Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk Posted December 23, 2014 Author Share Posted December 23, 2014 Its an SUA (Small Unmanned Aircraft) in truth. Or an SUSA (Small Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft) if it has a camera. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Harris - Moderator Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Posted by Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk on 23/12/2014 14:53:57: I'm not really sure what this thread was originally about, or how we've ended up discussing this. Really? You originated it! Whatever, I'm glad that you've been able to work with the BMFA and CAA so effectively over the years though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Jenkins Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 As I understand it, CAP658, a CAA publication, is aimed specifically at model aircraft and large model aircraft used for sport and recreation purposes only. It provides detailed guidance on the operation of these model aircraft and covers FPV specifically. CAP 658 acknowledges that it is written in collaboration with the major UK aero modelling associations who have provided much of the operational detail. However, CAP 658 is a CAA publication and if the guidance contained within it is breached you will need to make a very vigorous case in your defence should an incident result. Note that CAP 658, refers only to model aircraft used for sport and recreation. Guidance on the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for aerial work is contained in CAP 722 Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace – Guidance. CAP 658 Section 7 covers FPV operation and para 7.6 contains the following wording: 7.6 Only fly if: the activity is solely for 'sport and recreation' purposes; two pilots take part; a Buddy Box system is employed; the person in charge operates the master transmitter; the person in charge does not wear the headset or view a screen; the aircraft remains within the natural unaided visual range of the person in charge; reliable operation of the Buddy Box is established; and a clear handover protocol is established. These operating conditions very clearly place the legal responsibility for the safety of the flight on the person in charge who must maintain direct unaided visual contact with the model at all times. If there are other rules for operating under FPV perhaps Simon Dale could tell us where they are published and can be found. Incidentally, the FPV UK rules fail to mention Article 137 of the ANO which is an integral part of endangering. It only mentions Article 138, 166 and 167. Article 166(3) states: 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. Article 167 refers to Small Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft. My understanding is that that is to cater for aerial work and not sport and recreation purposes – see earlier comment from CAP658. CAP 658 can be likened to the Highway Code. If you breach the Highway Code and have an accident you are likely to be prosecuted as you have not followed the guidance contained therein. This is a separate matter from breaching the provisions of the Road Traffic Act (ANO for us). The BMFA has an insurance broker who has assessed the risk they are covering based on the ANO, CAP 658 and any guidance provided by the BMFA on the safe operation of model aircraft. It is quite wrong to say that the BMFA has just taken an arbitrary decision on the matter of FPV operation. Simon, perhaps you could let me know if what I have extracted from the ANO and CAP 658 is incorrect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk Posted December 24, 2014 Author Share Posted December 24, 2014 Please see the fpv exemption. This is linked to from both www.fpvuk.org/fpv-law and the BMFAs website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk Posted December 24, 2014 Author Share Posted December 24, 2014 As for why 137 is not mentioned please see article 253 of the ANO which says: Exceptions from application of provisions of the Order for certain classes of aircraft 253 (1) This article applies to: (a) any small balloon; (b) any kite weighing not more than two kg; (c) any small unmanned aircraft; and (d) any parachute including a parascending parachute. (2) Subject to paragraph (3), nothing in this Order applies to or in relation to an aircraft to which this article applies. (3) Articles 131, 138, 161, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 232 except 232(2)(a) and 255 apply to or in relation to an aircraft to which this article applies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryW Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 this is what u need fro air navigation order and the cap articles ANO 131, 138, 161, 164, 166, 167, 232 CAP 393 http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=detail&id=226 it only becomes fpv when a camera is used as opposed to the all too common name " drone" a drone and uav or sua they the same are all the same hopefully this may help Edited By Hawke225 on 24/12/2014 01:03:03 Edited By Hawke225 on 24/12/2014 01:04:08 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk Posted December 24, 2014 Author Share Posted December 24, 2014 As for the comments about BMFA and buddy leads, etc. please bear in mind that this thread is from 2009. In 2009 I formed FPV UK, with Walker Midgley insurance (thanks to help from this thread) and (after a year or so of hounding) successfully got the CAA to issue the first FPV exemption. Initially to only our members. And then the following year to everyone. In 2010, or possibly 2011, the BMFA joined us in asking the CAA to renew and extend the exemption further and since then BMFA and FPV UK members have both safely enjoyed FPV flying without a buddy lead (whilst following the terms of the exemption). Mission accomplished! As for why this thread has become alive again - someone dredged it up a few days ago by commenting