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

[Bowley]

Swisser, the several craft, if outlined in the Ops manual, is limited to 2 per flight test according to my latest correspondence.

There is currently one accredited school to carry out flight training, none as far I know for ground schooling. I think the point here is that the accredited school cannot issue a BNUC-S TM. I dont think they are talking about accrediting certifying agencies.

All said, I think the fact that the BNUC-S is so specific with regard to system and task, that it can introduce untenable constraints on small operations looking for the versatility and adaptability that is required for success.
Having said this, I don't think the act of flying a remotely piloted aircraft in close proximity to life and property should be taken lightly and would like to see a balance between safety and practical workability

 

[jes1111]

I think that a complete OM either given away or sold would kind of defeat the object - CAA/EuroUSC are correct in emphasising safety which is an "active" pursuit, i.e. you can't just buy/download the manual and stick it on the shelf. The framework provided by the CAA seems straightforward enough and the act of fleshing it out oneself is probably one of the most effective aspects of the qualification process in ensuring operator safety. Generally speaking, a "checklist (with notes)" approach should be easy: your manual (and therefore your operating procedure) consists of a number of checklists, whose explanatory notes add up to a full description of your "Policy and Procedures".

The flight test is meant to mimic an actual commercial job, of the type that you've told them you're likely to do. If you're doing search and rescue they'll get you to do a pseudo version of that. If the more common AP stuff, they'll get you to do that. You do not need to perform any flight manoeuvres like figure 8's or anything. You have to fly in accordance with your ops manual, so if you list in there that you have a fully automated waypoint sequencing mode then you fly using that. If you say you're all manual and that on every flight you'll do a flip then you'll need to do that. During the flight there will be a couple of emergencies to deal with - typically an encroachment of the ground below your craft (fly away from that area to somewhere safe) and a pilot incapacitation - hand the controller to your nominated observer, having briefed them in advance how to do a RTH.

This part is confusing me - I can find nothing in the CAA regs detailing the requirement to have an RTH facility. Indeed, the entire CAA Case/Mode/Class structure (as laid out in CAP722) seems to be ignored (and even contradicted) by EuroUSC. In particular, many FCs have multiple possible flight modes and aids (Attitude, Rate, Waypoint, PH, etc.) and an operator may reasonably choose a particular mode (or mix thereof) for a particular mission for safety (or other) reasons. So does the examination process acknowledge this and require demonstrated use of all the available modes and aids? This consideration starts to build a case for EuroUSC's insistence on retesting "upon modification" but only if a new Flight Mode is introduced (e.g. you add a Waypoint facility to your craft).

 

[Bowley]

"This part is confusing me - I can find nothing in the CAA regs detailing the requirement to have an RTH facility. Indeed, the entire CAA Case/Mode/Class structure (as laid out in CAP722) seems to be ignored (and even contradicted) by EuroUSC."

Heres lies the conundrum Jess, as CAP722 also states the requirement for BNUC-S, which has its own set of requirements. Euro USC do not have a type/class structure other than MTOM.

 

[jes1111]

"This part is confusing me - I can find nothing in the CAA regs detailing the requirement to have an RTH facility. Indeed, the entire CAA Case/Mode/Class structure (as laid out in CAP722) seems to be ignored (and even contradicted) by EuroUSC."

Heres lies the conundrum Jess, as CAP722 also states the requirement for BNUC-S, which has its own set of requirements. Euro USC do not have a type/class structure other than MTOM.

SNAFU, then

Even their definition of the weight seems to differ from CAA's version - MTOM includes "fuel" whereas the CAA weight divisions specifically exclude the "fuel" load.

 

[swisser]

I think that a complete OM either given away or sold would kind of defeat the object - CAA/EuroUSC are correct in emphasising safety which is an "active" pursuit, i.e. you can't just buy/download the manual and stick it on the shelf. The framework provided by the CAA seems straightforward enough and the act of fleshing it out oneself is probably one of the most effective aspects of the qualification process in ensuring operator safety. Generally speaking, a "checklist (with notes)" approach should be easy: your manual (and therefore your operating procedure) consists of a number of checklists, whose explanatory notes add up to a full description of your "Policy and Procedures".

That's why I think sharing an ops manual around isn't the right approach, because it's meant to be about operating safely and it can and does differ depending on your craft (less so) and the mission (more so).

Most ops manuals that I've seen are largely checklist based. The one essential thing that would be missing from a checklist-based ops manual though is a risk assessment and demonstration that you've thought about how to best remove, mitigate and otherwise diminish the impact of those risks. This is a CAA requirement, for better or worse.

This part is confusing me - I can find nothing in the CAA regs detailing the requirement to have an RTH facility. Indeed, the entire CAA Case/Mode/Class structure (as laid out in CAP722) seems to be ignored (and even contradicted) by EuroUSC.

As you say, there is nothing in the ANO about about RTH. However, I understand it is a primary concern of the CAA, because of the occurrence of "fly aways", particularly when UAV stray in to the flight path of other aircraft. That's why EuroUSC look for demonstration of that facility. If your aircraft doesn't have one and you can demonstrate some other means by which you can operated without risk of a fly away impacting other aircraft, then you'd be fine, you'd ops manual would specify it, your risk assessment would include it and the CAA's permission for aerial work would presumably not include the requirement for RTH (as most do, if it is present on the UAV in the first place). To take an extreme and contrived example for illustration, if you could demonstrate that your battery only lasts 30 seconds and your vertical climb rate is 3 m/s and you only fly at 100m max then you'd be fine - you couldn't possibly climb to more than 200m before your battery gave up; therefore you've got minimal risk of a fly away impacting other aircraft.

It must seem like I am defending EuroUSC, certification, etc. I'm not, but I do think that (a) the "ops manual is gospel and you can do pretty much what you like as long as it's documented in there and you can demonstrate it's safety" is a reasonable starting point, (b) that the CAA is better than the majority of other regulatory bodies in other countries which ban commercial small-scale UAV completely (e.g. USA), (c) that EuroUSC is commercially motivated and seemingly rather expensive but that if you don't like that you can start your own equivalent - personally I can't be bothered to do that so I pay there fee and move on.

 

[swisser]

I don't have the documentation to hand, but this doesn't occur in practise if you're using batteries. The weight of the battery is part of the craft; the "fuel" is the difference between the battery being charged and not, i.e. none.

SNAFU, then

Even their definition of the weight seems to differ from CAA's version - MTOM includes "fuel" whereas the CAA weight divisions specifically exclude the "fuel" load.

 

[Macsgrafs]

Swisser I think you are missing what I'm asking for here. I'm NOT askign for ANY personal details of peoples crafts etc, all i want is to see a page layout, no information put in the spaces...does that make it clearer for you???

 

[jes1111]

Thanks, swisser - you've helped me understand some of the subtleties and gotchas - we're aligned on this.

It will be interesting if/when a UK-based "manufacturer" becomes accredited to offer CAA-recognised qualification.

 

[Bowley]

Swisser I think you are missing what I'm asking for here. I'm NOT askign for ANY personal details of peoples crafts etc, all i want is to see a page layout, no information put in the spaces...does that make it clearer for you???

It is provided by Euro USC
Did my mail get spammed?

 

[swisser]

Swisser I think you are missing what I'm asking for here. I'm NOT askign for ANY personal details of peoples crafts etc, all i want is to see a page layout, no information put in the spaces...does that make it clearer for you???

Not sure why you're getting arsey with me Ross, particularly given that you're asking for something. I've already said I am happy to help people draw up their ops manuals.

The page layout can be anything you like. The required contents of the ops manual are listed in detail in Cap 722, Section 3, Chapter 1, Annex 1, Page 1, here is the document:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP722.pdf

For a complete ops manual, see:

http://www.blueriverstudios.co.uk/OpsManual.pdf

Does that make it any clearer for you???

 

[3DJIM]

Hi all,

Just a quick thanks to Swiss & Bowley for the help they have given me via pm, Bowley I tried to reply to you but it says your in box is full?

Cheers

Jim.

 

[MombasaFlash]

Well so far I have found this thread to be a thoroughly engaging read, not least due to the quality of english. Such a refreshing change from the poor spelling and lousy grammar that makes up the majority of forum fodder.

The subject matter is of high importance to the serious sector and thanks to ZAxis for getting the ball rolling and opening the discussion on what is proving to be quite a thorny debate. It has brought much out into the open and that is surely the best way to begin to tackle the whole official certification dilemma. This thread has elicited intelligent, researched and reasoned responses and arguments that adequately demonstrate not only a collective desire to put sensible safety guidelines in place, but the required ability to present concise and lucid argument to lobby for the cause.

Nothing concrete to add to the thread, just voicing my appreciation of the discussion.

 

[Macsgrafs]

[/COLOR]
Not sure why you're getting arsey with me Ross, particularly given that you're asking for something. I've already said I am happy to help people draw up their ops manuals.

The page layout can be anything you like. The required contents of the ops manual are listed in detail in Cap 722, Section 3, Chapter 1, Annex 1, Page 1, here is the document:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP722.pdf

For a complete ops manual, see:

http://www.blueriverstudios.co.uk/OpsManual.pdf

Does that make it any clearer for you???

Arsey not at all my friend, just trying to point out exactly what I was after & you answered me, thank you.

 

[ZAxis]

My thanks go to everyone that has joined in the discussion, its been a pretty interesting couple of days. It is a problem that has been skirted around for too long and we've almost been beaten into submission. I am in the process of trying the direct approach to the CAA having been disappointed by the cost and quality of using a 'Qualified Entity' so far. Your inputs have given me the confidence it is worth a try.
The ops manual has been written in as general way as possible and non craft specific other than to show procedures that need clarification. It is based on classification rather than individual type approval.
I'll let you all know how I get on.

andy

 

[vulcan2go]

subscribed

 

[Macsgrafs]

Good luck Andy..the CAA can be right B******S to deal with, but keep on at them

Ross

 

[3DJIM]

Hi,

I have my BNUC-S Part 1 ground school and test this week (wed/thur) , will let you know my thoughts after this . Many thanks to everyone here its been a great read so far.

Jim.

 

[ZAxis]

Hi,

I have my BNUC-S Part 1 ground school and test this week (wed/thur) , will let you know my thoughts after this . Many thanks to everyone here its been a great read so far.

Jim.

Good luck and keep an open mind.

andy

 

[3DJIM]

Good luck and keep an open mind.

andy

Cheers Andy my mind is always open, but luck is not always at my side

Jim.

 

[plingboot]

@bowley, thanks. :tennis:

@swisser, your comments have actually clarified a lot of stuff for me - thanks.

we still haven't clobbered the BNUC into a pocket friendly amount, but based on comments here (and correct me if i'm wrong) i'm more confident that the process is designed to help rather than catch you out.

…So, think carefully about how you intend to operate, communicate that in a clear OM and fly in the way you describe, you should pass through the BNUC-s process with a positive out come. Just need £1500…