3rd Party Insurance other than BMFA - Can someone recommend please?

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Its an SUA (Small Unmanned Aircraft) in truth. Or an SUSA (Small Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft) if it has a camera.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

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.

[Peter Jenkins]

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.

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Please see the fpv exemption. This is linked to from both www.fpvuk.org/fpv-law and the BMFAs website.

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

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.

[GaryW]

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

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

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.

[GaryW]

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

[GaryW]

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

[GaryW]

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

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

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!

[Peter Jenkins]

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.

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

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.

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

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).

[Peter Jenkins]

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.

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Understood. Thanks for clarifying.

Good night Peter.

[Rob Buckley]

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

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Good point and well put. I totally agree.

Thanks Rob

[GaryW]

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

[GaryW]

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 !

[Simon Dale - Firstpersonview.co.uk]

Www.caa.co.uk/droneaware is what we put in every box now. It's an easy to digest introduction to the rules.