on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryW Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 one major flaw with the bmfa website and bmfa handbook, is they dont give the full info and details of the rules and regs of quadcopter/fpv flying which is fully available on the caa website bmfa shud correct this and publish the full info not what they feel applies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryW Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 Posted by Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk on 24/12/2014 01:05:06: As for why this thread has become alive again - someone dredged it up a few days ago by commenting on it. SORRY ! that was my fault Simon lol Edited By Hawke225 on 24/12/2014 01:08:37 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryW Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 PS. i have shared the fpvuk website on my facebook group www.facebook.com/groups/406922636125118/ Edited By Hawke225 on 24/12/2014 01:10:29 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk Posted December 24, 2014 Author Share Posted December 24, 2014 I've now read the first post of this thread now and it makes sense as to why people were making some of the comments they were! I wondered why someone asked me why I'd want to "go it alone" in reference to the association that has been running for over 5 years and has done so much with the CAA, etc. And I thought I'd stepped back in time when someone mentioned the BMFA buddy lead position! It all makes sense now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Jenkins Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 Thank you Simon. I have to say that I was unaware of the change that allows FPV aircraft of up to 3.5 Kgs to be flown without a buddy lead although I think you might need exceptional eyesight to keep track of such a small aircraft up to 1,000 ft. I am surprised that Article 137 has been removed by this exemption as that allows any model aircraft of up to 7 Kgs to be exempt from this provision. Since there is no specified height limit for such aircraft, unlike that for those above 7 Kg, that is quite a step for the CAA to have taken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk Posted December 24, 2014 Author Share Posted December 24, 2014 Thanks Peter.Just to be clear: 137 was not removed by the fpv exemption.Article 253 of the ANO itself states that 137 does not apply to SUA.Happy flying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk Posted December 24, 2014 Author Share Posted December 24, 2014 IE that applies to all SUA (under or over 7kg) whether flown fpv (under the terms of the fpv exemption) or flown traditionally.In other words 137 never applies to models. (As I understand it). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Jenkins Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 Sorry, poor wording by me. I should have said I was surprised that Article 253 had removed the need for compliance with Article 137 for Small Unmanned Aircraft. I can only assume that the CAA did a risk analysis of the SUA situation and concluded that there was no further need for compliance with this. For the sake of clarity, 137 deals with not endangering an aircraft or person in an aircraft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk Posted December 24, 2014 Author Share Posted December 24, 2014 Understood. Thanks for clarifying.Good night Peter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Buckley Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 While Article 253 removes the applicability of many articles form SUA's, the interpretation being given is a bit backwards. If somebody was to go to Heathrow & throw bricks at passing 737's they would be in breach of Article 137 (because 737's are aircraft in the ANO). If somebody was to go to a model flying site and throw bricks at passing models, they would not be in breach of Article 137, as SUA's are not classed as aircraft in the ANO (Article 253 removes the applicability from them). If however somebody was to fly an SUA at/into or very close to a 737 in a manner likely to damage it, they would be in breach of Article 137. It's the damaging of the SUA in Article 137 that is removed by Article 253, not using the SUA to damage aircraft. Edited By Rob Buckley on 24/12/2014 14:54:30 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk Posted December 24, 2014 Author Share Posted December 24, 2014 Good point and well put. I totally agree. Thanks Rob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryW Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 At the end of the day as long as you abide by all of the ANO and the regs as set out by the CAA not what alot of webites and online groups are saying then you wont go wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaryW Posted December 26, 2014 Share Posted December 26, 2014 Posted by Rob Buckley on 24/12/2014 14:51:55: While Article 253 removes the applicability of many articles form SUA's, the interpretation being given is a bit backwards. If somebody was to go to Heathrow & throw bricks at passing 737's they would be in breach of Article 137 (because 737's are aircraft in the ANO). If somebody was to go to a model flying site and throw bricks at passing models, they would not be in breach of Article 137, as SUA's are not classed as aircraft in the ANO (Article 253 removes the applicability from them). If however somebody was to fly an SUA at/into or very close to a 737 in a manner likely to damage it, they would be in breach of Article 137. It's the damaging of the SUA in Article 137 that is removed by Article 253, not using the SUA to damage aircraft. Edited By Rob Buckley on 24/12/2014 14:54:30 Totally 110% CORRECT ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk Posted December 26, 2014 Author Share Posted December 26, 2014 Www.caa.co.uk/droneaware is what we put in every box now. It's an easy to digest introduction to the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.