Plus CAA fees, mandatory insurance, a fire extinguisher, first aid kit and that's before you get to a spare aircraft, transmitter, props, batteries, camera etc. a car with commercial-use insurance to lug it all about and so on. This is why I am not convinced that the current situation is too bad with respect to the BNUC-S, except for the daft situation concerning multiple aircraft.
If you can fly one multi rotor can you fly them all ?
- Thread starter ZAxis
- Start date
Plus CAA fees, mandatory insurance, a fire extinguisher, first aid kit and that's before you get to a spare aircraft, transmitter, props, batteries, camera etc. a car with commercial-use insurance to lug it all about and so on. This is why I am not convinced that the current situation is too bad with respect to the BNUC-S, except for the daft situation concerning multiple aircraft.
MombasaFlash
Heli's & Tele's bloke
Remind me why I started this lark again?
Macsgrafs
Active Member
Nah, I wouldnt bother for that..can do a wedding for £1300
But of course if the place was photogenic, then I'd do it for FREE...as I do now
I only charge for my ground shots, the aerial is free & alows me to have fun whilst at work!
Bowley
Member
Wasn't directed at you Ross, just an observation, or rather a cynical supposition. but it has to at the back of anyone's mind who does this commercially, or plans to give it a go. I actually have no place making comments like that. Its not like I'm a seasoned pro whose flown AP Heli's for years. I'm just a newbie really.
The eternal problem with any kind of photography, not just aerial, of course. Quality of results is what will keep you in business long after the "fauxtographers" have moved on to some other scam
Macsgrafs
Active Member
No worries mate, it's true....there are many out there working with AP/AV without any license. You have every right to state that...I never took it personally.....I've NEVER (yet) done any aerial work for money, but I live in hope
Ross
MombasaFlash
Heli's & Tele's bloke
Loved the 'fauxtographers' site Jes1111.
Jeez!
Jeez!
I go look at it every time I lose a job to some muppet that quotes less than my gasoline estimate. Makes me feel better
Macsgrafs
Active Member
Hey you guys, some of my best shots are on that websiteI go look at it every time I lose a job to some muppet that quotes less than my gasoline estimate. Makes me feel better
Ross
I'm not sure. I have a strong feeling (backed up by one apparently knowledgeable poster's comments in an RCG thread) that things might be heading for a change anyway.
EuroUSC, in their website and all their printed literature, features very carefully worded descriptions of their role and their "authority". Notice that the only official approval they hold is for airworthiness assessments of Light Unmanned Aircraft Systems. They are also active in the attempts to agree an EU-wide common framework for UAV usage. My guess is that, back in the day, they were asked by the CAA to take on the training and examination role (including the formulation of the syllabus and exam) because firstly they were the logical people to do it and secondly the CAA themselves had no internal resources that could perform the task. In handing EuroUSC that role, I'm presuming the CAA insisted that EuroUSC "played down" the qualification side (since it's not an official CAA qualification), which is likely the origin of the "TM" suffix. At the time of that agreement, I suspect, nobody anticipated the volume of take-up on small multirotors and this would explain the apparent lack of "polish" with the whole process - it was only supposed to be a stop-gap measure, after all. But it's also likely that the CAA wanted to "see what happened" and this was a convenient way of testing the waters, whilst also giving them time to try and effect an EU-wide framework. Unlike in the US where "The President today ordered the FAA..."
, here in the UK I think "Colin had a word with David who had lunch at the club with George to pass on the message that we really must get something out there because we really don't want to fall behind the Germans on this, old chap". And what we have is the result, for which we should be grateful. But, with these things now being sold by Amazon and (soon, I'm sure) Curries, everybody at the CAA (and EuroUSC) knows that, having running a successful trial, something now needs to be rolled out to a much wider base.Now, I could of course be completely wrong with all that but, supposing it's not too far off, an organised approach to the CAA right now would probably be unnecessary and, in a way, an unintended insult to the CAA. Individual approaches, on the other hand, may well yield useful information if handled diplomatically - at least enough to confirm whether change is already on its way. If it is then I'd be inclined to trust the CAA to come up with something fair and effective - they've not done too bad a job with UK's airspace as a whole, don't you think?
ROVguy
Member
I heard today that the CAA is in serious financial difficulty and is bordering on bankruptcy, that being the case maybe the have bigger problems to look into other than 'BNUC-s licensing'. As with all hearsay I've not seen or heard anything to collaborate this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
3DJIM
Low Down Hucker
ROV, Perhaps you would like to tell me where you heard this, tbh Its a pretty wild statement if you ask me.
Jim.
3DJIM
Low Down Hucker
Understood
Afters some discussions today at EuroUSC its clear CAA are not going anywhere!!
Jim.