Multirotor, multicopter and quadcopter discussion - The Drone thread

No CAA permission, I just like to stick to their rules on UAVs and I'm really mindful of them...

I never fly that close to houses in normal situations. But their guidelines are a little vague on what to do with a UAV that has had a failure.

If I was a pilot on board I'd be calling mayday... And can bypass a whole lot of rules / regulations to land safely. But that's a manned aircraft. Really not sure how these rules apply to UAVs.
 
Primary objective is to limit loss of life or limb, and nothing else matters really. In that situation I guess they'd advise that if you still have visual from the onboard camera and are confident the area below is clear of people then you should bring it down. You (plural, not you specifically) should have insurance to cover any damage to property and the aircraft anyway so they don't particularly consider that a 'risk'. They could also argue that by trying to move it at all you could risk bringing it down somewhere worse (like in the road, or overshooting the edge of the field and going towards the group of people).

Also you do know that commercial use (and CAA permission) doesn't have to be monetary don't you? Just noted that you're offering your footage for use etc, which they would deem as commercial. I know it's a load of rubbish and chances of anything happening slim but just wanted to mention it :). There's a lot of confusion with people thinking commercial use = just for monetary gain.
 
Also I didn't know the full situation. It was 600m away and I was flying it as a dot above the horizion (CAA rules only say you have to be able to see the aircraft and where it is in relation to other things to stop collisions) not fly so close you can see the exact state of the aircraft. I didn't know it was going to be unable to move. I also didn't know what the state of affairs was regarding people underneath me. I could have had a group of people underneath me for all I knew...
 
Solaris said:
Really?? Wow I just want people to be able to grab the footage and use it in their own not for profit videos... That's kinda ridiculous...
Click to expand...

Yeah thought that might be the case. The CAA define aerial work as:

Any purpose (other than public transport) for which an aircraft is flown if valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the purpose of the flight and includes the following:

Aerial Photography
Aerial Advertising
Click to expand...

Basically anything other than fun or training. Money doesn't really come into it; if it was for payment only that'd be a massive loophole (do the flight for free but charge for 'admin', for example).

Solaris said:
Also I didn't know the full situation. It was 600m away and I was flying it as a dot above the horizion (CAA rules only say you have to be able to see the aircraft and where it is in relation to other things to stop collisions) not fly so close you can see the exact state of the aircraft. I didn't know it was going to be unable to move. I also didn't know what the state of affairs was regarding people underneath me. I could have had a group of people underneath me for all I knew...
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm not saying you did anything wrong, I'd have probably done the same, was just saying what the CAA's view would most likely be re: risk to property.

Also the max distance for VLoS flying is 500m, fyi :).
 
CAP393 only says: The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must maintain direct, unaided visual
contact with the aircraft sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft,
persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions.

No distance is given.

I'm actually writing to the CAA UAS Programme Lead now to ask him to clarify this in future documentation.
 
Take a look at CAP722, which is specific to UASs. Linky: http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP722.pdf

Within the UK, VLOS operations are normally accepted out to a maximum distance of 500 m horizontally and 400 ft vertically from the Remote Pilot. Operations at a greater distance from the Remote Pilot may be permitted if an acceptable safety case is submitted.
Click to expand...

This is a guide, though if you do get permission from the CAA that will be the limit unless you request specifically and although a guide they'll still use them if you're just flying for fun, like the guy who got prosecuted back in March.
 
Really? He was prosecuted off the back of a guidance document... wow...

Either way... I think I exaggerated... Google Earth shows I was at 504m when I turned to come back...

v3nbT6S.jpg.png
 
Solaris said:
Really? He was prosecuted off the back of a guidance document... wow...

Either way... I think I exaggerated... Google Earth shows I was at 504m when I turned to come back...

http://i.imgur.com/v3nbT6S.jpg
Click to expand...

Sorry my bad, he wasn't actually convicted for distance (or even losing VLoS): http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2348. Though the 500m is stated again in the notes to editors.

Solaris said:
I'd also hate to think how Vortex Ring State would affect a hexacopter directly descending with only 5 props running....
Click to expand...

It would be interesting :p.

If you haven't seen it, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2itwFJCgFQ. Think you'll find it interesting :). And they kill some engines in that too, very clever.
 
Yeah, there have only ever been two convictions. One in Cumbria at a Nuclear Facility. He was fined because, although he lost control (of a fixed wing UAV not a multicopter) he was flouting restricted airspace even before he lost control. And the CAA looked at his back history of videos on YouTube and found that he had repeatedly flown recklessly and dangerously.

The other conviction was because a guy was flying recklessly close to Alton Towers, in close proximity to rides and people, and not maintaining direct LoS.

I've watched that drone video all the way through twice! Love it...

But those quads have a feedback loop to cameras in the room that give them their exact location data in 3D space, which helps a lot. Can't do that outside...

They're also using flight algorithms that were developed by that university and I don't think any of the mainstream quad makers like DJI have used that code.
 
Russinating said:
Basically anything other than fun or training. Money doesn't really come into it; if it was for payment only that'd be a massive loophole (do the flight for free but charge for 'admin', for example).
Click to expand...

That's says for valuable consideration though, so surely there's no issue with him giving footage away for free?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom