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

[Macsgrafs]

Andy,

I have only ever flown my octo apart from my Trex600 heli. the heli is a lot more difficult to fly, that's for sure...but I've been flying it for years now & its like jumping into a strange car, you feel a touch uncomfortable at first, but you can still drive it safely.

Have you got a link for the CAA's op's manual, would love to see that if possible.....not got a clue where to get insurance

Ross

 

[Blacksails]

I recently completed the BNUC-S and am waiting on my permission from the CAA.

When I did my BNUC-S ground school I was told that if I updated the wookongs firmware I would have to re-test. I think that is a little ridiculous ...but then again maybe not with DJI's recent failings in the FW department. I was also told that they were looking into the flight test costings and that hopefully in the future re-testing for people that have already passed the flight test will cost less (I think it was said to be around £50..cant remeber. This was back in june/july) So far that hasn't happened as far as I'm aware.

In one sense the existence of the BNUC is good in that it stops just anyone from picking up a machine and jumping straight into commercial work. I've noticed quite a few threads recently with individuals asking how to put a heavy lift octo together...only to find out the OP has never touched an R/C vehicle in their lives. I know that people will do that anyway...but having completed a recognized course lends you a little extra protection when it hits the news that a complete newb has flown a "UAV" in to a childs face whilst doing AP for "X" company. I may be being a tad naive thinking that though. The course also teaches a lot about general aviation and air law on the course too. A basic knowledge of this is needed if your going to be operating commercially as you will inevitably be flying at varying locations.

On the flip side, its expensive. They're currently the only organization that is being recognized by the CAA though, so if you want to do aerial work it's the only easy (but expensive) way in. I know its not right, but due to this they can kind of charge what they want. Then again, with the costs split between two or three people on your flight team it is not too bad.
The re-test situation definitely needs sorting. Being forced to take a re-test and charged £400 for it just for changing your camera lense to a heavier one is just silly.

 

[ZAxis]

Ross .. The Ops manual is given as a template in an appendix to CAP722, download here. Insurance, this company does a UAV specific insurance.
You sort of answered my question, flying is like riding a bike once mastered never forgotten.

andy

 

[ZAxis]

Blacksails ... The craft specific aspect of the BNUC-S (TM) certificate has always rankled me and EuroUSC are aware of the general disenchantment, especially after last week. It came as a bit of a surprise to some course attendees. Pressed they did seem to suggest they are looking at a classification basis for their certificate but it was not going to happen soon, much too complicated to put in place...... no comment. There is no way they are going to throw away repeat business.
Ultimately it is up to CAA to decide what they will accept and at the moment the only guidance they are getting is from ...... EuroUSC.
I don't know what proportion of the 150 odd BNUC-S (TM) holders are multirotor and of those who are how many have gone for the certificate for continuing personal/company use rater than being sent by employers to get a tick in some box or other. But there must be a reasonable sized body of holders who can join in a lobby of the CAA.
The BNUC-S ground school is really only an alternative to informed background reading to understand aspects of safety, air law, etc. A well written guide from a knowledgable person could be the answer to that. A £20 book is better value than an £800 course.
If those who already have the certificate on this forum contact as many people they also know of, perhaps from their course, we could get a group together to pursue things.

andy

 

[jes1111]

Ultimately it is up to CAA to decide what they will accept and at the moment the only guidance they are getting is from ...... EuroUSC.

Okay - now I understand the situation - absolutely typical!

I, too, fully support certification but not this monopoly situation. I'll join in on any lobbying group formed but also intend to seek for myself clarification and justification of this from the CAA.

 

[ZAxis]

I'm sure this will be rattling some cages around with the people who have already shelled out the money to complete the course but from the experience I had and the others on the same course the complete 2 days was (to understate) a real disappointment. The sooner a good alternative or justification from the CAA arrives the better in my opinion. I am all for a good level of competency before commercial operations can be undertaken but this course did not offer that to myself & others I have talked too.
Lec

 

[Macsgrafs]

I am all for a good level of competency before commercial operations can be undertaken but this course did not offer that to myself & others I have talked too.
Lec

Thats shocking Andy!!! So its safety only then (health & safety of the air). The CAA do accept the B certificate for heli fliers apparently & that's FREE to take. That's the way I'm going into this, I think the BNUC fees are an utter con! they need healthy competition & there are enough of you guys with BNUC's to start your own testing facility at 1/4 of the price.

