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

[ZAxis]

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.

The only reason they are ad-hoc is the English weather. They actually ask you for two possible dates with the option of cancelling one due to weather.... makes the test more realistic.

The flight test is also a rather drawn out affair over a day rather than a focused hour or so. Of course this means you have to take unnecessary time off your main job merely to justify EuroUSC's charges. What part of the qualification is a chat in the living room over a cup of tea? Well, apparently it is !

The problem with a lot of these ' get a ticket to do a job' courses is that employers believe they have to cover themselves and send the employees off regardless of cost. You gotta to get that tick box filled, I'm not paying this out of my own pocket. In fact the more expensive the course is the more attractive it seems. Unfortunately we end up paying for it ourselves at this bumped up rate.

andy

 

[Macsgrafs]

Jes, I'm not saying it should be free, but a reasonable amount, affordable to the masses who wish to participate in this feild.
The CAA apparently does accept the B test (BMFA). You mentioned my experience & being allowed to turn up & pay....I'm all for that, but NOT the money that the BNUC want, as you said it's in the TM part..trade mark! What you also are getting confused with is licensed to drive or ride. You do NOT need a license to drive or ride, unless engaged in commerce on the PUBLIC highway...there is a right to travel, that does NOT require a license.
You must learn the difference between lawful & legal & also the difference between a man/woman & a person. The best way to describe this is:-
Playing a game of monopoly...you move your token/person around the board...not the man/woman. A person is a legal fiction subject to statutes & acts, a human (man/woman) is the highest authority in the land & only subject to law. Here in the UK we live in "Common law" jurisdiction & are policed by consent...so what happens when you don't consent?

The UK is a PLC, run for profit & until people wake up, declare thier god given rights to freedom, then we will always be slaves to the PLC. I could go on, but it will sidetrack what we are dicussing here.

Bowley....so if I contact the BNUC & just turn up one day...what would I need to take with me?

Ross

 

[Bowley]

Ross you would have to schedule and complete the ground school first. For pt2, the flight test, its not just a matter of turning up and proving to their examiner you can handle a heli, they want to review your ops manual and safety case in advance then I gather its an operational assessment against your Ops manual to prove that your gear does what it says on the tin (or the ops manual). RTH, Failsafes IOC etc etc.
I've no problem with doing it, hell if it were not for our single accredited organization we could be in the same predicament as our cousins over the pond.
I just dont think its viable to have to recertify for changes given the the fast dynamic nature of product development. I firmly believe its the CAA's remit to state what does and what does not need a retest. If they do not have sufficient knowledge and expertise to make the decision then they need to recruit it, not farm it out to the free market.

 

[Macsgrafs]

Ross you would have to schedule and complete the ground school first. For pt2, the flight test, its not just a matter of turning up and proving to their examiner you can handle a heli, they want to review your ops manual and safety case in advance then I gather its an operational assessment against your Ops manual to prove that your gear does what it says on the tin (or the ops manual). RTH, Failsafes IOC etc etc.
I've no problem with doing it, hell if it were not for our single accredited organization we could be in the same predicament as our cousins over the pond.
I just dont think its viable to have to recertify for changes given the the fast dynamic nature of product development. I firmly believe its the CAA's remit to state what does and what does not need a retest. If they do not have sufficient knowledge and expertise to make the decision then they need to recruit it, not farm it out to the free market.

So what does the ground school consist of?
I dont have RTH setup on mine, never use it to be honest as I don't fly that far from me (100 mtrs max)....
ops manual & safety case....wish I could see someones version to get an idea, as this just makes my mind go blank.

Ross

 

[Bowley]

Ross, all the info is on the Euro USC website in PDF's
There is a template for the ops manual on the CAA website and also EuroUSC provide one as well as checklist templates.
Groundschool does not really consist of much, again the syllabus is on PDF.

 

[Blacksails]

The ops manual tells the CAA and clients (if they wish to read it) how you are going to operate. Things like how you assess a site to determine whether a flight is safe - the obvious such as pylons, trees, public access etc but also things like checking/posting NOTAMS and contacting local ATC's. Once they have been read and approved you get your permission.

The RTH is quite important in my opinion. If for any reason the pilot is incapacitated what does your flying blender do? Continue to hover on GPS until its dumps, or drift off and possibly endanger the public/air traffic. If you have a RTH switch clearly marked on your transmitter you can brief your client/spotter/payload operator to flick that switch and maintain the take-off landing zone if something happens to you until the UAV has safely landed. Saves your machine and possibly prevents some serious harm. Very unlikely scenario I agree, but it will happen eventually with the growing popularity. If you haven't got RTH then I guess your relying on it being in GPS hold at the time, over a suitable landing point, and the voltage protection kicking in...but I don't really consider the voltage protection landing to be safe and or controlled.

 

[Macsgrafs]

I did see an appendix on CAP722, but I didnt really understand what they wanted? If I was to see a real example, then I'd be fine.

I have used GPS hold twice only, I always fly manual...because thats the fun for me
Tried RTH once, the octo canked over at 50%+ & went heading for terra firma, never tried it again since!!!

Ross

 

[swisser]

Whilst I agree that the current system isn't ideal, there are a few points worth clarifying here.

The CAA most definitely do get things wrong - for instance their various Safety Sense leaflets fairly often contain misinterpretations for the ANO. What can't be "wrong" is the ANO. It is what it is and it is the law (leaving aside Ross's views on the law).

You do NOT have to do the ground school to get the BNUC-S. You can just take the exam and the flight test. However, so much emphasis is put on the ops manual and information on what should go in it is quite hard to come by, so you would need to be sure you had constructed a suitable ops manual before trying this route.

The standard CAA permission for aerial work expressly states that a functioning RTH feature must be present. Whether it would say this if it wasn't mentioned in the ops manual I don't know.

If one doesn't like the service and prices from EuroUSC then you're free to set up a facility of your own. The CAA have stated previously that they'd be happy to have additional companies doing this, but nobody has tried. I think doing this would actually be more difficult, involved and costly than most people imagine, but you could, thereby breaking the monopoly and you could charge whatever you like; as long as the CAA recognise it, which presumably they would if it was done right. Jes, are you sure about EuroUSC also being used for the accreditation of other training/examining facilities? If they are then that's a pretty bad state of affairs, as they'd have a strong commercial interest to making a newcomers existence difficult.

As for the original question, the CAA do name the specific UAV on the aerial permission certificate and that certificate is valid only for that UAV. However, that's not to say one couldn't apply for permission on the basis of (a) existing evidence of pilot competence (i.e. a previously obtained BNUC-S), and (b) an update ops manual which reflects the new UAV. It would be very worthwhile someone who wanted permission for aerial work for a second aircraft to give this a shot and report back.

 

[Jodde73]

What? Authorities, certificates, qualified, legal bla bla bla. My friends 5-year old daughter can fly his quad. You don't need an certificate or license to own and use a chainsaw...
Let's have fun instead of paperwork.

 

[swisser]

Jodde, you don't need a licence or paperwork to have fun flying a quad. You need a licence (in the UK) if you want to charge someone else for you flying your quad.

 

[ZAxis]

swisser ... thanks for your input

It is possible to go miss the ground school stage and go straight to the exam, it is also possible to fail the open book exam which seems a sad comment on the quality of the ground school. Recent experience has shown that EuroUSC cannot even put an exam paper together and are willing to discount dodgy questions they have included AFTER the exam. It makes the GCSE exam boards look like saints. The all important ops manual is left pretty much up to the candidate to write, it seems no one, EuroUSC or CAA, wants to take any responsibility for defining the degree of information that needs to be included. The CAA calls for a 'mini' manual .... difficult to determine what that entails. My feeling is that EuroUSC try to take too far. No examples are shown and those already completed by candidates do seem to have a commercial value and not freely exchanged. This is fair enough after the amount of work that has to be put into them so its a bit of a catch 22 situation.
To get back to the original question, do you believe that piloting skills and safe operation are pretty much craft independent and that the 'per craft' certificate is an unnecessary complication? I am still trying to gather opinions that support the case for a classification based permit to operate and your's will help.

andy

 

[Macsgrafs]

swisser ... thanks for your input

It is possible to go miss the ground school stage and go straight to the exam, it is also possible to fail the open book exam which seems a sad comment on the quality of the ground school. Recent experience has shown that EuroUSC cannot even put an exam paper together and are willing to discount dodgy questions they have included AFTER the exam. It makes the GCSE exam boards look like saints. The all important ops manual is left pretty much up to the candidate to write, it seems no one, EuroUSC or CAA, wants to take any responsibility for defining the degree of information that needs to be included. The CAA calls for a 'mini' manual .... difficult to determine what that entails. My feeling is that EuroUSC try to take too far. No examples are shown and those already completed by candidates do seem to have a commercial value and not freely exchanged. This is fair enough after the amount of work that has to be put into them so its a bit of a catch 22 situation.
To get back to the original question, do you believe that piloting skills and safe operation are pretty much craft independent and that the 'per craft' certificate is an unnecessary complication? I am still trying to gather opinions that support the case for a classification based permit to operate and your's will help.

andy

That's what I want to see, a fellow certified UAV pilots ops manual...but those screaming we need to do the BNUCs are not willing to show us potential certified UAV pilots how the ops manual should be laid out/look like!!!!! They best way stop complaining of uncertified pilots then, for they are part of the problem. The whole point of a forum is to exchange ideas & help each other surely...maybe I have forums wrong?

Andy, in answer to your ogininal question. All UAV's that we fly have FC boards, each one is different, but each can be programmed for a Y up to an octo, so they cant say the electronics are different.....its down to how the craft handles....does a quad handle differently than an octo? personally it sounds like a way for them to take even more revenue from us!

Ross

 

[jes1111]

The RTH is quite important in my opinion. If for any reason the pilot is incapacitated what does your flying blender do? Continue to hover on GPS until its dumps, or drift off and possibly endanger the public/air traffic. If you have a RTH switch clearly marked on your transmitter you can brief your client/spotter/payload operator to flick that switch and maintain the take-off landing zone if something happens to you until the UAV has safely landed. Saves your machine and possibly prevents some serious harm. Very unlikely scenario I agree, but it will happen eventually with the growing popularity. If you haven't got RTH then I guess your relying on it being in GPS hold at the time, over a suitable landing point, and the voltage protection kicking in...but I don't really consider the voltage protection landing to be safe and or controlled.

I agree that RTH is a useful safety feature - but it's not mentioned in the ANO or CAP722, except indirectly as an "autonomy" Mode and therefore a Class (which EuroUSC then seems to ignore).

Does a Cessna or a Robinson have a RTH feature in case the pilot is incapacitated?

Whilst I agree that the current system isn't ideal, there are a few points worth clarifying here.

The CAA most definitely do get things wrong - for instance their various Safety Sense leaflets fairly often contain misinterpretations for the ANO. What can't be "wrong" is the ANO. It is what it is and it is the law (leaving aside Ross's views on the law).

You do NOT have to do the ground school to get the BNUC-S. You can just take the exam and the flight test. However, so much emphasis is put on the ops manual and information on what should go in it is quite hard to come by, so you would need to be sure you had constructed a suitable ops manual before trying this route.

The standard CAA permission for aerial work expressly states that a functioning RTH feature must be present. Whether it would say this if it wasn't mentioned in the ops manual I don't know.

If one doesn't like the service and prices from EuroUSC then you're free to set up a facility of your own. The CAA have stated previously that they'd be happy to have additional companies doing this, but nobody has tried. I think doing this would actually be more difficult, involved and costly than most people imagine, but you could, thereby breaking the monopoly and you could charge whatever you like; as long as the CAA recognise it, which presumably they would if it was done right. Jes, are you sure about EuroUSC also being used for the accreditation of other training/examining facilities? If they are then that's a pretty bad state of affairs, as they'd have a strong commercial interest to making a newcomers existence difficult.

As for the original question, the CAA do name the specific UAV on the aerial permission certificate and that certificate is valid only for that UAV. However, that's not to say one couldn't apply for permission on the basis of (a) existing evidence of pilot competence (i.e. a previously obtained BNUC-S), and (b) an update ops manual which reflects the new UAV. It would be very worthwhile someone who wanted permission for aerial work for a second aircraft to give this a shot and report back.

Re: accreditation of new schools - yes, they offer that! http://www.eurousc.com/luass/flyingschools.html - amazing, since BNUC-S is a commercial product. Naughty use of the word "accredited".

It doesn't make sense that the permission certificate nominates a single craft - for a big job you might take three craft with you as backup or for particular parts of the job. The CAA should hold details of all registered craft and your mission permission allows you to use any of your fleet aircraft.

swisser ... thanks for your input

It is possible to go miss the ground school stage and go straight to the exam, it is also possible to fail the open book exam which seems a sad comment on the quality of the ground school. Recent experience has shown that EuroUSC cannot even put an exam paper together and are willing to discount dodgy questions they have included AFTER the exam. It makes the GCSE exam boards look like saints. The all important ops manual is left pretty much up to the candidate to write, it seems no one, EuroUSC or CAA, wants to take any responsibility for defining the degree of information that needs to be included. The CAA calls for a 'mini' manual .... difficult to determine what that entails. My feeling is that EuroUSC try to take too far. No examples are shown and those already completed by candidates do seem to have a commercial value and not freely exchanged. This is fair enough after the amount of work that has to be put into them so its a bit of a catch 22 situation.
To get back to the original question, do you believe that piloting skills and safe operation are pretty much craft independent and that the 'per craft' certificate is an unnecessary complication? I am still trying to gather opinions that support the case for a classification based permit to operate and your's will help.

andy

This is completely typical of what can happen when a government agency farms out functions to private companies. I'm familiar with the care industry in the UK - there are many equivalent examples from there.

