Drones

[Machpoint005]

 

Because currently the CAA have to be the lead prosecutor, but if this was passed the CC could do it.

 

 

Saes!

 

I'm not going to complain about the insult because luckily almost nobody understands your archaic language!

[nicknorman]

The caption of the video says it was taken a sunrise and the temperature was -5 Celsius. I've never walked up and down Hillmorton Locks at sunrise in winter, but I'd take a bet that it's not much of a tourist destination then.

 

MP.

It says "substantially used for recreational purposes." It didn't say "at the particular moment when the flying was taking place. Of course to you, this legislation is unfamiliar but to me as a helicopter pilot it is very familiar. For example if taking off from a congested area such as a golf course, if an engine fails I must be able to abort the flight within the confines of a controlled safe area, or continue the flight on the remaining engine. It is no defence to say that there was nobody in the way at the time. In part this is logical because you can never be sure who is hiding in the bushes, who will walk out of the trees just at the wrong moment. Edited December 7, 2016 by nicknorman

[zenataomm]

Looks like the Aussie's have identified a problem, so much so that the investment in this piece of kit must be substantial.

 

[MoominPapa]

It says "substantially used for recreational purposes." It didn't say "at the particular moment when the flying was taking place. Of course to you, this legislation is unfamiliar but to me as a helicopter pilot it is very familiar. For example if taking off from a congested area such as a golf course, if an engine fails I must be able to abort the flight within the confines of a controlled safe area, or continue the flight on the remaining engine. It is no defence to say that there was nobody in the way at the time. In part this is logical because you can never be sure who is hiding in the bushes, who will walk out of the trees just at the wrong moment.

 

You may be correct that the criteria for flying drones is the same as for flying helicopters, but that seems unlikely to me. There doesn't seem to be any requirement to assure that sudden failure of the drone, for instance, cannot cause problems on the ground in the same way that the helicopter rules required a controlled safe area. The drone rules don't require an uninhabited area under the flight path, and are likely more to be to do with 1) minimising risk to large crowds. 2) minimising annoyance to people undertaking recreation. 3) avoiding problems from many drones being used in the same area. Given those aims, it seems that flying at a time when the area is not being substantially used for recreation achieves the aims of the regulations.

 

It's generally a mistake to assume that the same phrase used in two different laws means the same thing. Context and intention is everything.

 

MP.

Edited December 7, 2016 by MoominPapa

[Guest]

 

Because currently the CAA have to be the lead prosecutor, but if this was passed the CC could do it.

 

 

Deep joy - another task for 'Council Wardens'.

[nicknorman]

You may be correct that the criteria for flying drones is the same as for flying helicopters, but that seems unlikely to me. There doesn't seem to be any requirement to assure that sudden failure of the drone, for instance, cannot cause problems on the ground in the same way that the helicopter rules required a controlled safe area. The drone rules don't require an uninhabited area under the flight path, and are likely more to be to do with 1) minimising risk to large crowds. 2) minimising annoyance to people undertaking recreation. 3) avoiding problems from many drones being used in the same area. Given those aims, it seems that flying at a time when the area is not being substantially used for recreation achieves the aims of the regulations.

 

It's generally a mistake to assume that the same phrase used in two different laws means the same thing. Context and intention is everything.

 

MP.

It is the same definition used in the same law - the Air Navigation Order. Read it up for yourself, then you'll understand. It is only the definition of congested area that is of concern here, clearly other elements of the rules for flying drones and helicopters are different. Edited December 7, 2016 by nicknorman

[MoominPapa]

It is the same definition used in the same law - the Air Navigation Order. Read it up for yourself, then you'll understand. It is only the definition of congested area that is of concern here, clearly other elements of the rules for flying drones and helicopters are different.

 

Care to give a more exact reference? Googling gets me to the Air Navigation Order 2009, which doesn't seem to contain the words you quoted in the relevant sections (166 and 167).

 

MP.

[nicknorman]

Care to give a more exact reference? Googling gets me to the Air Navigation Order 2009, which doesn't seem to contain the words you quoted in the relevant sections (166 and 167).

 

MP.

Struggling with poor data connection but start here and click the link at the bottom https://www.caa.co.uk/News/Air-Navigation-Order-2016/

 

Here in fact http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/765/contents/made around article 95

 

This page makes easier reading, click on the legislation https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-industry/Aircraft/Unmanned-aircraft/Unmanned-Aircraft/ and it includes the definition of congested area.

Edited December 7, 2016 by nicknorman

[Graham Davis]

Looks like the Aussie's have identified a problem, so much so that the investment in this piece of kit must be substantial.

 

 

Can't remember where it was, but somewhere has trained Raptors to take them out from above.

[nicknorman]

Netherlands.