Thanks for the links as well mate.

Ross

 

[MombasaFlash]

... there are enough of you guys with BNUC's to start your own testing facility at 1/4 of the price ...

Dream on Ross.

 

[Macsgrafs]

Dream on Ross.

More of a nightmare really MF

 

[Droider]

Andy/Lec.

I would be up for it. It is just smoke and mirrors out there.

EuroUSE do NOT have anything in writing to answer all the questions. IF a group of Qualified operators put together a list of questions for clarification and submitted it to both the CAA and EuroUSE then surly we should get answers. There is no reason why none qualified operators cant chip in but to ove forward as an association I really believe it has to be run by qualified operators. It could not be seen to be a body representing NONE qualified companies. As a association WE would support the none qualified and help steer them in the right directions to gain qualifications / permissions.

I could spend all day on here but the weather is clearing so its time for flying.

 

[Macsgrafs]

Andy/Lec.

I would be up for it. It is just smoke and mirrors out there.

EuroUSE do NOT have anything in writing to answer all the questions. IF a group of Qualified operators put together a list of questions for clarification and submitted it to both the CAA and EuroUSE then surly we should get answers. There is no reason why none qualified operators cant chip in but to ove forward as an association I really believe it has to be run by qualified operators. It could not be seen to be a body representing NONE qualified companies. As a association WE would support the none qualified and help steer them in the right directions to gain qualifications / permissions.

I could spend all day on here but the weather is clearing so its time for flying.

Dave what would you call Qualified operators in this case? BNUCs or BMFA or other? The CAA don't state this.....

Ross

 

[Droider]

Hi Ross I think as long as they have CAA permissions. I know this may rub u up the wrong way but as I said then they may at least listen.

Dave

 

[jes1111]

There's multiple aspects to tackle here. I don't think anyone is disputing that certification is a sound idea. But... EuroUSC's charges are too high, the quality/usefulness of their training is suspect, their craft-specific policy seems to contradict the CAA position, their monopoly position is deplorable and, at the moment, they are the only organisation qualified to certify new training/examining facilities. I don't see that participation in a revolt should be limited to existing BNUC-S holders as necessary or valid - in a way that would endorse the validity of the (broken) current system.

This situation is all too common in the UK. One agency is allowed to set the rules, police them and rule on their validity. No arbitration or judicial review is possible. The CAA are being fantastically vague, even in their latest, updated release of CAP722. They are one of the "comfortable" government agencies, accustomed to gradual, reasoned adjustment and extension of long-standing base legislation. This UAV boom is upsetting their "status quo with a bit of tweaking" approach. So IMO the CAA themselves should be the only target for the voicing of our collective dissatisfaction. Any attempt to address EuroUSC directly will be met with commercially-motivated resistance and give them the opportunity to lobby (via their obviously comfortable back-channels) for their own survival.

 

[MombasaFlash]

There's multiple aspects to tackle here.... Any attempt to address EuroUSC directly...

Hear, hear.

 

[ZAxis]

Thankyou Jes1111 for putting things so succinctly. We could do with a few more UK voices here, where are the other BNUC-S(TM) holders ? The message needs to be spread.

andy

 

[Macsgrafs]

Hi Ross I think as long as they have CAA permissions. I know this may rub u up the wrong way but as I said then they may at least listen.

Dave

Far from it Dave, I support the CAA in ALL respects, I just dont support the BNUCs!!!!
I wonder how many pilots on this thread actually fly a RC heli, 600 size or larger? Because a heli is far more difficult to fly & I for one reckon the BMFA A cert woould be fine for serious operations. As we all know, if you have £4000+ worth of kit in the air, you aren't going to do anything silly with it...unless your a lotto winnder, in which case they wouldnt bother with any form of licensing. Criminals wouldnt bother either....so its only genuine op's that would be in favour...like yourself & myself & others on this forum.
It's the rip off fees I do NOT agree with, I know you've paid Dave (some of us cant afford BNUC prices)& you want your monies worth, on that I agree. But surely there must be another way into this for serious operators?

