Multirotor, multicopter and quadcopter discussion - The Drone thread

Russinating said:
There's value in what he's giving away. The fact that it's free money-wise is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's correct. It says if valuable consideration is given or promised. So it's referring to payment or something in lieu of monetary payment in exchange for the purpose of the flight.

Unless there's another section somewhere that refers to it.
 
There's nothing to ask :p. Like I said, it would be a massive loophole if it was only deemed as monetary. "The flight was free but I charged £500 to travel to the location".

Also the reason you need permission for commercial work is because they deem there to potentially be more risk in professional operations, which is irrelevant of who/what it's for or what happens before or after in terms of usage, payment, etc.

Also vice versa, there was a guy who filmed an industrial fire 'for fun' just because he was near, later gave it to the local news, and got a talking to from the CAA. He had landowner permission, permission from the Chief Firefighter on duty and didn't sell it to the station.

Don't shoot the messenger :).
 
I'm almost tempted to get my BNUC, but the amount of paperwork for CAA registration is insane. You have to keep a full technical manual of all maintenance details and flight procedures. And then do a flight plan and log for every single flight...

Total nightmare...
 
Cool video and nicely handled Solaris. I've had a few prop failures mid air but thankfully only on my 250mm quad. Usually losing a blade will ditch a quad but I've brought it home twice with one blade missing on tri props :D

Can't say I'd like to fly something as big as a F550 anywhere near houses and people, my 450 quad gets very little use for that reason. It's been hanging on my spare room door for a couple of months unloved :(

WP_20140616_002.jpg
 
Is there the same type of regulations about RC planes and helicopters? All the 'news' about things seem to be related to multirotors only?
 
Russinating said:
Yeah, nothing to do with the idiot crowd throwing things at it. Not sure about the US but in the UK that's a criminal offence, the same as pointing a laser into a plane's cockpit or generally trying to down/interfere with a flight.
Click to expand...

The point being, the Phantom pilot shouldn't have been hovering 20ft above a crowd of idiots in the first place. 2 wrongs do not maketh a right. Off the shelf multirotors are too easy to buy and fly by the ****less. They'll ruin it for everone
 
You're assuming he didn't have permission to do that :).

Though the laws in the US differ completely (I don't think you're even allowed to fly UAVs commercially, full stop) so not sure if there's even any rules for distances above people etc when flying as a hobbyist.
 
Quick Q if I choose to fly around my own house does that still fall within the 50 meters for a structure rule, or do I effectively have permission (from myself) to do so?

Also wondered as a friend of mine is a caretaker at some really nice school grounds assuming he gives me permission and the school is obviously empty is this OK?
 
within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft
Click to expand...

I would assume your house is under your control :p. So it's fine.

The caretaker probably isn't the landowner (unless he's doing a secret millionaire/undercover boss type thing :p) so that wouldn't be ok.
 
Thanks Russ, sorry for sounding stupid, I've been reading the regulations a few times from various sources and trying to interpret what they mean from a practical POV.

It's the "under your control" bit that threw me. That makes sense for a vessel or vehicle - but a house? What on earth does it mean for a structure in this context to be under someone's control? I take it they mean you need consent to fly near a structure by the owner(s)?

Can you guys also advise on insurance for non commercial flying? I take it this is standard RC insurance I need to look for? Any pointers?
 
Genoma said:
Thanks Russ, sorry for sounding stupid, I've been reading the regulations a few times from various sources and trying to interpret what they mean from a practical POV.

It's the "under your control" bit that threw me. That makes sense for a vessel or vehicle - but a house? What on earth does it mean for a structure in this context to be under someone's control? I take it they mean you need consent to fly near a structure by the owner(s)?

Can you guys also advise on insurance for non commercial flying? I take it this is standard RC insurance I need to look for? Any pointers?
Click to expand...

Under control just means exactly that, but in a non-driving sense. If it's a house it might be ensuring someone's not going to open a window and hit the UAV, if it's a power station it might be that it's not going to get turned on whilst you're hovering above the chimney stack. Basically when it comes to structures it's that the owner/anyone in it/around it/anyone controlling it (cranes etc) is under your control too.

Burned_Alive said:
How would that work in say a street though?

Front and back I could be 50 metres from the next house, but houses to the side?
Click to expand...

Yup, which is why it's restrictive and unreasonable, but then you have to apply to the CAA and say you want to be able to do that, and if you are in that situation then you'll do X, Y and Z extra to minimise any risk. Same with filming in London is explicitly disallowed unless you get special permission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom