Over-flying houses.

[Bowley]

I believe that we have to always assume that MR's are inevitably going to fail and conduct our business accordingly. of course there are always methods of mitigating hazard if not risk, we can ensure redundancy in the case of a single ESC/Motor/Prop failure by using Octo's and perhaps Hexa's and keeping a margin of power to accomodate a failure, also there are a good number of ballistic recovery systems on the market ie parachutes. I agree with Dazzab that manual mode is irrelevant in this case and does not provide any safety factor really even with SRH manual flight still hinges on electronics in the form of transmitter mixing which can be viewed as a rudimentary form of FC in essence.

 

[swisser]

Whether it's controller error or tx/rx failure, is it ever safe to overfly built up areas even with the relevant written permissions?

There are (at least) two considerations here. The first is the legality of the flight. The second is the wisdom of it, regardless of legality.

Legally, as you know from your BNUC course, unless you have some special dispensation, you're not permitted to fly "over or within 150m of a congested area" if you have a camera on board for the purposes of taking pictures or video (as opposed to just for flying the aircraft). A congested area is defined as one substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes. That's pretty broad and certainly would seem to apply to the situation you mention in your opening post. This is regardless of having permission in fact.

Permission isn't actually required by the ANO. It's sometimes confused with the fact that you are required to fly a certain distance people or structures, vehicles or vessels unless they are "under your control". That's subtly different from having their permission. What it means is it's not enough to say to them "I am going to fly 10' over your head, is that ok?" you have to say "I am going to fly 10' over your head and if I shout 'duck' then you'll do it, right?". If it's a car or a house or something then you need control too. In the case of a building which let's face it isn't going to duck at your command, then it pretty much amounts to permission I suppose.

So, if it's a built up area I can't see that it's legal regardless of permission of all the building owners, unless you have explicit CAA permission (which wouldn't be impossible to obtain, but they'd want to see a safety case, including a risk assessment - evidence of permission from each of the houses you're overflying together with an assessment of the minimal damage that a 5Kg multirotor would do would probably be enough). If there is one house every once in a while then it wouldn't be considered a congested area, so you could make sure that that building is under your control and go for it, legally.

As for the sense of doing it, I would say that it's ok if you have the owners permissions, that they understand the risks and you explain that you'll repair any damage you might cause. If you lose a prop or a motor it would be pretty easy to go say 50m off course, so you'd want that much leeway along your promised route. If you can convince them to stay in doors away from the windows then you're not going to hurt anyone, in which case it's just a question of the risk you might have to spend a couple of thousand repainting someone's BMW, or fixing a big broken pair of French Windows.

On the other hand, there are very many people who would say stuff the law and not worry about the safety aspects and get away with it 100 times out of 100. Only you can decide which camp you fall in. Personally I'd not do it, but then I am not trying to pay a mortgage or feed my kids by doing so.

 

[sas]

Good points there swisser

One can often produce a good case for the CAA to obtain permission for flights outside of the Permission for Aerial Work norm but the wisdom of such a flight is actually the bigger factor.
The relatively recent ditching in the Thames incident was a good case in point where all permissions were in place but, in my opinion, it was entirely daft to fly an unmanned system there.
As a tv professional of several decades I could have achieved what they needed by much safer means.
Because our systems are all relatively new and shiny, it's easy to think they they are the panacea for everything. How do you think we achieved quality aerial material before our UAS's came of age?

I have built and legally operate several aircraft as an adjunct to my already existing business and I'm astounded as to how much time I have to spend educating clients about our operational and legal limits. Even then you can end up on location being severely pressured to doing things that are both illegal and dangerous. You have to say no - hard though it is.
These days, I can usually spot the warning signs so I can either choose not to do it or offer an alternative using a full size aircraft.

Education is the key here. The BNUC-S ground school training is excellent and I'm pleased to see that my last couple of flight school students were made to fly in full manual in their flight test (ie: no gps assist). I make sure that everyone that leaves me can do this and can make 'real world' assessments about any job they may face.

Although BNUC-S says there's no distinction from 0 - 20kgs, the CAA will let sub 7kg machines fly closer to things. Given the rapid changes in camera technology that's going on, bigger isn't always best ;-)

Always ask yourself if you have full control of your flight situation? If the answer is no then it's probably not safe to fly...

 

[Carapau]

the CAA will let sub 7kg machines fly closer to things

This is a really interesting point because I though this too. However, I had a very long chat with the CAA last week and they said that there are no differences in permission of sub 7kg v over 7kg.

 

[sas]

This is a really interesting point because I though this too. However, I had a very long chat with the CAA last week and they said that there are no differences in permission of sub 7kg v over 7kg.

It's a really interesting point isn't it ;-)

'Real World' experience has certainly demonstrated to me that there's a quietly growing resistance to the the heavier machines.
One of the UK's major land owners refused permission to someone with a 17kg machine but was quite happy with my sub 7kg aircraft on the basis that it would do far less damage if the unthinkable were to happen.

 

[Bowley]

This is a really interesting point because I though this too. However, I had a very long chat with the CAA last week and they said that there are no differences in permission of sub 7kg v over 7kg.

So much ambiguity. even still, hear many reports of statements made by the CAA that contradict their documents. as I understand it there is still a sub 7kg distinction although the BNUC-S has blurred the lines by encompassing all into the sub 20kg certificate.
for example you can legally fly a sub 7kg within a ATZ without ATC notification or clearance, whether one does so or not is down to individual common sense and courtesy

 

[Carapau]

for example you can legally fly a sub 7kg within a ATZ without ATC notification or clearance,

Am I right in thinking that this is fine if you are a hobbyist but as soon as you are doing this commercially, then sub 7 or not you legally need to notify? I could be completely wrong but I have seen some confusion before with recreational v commercial guidlines

 

[Bowley]

Am I right in thinking that this is fine if you are a hobbyist but as soon as you are doing this commercially, then sub 7 or not you legally need to notify? I could be completely wrong but I have seen some confusion before with recreational v commercial guidlines

This is direct from art 166 of ANO pertaining to small unmanned aircraft, I'm assuming its the same for both. certainly not condoning the practise though, especially in the light of the amount of recent flyaways.

 

[jimska]

On the BNUC course you could never get a straight/definitive answer to that sort of question but this is my understanding, if you've been granted permission for aerial work you can fly within congested areas but you have to have permission and control of wherever/whoever you're flying over or close to and you have to have safety measures in place i.e. crowd control, warning signs, done your risk assessment etc. Basically use your common sense and don't go flying down a high street in a town/city centre without being in control of that scene. The only time you get special permission is if you want to fly in controlled airspace i.e. in the Heathrow bubble or restricted airspace around Westminster etc. If we had to get special permission every time you wanted to fly in a town the CAA wouldn't be able to cope with all the requests, that's why you get issued with the permission for aerial work. I have asked them about this and that's pretty much what I was told.

 

[Blacksails]

You spoke to EuroUSC about this or the CAA?

 

[jimska]

You spoke to EuroUSC about this or the CAA?

I spoke to EuroUSC when on the course and never got a straight answer, always said have you thought about this, have you thought about that, have you done your risk assessment blah blah never a straight answer and I have spoken to the CAA and got the answer I described i.e. get non standard flight authorisation when in airport bubble (Heathrow/City etc.) or restricted zones but nothing about special permissions every time you fly in a town or city.

 

[jimska]

You spoke to EuroUSC about this or the CAA?

oh and their Get Out Of Jail card was "If you're not sure, ask"

 

[Blacksails]

Interesting.

I have been gaining permission to fly when ever I'm within 2nm of an airfield or more if it's a large airport. Never had any issues with ATC and they've generally been quite accommodating.

I have noticed on my permission that it does not mention residential areas. Just proximity to general public and open air assembly's of over 1000 people

 

[jimska]

Interesting.

I have been gaining permission to fly when ever I'm within 2nm of an airfield or more if it's a large airport. Never had any issues with ATC and they've generally been quite accommodating.

I have noticed on my permission that it does not mention residential areas. Just proximity to general public and open air assembly's of over 1000 people

That's exactly what I do and I think what should be done. Use common sense, don't fly over large crowds and you'll be OK, that's about it. Hit a car or a building fine but hit a person and that's not good. Obviously.