 

[plingboot]

after previous discussions about the bnuc process format, i took it upon myself to get a head start by attempting to put an OM together. i've spent a reasonable amount of time - 6-7 hours - finding examples online, looking at the shell requirements and ANO documents etc. and doing my own writing.

much like i'd imagine many on here will be, my 'operation' will be a small, one man band affair doing adhoc work, using one, maybe two well spec'd rigs for quality still photgraphic work with one maybe two smaller (f330size) rigs for stuff like inspections etc.

i worked through the shell document adding content:
researching a site before hand on google earth
identifying take-off landing sites
potential public access poinst to be aware of
potential obsticals
working practice on-site
aspects of risk mitigation
detailed rig descriptions, with schedules of maintenance
maintenance/storage/transporation/on site usage practise/charging records for flight packs
and other stuff i cant recall off hand now.

much of it seems like common sense and some areas did make me reconsider how i might work in a more methodical way.

now, i have absolutely no idea whether the work i've done so far is any good, too comprehensive or not comprehensive enough and there are sections for which i have no content and could use the honest advice of people who have aleady passed their bnuc.

THIS IS THE POINT where this discussion seems to have raised the potential for an interesting 'experiment' and test of community altruism.

if those who have already paid out for the bnuc process were willing to advise on and help review the OM's of a reasonable size -10 maybe - group of 'one man' operation bnuc candidates, then surely we could test the theory that you can rock up with a quality, pass ready OM, take the exam and flight test, pass and have shelled out significantly less cash.

there's been lots of talk which dances around the edge of the bnuc exam and flight test, but it would be interesting/helful to know more specifics on the various tests so it's possible to do the homework beforehand and go there fully prepared and pass ready.

i'm not looking to copy OM's or do it the easy way, i see this suggestion to be like the exam prep packs used a kid, where you saw example questions and knew what was expected, but in this case still have to do the leg work related to your own proposed 'company operation'. the difference being that the qualified members of the community will have looked over the OMs and assisted in getting them into a pass ready state.

if the test worked and the group all passed, then maybe that process, the experiance gained by those involved and the examples/information could potentially become a low cost (pdf) tool for future applicants?

or am i just being naive?

 

[Macsgrafs]

Thats exactly what I would like to see Plingboot, some examples...a page photocopy, with any personal info removed would be fine, but I do get the feeling of US against THEM at times on here!!!!

 

[swisser]

I have to say I didn't find the course/exam/setup of the EuroUSC groundschool and test not nearly as negative as you seemed to have, and nor did the other 10 people on the course, including commercial airline pilots and qualified military drone pilots. "Discounting dodgy questions after the exam" is a better process than when doing PPL or CPL/IR exams at the CAA, when an irrelevant or misleading question is allowed to stand.

Back to the original question, I think that different craft fly quite differently and that you might be able to fly one in a given set of conditions in which you couldn't fly another. BUT the flying part of the BNUC-S test doesn't evaluate those kind of pilot skills. It only evaluates things from an operational perspective - do you use your check list, do you respond to changes in environment properly, etc. Those are NOT changed when you change craft, so logically that would suggest that re-resting for different craft makes no sense. They also don't evaluate the craft itself much past "does it fly and can it do a RTH". What they do evaluate, it seems, is the ops manual, so there would be a logical (on the basis of what they evaluate) case for needing to submit a revised ops manual for each craft.

Personally I am inclined to think that perhaps permission should be craft type (not instance) specific, but testing/evaluation by EuroUSC or anyone else should not be because that is meant to be about pilot competence in terms of operating to a given set of procedures.

swisser ... thanks for your input

It is possible to go miss the ground school stage and go straight to the exam, it is also possible to fail the open book exam which seems a sad comment on the quality of the ground school. Recent experience has shown that EuroUSC cannot even put an exam paper together and are willing to discount dodgy questions they have included AFTER the exam. It makes the GCSE exam boards look like saints. The all important ops manual is left pretty much up to the candidate to write, it seems no one, EuroUSC or CAA, wants to take any responsibility for defining the degree of information that needs to be included. The CAA calls for a 'mini' manual .... difficult to determine what that entails. My feeling is that EuroUSC try to take too far. No examples are shown and those already completed by candidates do seem to have a commercial value and not freely exchanged. This is fair enough after the amount of work that has to be put into them so its a bit of a catch 22 situation.
To get back to the original question, do you believe that piloting skills and safe operation are pretty much craft independent and that the 'per craft' certificate is an unnecessary complication? I am still trying to gather opinions that support the case for a classification based permit to operate and your's will help.

andy

 

[swisser]

I agree that RTH is a useful safety feature - but it's not mentioned in the ANO or CAP722, except indirectly as an "autonomy" Mode and therefore a Class (which EuroUSC then seems to ignore).


