camera type as well?? wouldnt be bloody surprised!!

I would lend my support to any campaign to change this.

 

[jforkner]

The same case can be made for fixed-wing aircraft. The flight characteristics are essentially the same for all; just the systems that make them function differ.


Jack

 

[Macsgrafs]

This is the problem when a rip off company charging over £1000 pays the CAA back handers & the CAA see more openings to make money. If people refused to pay these extrotionate sums in the first place & just took thier BMFA B cert, then this wouldn't happen. I find it strange that they accept the B cert..for helicopters & then let us loose on MR aircraft.

But looking at this logically I must agree with the CAA..yes I know, me agree with a corrupt business.

Firstly I can just about programe my MK firmware (its not something I do every day), but what about DJI? I dont know where to start...in fact EACH flight controller has its own setup, different from each other, so in theory yes its a new aircraft with every new FC board.

Ross

 

[ChrisViperM]

There might be a problem that people outside the UK don't know enough about the legal situation in the UK. From what I have read so far, you have to meet some so called "Authority" and proof that your current setup is save. If you change your setup for some reason (different blades, another camera, etc...) you have to go there for a retest again, as if this would be a completely different Copter....???

It doesn't make any sense to discuss if this is stupid...it IS stupid.

I think the point is not "piloting" the copter. Once you can safely move a small Quad (like the GAUI 500X or the DJI F550) with some confidence through the air, you can do it basically with all Multirotors. They (authorities) would have to give you some proof that this is NOT the case.
But realistically they would just smile at you and say: " yes...you are right, but this is the law....now go and f**k yourself..."

To me there seems to be a few ways to find some sort of classification:

One could be different payload/total weight segments....this has to be discussed, but in general the way driving licenses for passenger cars are handled would be a good way. But even then you need some sort of definition of what is a motorbike, what is a passenger car, what is a Truck....If you (and all the others who are affected) can come up with a good and realistic definition of different UAV's would be the first step. The main problem I see is the qualification of all people on the "authority side" to judge if you are capable of flying your aircraft or not. I bet most of them don't even know what a LiPo is and the only thing they can do is let you fly a few rounds at their pemises and watch if the Copter drops down or not. They can't juge if your FC's setting are perfect, they don't know if your soldering stuff is done bullet proof, they have no idea if your ESC/motor/prop combination is sufficient or not...if it flies for a couple of minutes it seems ok for them. So the approval from them is worth nothing unless they also fly Multirotors or have some other sort of qualification....the magic word in this case is QUALIFICATION.

How can you (we) proof to them that we have done all our preparations to the best of our knowledge to quarantee a flight without a crash ? You can't...and they can't either proof you the opposite.
If I want to drive a car, I go to a certified driving school, do all my tests there and gaet my license to drive a vehicle within specified parameters...If I drive a SMART in the beginning and two years later a AUDI RS8, nobody cares....but again: there you have a certified driving school, certified trainers and a set of rules...something which doesn't exist at all with Multirotors.
I guess these "authorities" are not in a hurry to change any of that...how could they proof that they are qualified and "certified" ??? Knowing everything about a BOING 747 doen't mean you know anything about MR's....

A big step would be the foundation of something like "The United Association of UK Multirotor Flyers" where everyone who is flying Multirotors can join as a member for a few $$. Also all manufacurer and distributors should be involved. The same for America, Sweden, Spain, etc....Every industry is having their Lobby, but I am not aware of a Lobby for MR's. One person alone cannot tackle this and find a solution, but if it is a strong group of people with some serious combined knowledge it should be possible.

...just my 2 cents


Chris

 

[plingboot]

If the cost for examining on different platforms was more reasonable, then people would just do it.

But with the money being asked for courses and exams, it constantly seems that certain parties are using this process as a cash cow (especially when you can get examined for BMFA A/B for nowt) - hence this discussion i guess.

Assuming you know how to go about configuring your particular autopilot and arrive at the field with a correctly set-up and check MR and if flight competence is what they're examining you on, then i'd say if you can fly one you can fly any.

But if competence in platform configuration is also being tested, then obviously you'd need to be tested on each MR.

I can't believe that there's more than a handful of people in the UK making significant money (ie: a living) out of AP with multirotors, so as it stands, the cost of becoming certificated must be a holding point for lots of people - it's stopping me from doing it at the moment as i can't foresee a time where income will cover the cost of the exam and on-going investment in MR equipment - actually making money seems like a complete myth.

 

[MombasaFlash]

The French have been batting this about for a while and every time they come up an 'official certification procedure' it gets chucked out for whatever reason. Usually because it is stupid or unworkable. So, their latest effort follows all previous 'solutions' on the barmy scale.

In order to be certified to fly UAV's in general - there is no distinction between airframes, type etc. - you have to sit the exam for a full size aircraft, but you do not have to take the practical part i.e. you don't have to actually fly the aircraft you are being tested for. The exam apparently consists of a forty question multiple-choice and you can take it as many times as you like until you are successful. Going in and photographing the questions so that you can pass with flying colours the next time is not an option as the forty questions are drawn from a pool of five hundred.

There are three categories of aircraft and you choose whichever one you want: fixed wing, helicopter or ultralight. Well obviously the ultralight is going to be the least complicated so lets plump for that one. Remember, you only take the theory test, not the practical.

And now here is the good part. If you score 90% or above in your theory test, you automatically qualify to become an instructor - without ever having actually seen an ultralight, let alone fly it.

Clever eh?

 

[ChrisViperM]

In general, talking about politicians.......:nevreness:

Chris

 

[jes1111]

andy,

I presume you are speaking from experience with EuroUSC - that they are saying you need to retake the exam if you qualified already with, say, a tricopter and now want to use a quad? I'm interested in this whole process since I plan to engage with it myself soon.

Reading (make that "wading through") the documentation from the CAA, I can see that the BNUC-S is a "type-specific" qualification. According to "CAP722 Section 2 Chapter 5 Page 4" small UAS (<20kg) approvals can be by "Class", where the UAS Class Rating is determined by Flight Control Modes. The Modes are:

Class 0 Reference Class – Manned Aircraft
Class 1 Direct Command – Remote Pilot
Class 2 Attitude Command – 'Control Wheel' Steering
Class 3 Flight Parameter Command – 3-Axis Autopilot
Class 4* Stored Flight Profile Command – Autopilot + Flight Management Computer (FMC)
Class 5* Sensor Command – Autopilot + FMC + Sensors
Class 6* Autonomous Command – Intelligent UA
*Please note that Classes 4, 5 and 6 will require a command override intervention capability.

Without further study I can't say for sure what these classes mean precisely, but my guess is that something with PH/RTH type capabilities would be Class 3 and a full waypoint flying system would be Class 4.

They then say:

4.8.4 For UAS type certificated as a member of a flight control mode class (or classes), class
rating training should be undertaken for all flight control modes under which the UAS
type is capable of operating. Flight control mode class rating training for one class
should be valid for all UAS types within the same flight control mode class.

I interpret this as meaning that:

• you will be certified as an operator for a particular Control Mode or Modes - specifically all the Modes of which your system is capable.
• being rated for any particular Class (i.e. Control Mode) is valid for all UAS within the same Class.

In other words: once certified for small Class 4 UAS your qualification also covers Classes 3, 2 and 1 (assuming your aircraft is capable of those modes) and you would not need any new training or certification for any changes to your aircraft or for any different aircraft. This would seem to be reinforced by the fact that aircraft under 20kg are exempt for Airworthiness Certification, i.e. no operational distinction is made between any aircraft of any type so long as it is under 20kg.

Have I got this right, or are EuroUSC/CAA trying to put a different interpretation on it? It wouldn't surprise me if they were - I have experience of another field where these government appointed private companies creatively interpret the published rules to their own advantage.

 

[jes1111]

btw, on the very next page from the one I quoted above:

Currently there are no approved training courses for UAS flight crew, for either the
issue of a licence or the issue of type or class ratings. All enquiries relating to such
UAS flight crew training should be made to the point of contact listed below.

And this is from CAP722 Fifth Edition 10 August 2012

 

[jes1111]

On the other hand... from the CAA website:

At the present time there are no RPA pilot licenses recognised in aviation law. However, it is essential that pilots of any aircraft have at least a basic understanding of the applicable regulations, in particular the Rules of the Air Regulations. Therefore, the CAA will require a potential RPA operator to demonstrate that the pilot is appropriately qualified before any operating permission is issued.

The Basic National UAS Certificate for Small Unmanned Aircraft (BNUC-STM) is available from EuroUSC and is a UAV-specific qualification. Pilots must demonstrate the necessary skills and knowledge to pass the ground exam and flight test. The CAA recognises the BNUC-STM as evidence of pilot competence.

"Grey", I'd say!

 

[jes1111]

This page on the CAA website does not say that you need any certification in order to obtain permission for "air work". Read in conjunction with the quoted text in my previous post, there is only a requirement to demonstrate "appropriately qualified" - meaning, I'm guessing, that the CAA will consider a range of possible ways to prove that "qualification" (which is legally different, remember, from "certification").

 

[jes1111]

Interestingly, CAP293 Article 166 states:

The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft which has a mass of more than 7kg
excluding its fuel but including any articles or equipment installed in or attached to the
aircraft at the commencement of its flight,

Note the bit I've highlighted in red - presumably "batteries" counts as fuel in our case.

 

[Bowley]

Jes, my interpretation from the revised CAP722 was that a type or class structure had been developed.
However I was told directly by Euro USC that this was a mistake, or mis-representation by the CAA, of the situation where certification is only valid for the system you have been tested on.