Ross

 

[Macsgrafs]

There's multiple aspects to tackle here. I don't think anyone is disputing that certification is a sound idea. But... EuroUSC's charges are too high, the quality/usefulness of their training is suspect, their craft-specific policy seems to contradict the CAA position, their monopoly position is deplorable and, at the moment, they are the only organisation qualified to certify new training/examining facilities. I don't see that limiting participation in a revolt should be limited to existing BNUC-S holders as necessary or valid - in a way that would endorse the validity of the (broken) current system.

This situation is all too common in the UK. One agency is allowed to set the rules, police them and rule on their validity. No arbitration or judicial review is possible. The CAA are being fantastically vague, even in their latest, updated release of CAP722. They are one of the "comfortable" government agencies, accustomed to gradual, reasoned adjustment and extension of long-standing base legislation. This UAV boom is upsetting their "status quo with a bit of tweaking" approach. So IMO the CAA themselves should be the only target for the voicing of our collective dissatisfaction. Any attempt to address EuroUSC directly will be met with commercially-motivated resistance and give them the opportunity to lobby (via their obviously comfortable back-channels) for their own survival.

SPOT ON JES, my thoughts entirely. If we go to EuroUSC, they will only see £ signs & not reason. It's so blatant that the BNUC's is nothing at all to do with pilots flying ability, its all about money & secondly safety. Andy has already stated this in a previous post.

 

[Macsgrafs]

As an after thought, I've been flying RC aircraft for over 27 years now!!!! How many of you BNUC certified op's have that much experience??? I see many who's first aircraft was a MR, only months ago...& they already have thier certificates...so its like telling me to suck eggs.
You BNUC guys (no disrespect intended) have a AUTO car license, I have a MANUAL car license...do you see what I'm saying?

The CAA clearly states EXPERIENCE etc...yet I would be illegal if I charged for my aerial work.

There really has to be another FAIR way for us ALL to do this, our OWN club rules if you like, using the CAP722 & ANO2009 as our bible....our own certification, by our own examiners. Let's cut out these rip off schemes (BNUC) & show the CAA we are firstly, Safe, capable & willing to comply...but not willing to be ripped off.

I view my MR/RC Heli as an extension to my professional business (photography), its purely a sky tripod, with lethal abilities...just like a car driven wrongly.

Excuse my rant, its nothing personal against ANY of you guys, but it's against a corrupt system that will never change as long as it has people to support it!!!!

Ross

 

[jes1111]

What you're suggesting, Ross, is that the CAA allows the "laissez faire" granted to the RC hobby to be extended into the commercial world. That obviously can't work for a number of reasons, just one of which is that legislation, certification and control is indeed necessary for "UAVs" (as defined by the CAA) up to 200kg! Our low flying weight can't be a division since there is every potential for misuse (of all kinds) in this weight band unless it is legislated. We're talking about the "bottom end" of the industry, the solo and small businesses wanting to make use of this technology for commercial purposes but it may well be that that this group quickly becomes "the majority", if it isn't already. As such our voice should be heard directly by the CAA and rules (including certification) that are fair and workable for all can be introduced. Just as one expects to be licenced to drive a car or ride a motorcycle, we cannot fight the need for qualification here. I don't believe that even the BMFA would support that.

You're rightly proud of your 27 years of flying experience - you should be allowed to provide evidence of that experience by turning up at your nearest "accredited testing centre", paying your (reasonable) test fee and taking your twenty minute written test followed by the 10 minute practical. The model for this is well established by precedent - be it MOT testing, H&S compliance and even PPL testing - the government should only test the testers, it's reasonable to have private companies as the accredited testers. Unfortunately, in this case, they've stalled on following this route with only a single accredited tester and allowed that organisation to become the authoritative "experts" to whom they themselves now seem to turn for advice.

btw - that silly "TM" tacked on the end of BNUC-S is the big give-away. It is not an accreditation recognised in law - it's a product marketed by a commercial organisation. The shame (and the sham) is that the CAA (and insurers) are lending it credibility as the required qualification.

 

[Bowley]

Just as a sidenote, Euro USC no longer have scheduled flight test days so they are all Adhoc. however the price for an adhoc test is now £350+vat not £500+vat as it was previously even if you are only a party of one. Still pricey I know.