Does a Cessna or a Robinson have a RTH feature in case the pilot is incapacitated?

No, but then you don't command them remotely. The likelihood of comms breakdown in non-certified RC controllers is probably quite a lot higher than in a medical-checked pilot.

Re: accreditation of new schools - yes, they offer that! http://www.eurousc.com/luass/flyingschools.html - amazing, since BNUC-S is a commercial product. Naughty use of the word "accredited".

They offer it, but that's different from it being *required*. If you set up a testing outfit and went to the CAA and they said "You'll have to be checked out by EuroUSC and we'll take their opinion as gospel" that would be rotten.

It doesn't make sense that the permission certificate nominates a single craft - for a big job you might take three craft with you as backup or for particular parts of the job. The CAA should hold details of all registered craft and your mission permission allows you to use any of your fleet aircraft.

That's not how it works. If your ops manual describes several craft then the permission will be for those several craft.

 

[swisser]

after previous discussions about the bnuc process format, i took it upon myself to get a head start by attempting to put an OM together. i've spent a reasonable amount of time - 6-7 hours - finding examples online, looking at the shell requirements and ANO documents etc. and doing my own writing.

That's a reasonable thing to do. There are actual, previously-approved ones on the web which one can find.

If you want to send yours to me I'd happily give you some feedback.

if those who have already paid out for the bnuc process were willing to advise on and help review the OM's of a reasonable size -10 maybe - group of 'one man' operation bnuc candidates, then surely we could test the theory that you can rock up with a quality, pass ready OM, take the exam and flight test, pass and have shelled out significantly less cash.

Why 10 people? 1 person could do this.

there's been lots of talk which dances around the edge of the bnuc exam and flight test, but it would be interesting/helful to know more specifics on the various tests so it's possible to do the homework beforehand and go there fully prepared and pass ready.

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.

Basically anyone who has flown their craft for more than an hour total flight time can pass the flight test PROVIDED you fly in accordance with your ops manual. One of the nice aspects of all this is that YOU choose what it says in your ops manual, so you choose your own procedure to a large extent.

 

[swisser]

Thats exactly what I would like to see Plingboot, some examples...a page photocopy, with any personal info removed would be fine, but I do get the feeling of US against THEM at times on here!!!!

I think some people would feel that it wasn't entirely reasonable to put a lot of hard work in to building an ops manual to then have other people just be able to download it, change the craft details and use it as is because they can't be bothered to put any effort in themselves. Also, given that you only need it for commercial ops, you're by definition helping someone who could well be a competitor. Giving advice on what props work on what motor is one thing, but giving another company a valuable piece of intellectual property is another.

There is at least one on the web which can be found with Google - anybody who hasn't done that would appear to me to have perhaps not put much effort in to it!

Personally though I think that all misses the point a bit. The ops manual is meant to reflect the way YOU choose to operate. It also is meant to contain a risk assessment of your operations, again these are very specific to you.

As I said above, I'm happy to look at people's manuals and give some feedback if you like.

 

[ZAxis]

The ops manual can be created for use in two ways. It can describe your way of doing things or you can operate to the way it describes. If you operate in pretty much the same environment as others then a standardised manual could be produced. This in itself could have a commercial value and worth pursuing. It could be a similar idea to the 'make your own website' offers you see advertised. There's a basic template, a range of pick and mix options and voila -- your web site. It may look a bit generic but its all about you. In fact does the ops manual have to be a printed document. Electronic flight bags are common place now in the commercial/military aviation world Write an app and you're away.

The problem with writing the manual oneself is knowing just how deep to go. I always liken getting the BNUC-S (TM) to gaining ISO9000 accreditation. I've been through the process twice, once twenty years ago and once more recently. The earlier one was a nightmare to complete as every operation had to described down to the last nut and bolt. I believe this actually gave the qualification a reputation that is was only worth going after if it was really really necessary and it created a mass of totally unwarranted documentation. The more recent one looked at the company in a holistic manner and concentrated on the systems you have in place to operate the whole company. Minimise the paperwork, simplify and automate processes using simple spreadsheets, have the processes recorded and easily accessible, prove it works and you have the ticket. The CAA should be looking for this later approach but self writers believe they should tend to the former and need reassurance that is not.

andy