"Unfortunately the amended CAP 722 is incorrectly worded, the BNUC-S is not type specific but is specific to the individual aircraft, so we would need to test you to the actual aircraft that you intend to use for commercial purposes. "

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]"You must conduct the flight test using the configuration that you will use when operating normally for aerial work. If the payload is operated by another person you will need to bring that person to the flight test or we can provide someone to operate the payload and you must brief them before the flight test."[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]"With regards to configuration of the aircraft, if you maintain and replace parts that is not an issue but if you fundamentally change the configuration of the aircraft, it is a different aircraft system and you will need to be flight tested against the different machine."[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]“Do the CAA require an operator to hold a BNUC-S for each and every specific system, regardless of similarity and common type? Reading throught the candidates guide it would appear that it is sufficient to provide a copy of the revised Ops manual.”[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]"You must be tested to all individual aircraft that you wish to operate and these will be added to your BNUC-S. During each flight test you can be tested to two aircraft systems, if you wish to be certified on more than two systems you will need to book a second flight test."[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[jes1111]

Jes, my interpretation from the revised CAP722 was that a type or class structure had been developed.
However I was told directly by Euro USC that this was a mistake, or mis-representation by the CAA, of the situation where certification is only valid for the system you have been tested on.

"Unfortunately the amended CAP 722 is incorrectly worded, the BNUC-S is not type specific but is specific to the individual aircraft, so we would need to test you to the actual aircraft that you intend to use for commercial purposes. "

[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]"You must conduct the flight test using the configuration that you will use when operating normally for aerial work. If the payload is operated by another person you will need to bring that person to the flight test or we can provide someone to operate the payload and you must brief them before the flight test."[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]"With regards to configuration of the aircraft, if you maintain and replace parts that is not an issue but if you fundamentally change the configuration of the aircraft, it is a different aircraft system and you will need to be flight tested against the different machine."[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]“Do the CAA require an operator to hold a BNUC-S for each and every specific system, regardless of similarity and common type? Reading throught the candidates guide it would appear that it is sufficient to provide a copy of the revised Ops manual.”[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman,serif][FONT=Calibri,sans-serif]"You must be tested to all individual aircraft that you wish to operate and these will be added to your BNUC-S. During each flight test you can be tested to two aircraft systems, if you wish to be certified on more than two systems you will need to book a second flight test."[/FONT][/FONT]

Yep - like I said: creative interpretation for their own benefit. I'd like to see CAA confirmation of this position. It sounds to me like EuroUSC (a private company, remember) are bull-****ting. Since CAP722 is the official instrument then it's wording is the law, by definition. If EuroUSC are saying it is incorrectly worded... in relation to what? Where's the "correct" version of the law that CAP722 is misquoting?

Look at it this way: the CAA are not saying that BNUC-S certification is necessary in order to obtain individual or blanket operating permission, only that they recognise it as evidence of qualification. From the cleverly worded EuroUSC quotes that you've given, I see only that BNUC-S is aircraft-specific - there is no confirmation there that CAA approval is aircraft-specific.

 

[jes1111]

There is a UK organisation representing the interests of UAS manufacturers and operators:
http://www.uavs.org/home

Once again, when referring to BNUC-S, they only use the word "recognised" - legally distinct from the word "required"

 

[ROVguy]

The caa do not make mistakes with regards putting things into the regulations. If something is stated in the regulations then you can take it as being correct, for the private examining company in question to say that the caa made a mistake is ridiculous! If the caa only require a bunc-s to fly commercially and they themselves do not specifically say that it is aircraft specific but class (ie under 20kg, fixed wing, rotor, balloon) then I would be inclined to go by what the caa says and not the examining company. Either way, something like this needs to be clarified and quickly before we start falling afoul of the law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ZAxis]

Gentlemen, thanks for your input.
The situation here in the UK is confused and like UK law always open to interpretation.
I'm also of the opinion that, as laid out in CAP722, you not require a BNUC-S but must demonstrate to the CAA that you can operate a UAV safely by allowing them to inspect your operations manual and provide proof of adequate insurance cover. It is then up to them to decide to accept your application or not. I'm not sure if this approach has ever been successful.
Comparing the suggested 'mini' operations manual from the CAA website and EuroUSC's idea of one shows that depth of detail increases with the latter. I wonder why ? I would like to believe that the process is actually a simple one but has been perverted by an organisation that does not want it to be seen as such.

In posting this thread I am trying to establish what, if any, differences there are between a light quad to a heavier octo from a pilot's point of view once everything has been setup correctly and you try to fly them using standard RC joysticks. The functions of other switches and knobs are, in this case, irrelevant to the controlability of the craft. I've yet to see someone run away from the opportunity to fly an unfamiliar craft because they don't know what the sticks will do. So, has anyone had real, enduring, difficulty converting from one craft to another ?

Jes1111 -- UAVS.org is a big boy's organisation and not likely to be interested in us small guys.

andy