[MoominPapa]

Struggling with poor data connection but start here and click the link at the bottom https://www.caa.co.uk/News/Air-Navigation-Order-2016/

 

Here in fact http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/765/contents/made around article 95

 

This page makes easier reading, click on the legislation https://www.caa.co.uk/Commercial-industry/Aircraft/Unmanned-aircraft/Unmanned-Aircraft/ and it includes the definition of congested area.

OK. Looks like the relevant paras have not changed (except in numbering) from 2009.

Small unmanned aircraft

 

94.—(1) A person must not cause or permit any article or animal (whether or not attached to a parachute) to be dropped from a small unmanned aircraft so as to endanger persons or property.

 

(2) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fly the aircraft if reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made.

 

(3) 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.

 

(4) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft which has a mass of more than 7kg excluding its fuel but including any articles or equipment installed in or attached to the aircraft at the commencement of its flight, must not fly the aircraft—

 

(a)in Class A, C, D or E airspace unless the permission of the appropriate air traffic control unit has been obtained;

 

(b)within an aerodrome traffic zone during the notified hours of watch of the air traffic control unit (if any) at that aerodrome unless the permission of any such air traffic control unit has been obtained; or

 

©at a height of more than 400 feet above the surface unless it is flying in airspace described in sub-paragraph (a) or ( and in accordance with the requirements for that airspace.

 

(5) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must not fly the aircraft for the purposes of commercial operations except in accordance with a permission granted by the CAA.

 

Small unmanned surveillance aircraft

 

95.—(1) The person in charge of a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not fly the aircraft in any of the circumstances described in paragraph (2) except in accordance with a permission issued by the CAA.

 

(2) The circumstances referred to in paragraph (1) are—

 

(a)over or within 150 metres of any congested area;

 

(b)over or within 150 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons;

 

©within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft; or

 

(d)subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), within 50 metres of any person.

 

(3) Subject to paragraph (4), during take-off or landing, a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not be flown within 30 metres of any person.

 

(4) Paragraphs (2)(d) and (3) do not apply to the person in charge of the small unmanned surveillance aircraft or a person under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft.

 

(5) In this article, “a small unmanned surveillance aircraft” means a small unmanned aircraft which is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition.

 

Congested area is defined as

 

 

any area of a city, town or settlement which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes'

 

I can see that Hillmorton Locks may be defined as being in use for 'industrial, commercial or recreational purposes', but, apart from possibly the cafe and so-on at the bottom end where the road bridge crosses, they not certainly an area of a town, city or settlement. Look on a map, that's all to the south of the railway, some way from the locks. I didn't watch the whole of the video, but the first half which I did watch was all around the top of the flight. Unless Matty took to buzzing the cafe later on, I think he's in the clear.

 

MP.

 

ETA. What's the definition of distance? Straight line or position projected onto the ground? I assume the later, so it's legal to fly a drone directly above a person, as long as its altitude exceeds 50m?

Edited December 7, 2016 by MoominPapa

[nicknorman]

OK. Looks like the relevant paras have not changed (except in numbering) from 2009.

 

 

Congested area is defined as

 

 

 

I can see that Hillmorton Locks may be defined as being in use for 'industrial, commercial or recreational purposes', but, apart from possibly the cafe and so-on at the bottom end where the road bridge crosses, they not certainly an area of a town, city or settlement. Look on a map, that's all to the south of the railway, some way from the locks. I didn't watch the whole of the video, but the first half which I did watch was all around the top of the flight. Unless Matty took to buzzing the cafe later on, I think he's in the clear.

 

MP.

 

ETA. What's the definition of distance? Straight line or position projected onto the ground? I assume the later, so it's legal to fly a drone directly above a person, as long as its altitude exceeds 50m?

Yes I can accept that the top of hillmorton might not be considered part of a settlement etc although it's clearly a grey area as to where the boundary might be. But how about 95 (2)c? A lock is a structure. Again a bit of a grey area about "in control of" but I would take that to mean control of access in the case of a structure, which Matty didn't have.

 

I'd say the distance is direct line so 50m above is OK. For example the 500' rule for aircraft is certainly direct line. So whilst there is an exemption for gliders hill soaring, when I'm flying the tug I have to be careful not to get within 500' laterally or vertically (or diagonally) of hillwalkers when I'm towing a glider into the hill. If it meant 50m laterally I think it would say so.

Edited December 7, 2016 by nicknorman

[MoominPapa]

Yes I can accept that the top of hillmorton might not be considered part of a settlement etc although it's clearly a grey area as to where the boundary might be. But how about 95 (2)c? A lock is a structure. Again a bit of a grey area about "in control of" but I would take that to mean control of access in the case of a structure, which Matty didn't have.

Same argument applies to the vessels moored at the top, other than Old Friends obviously; Matty's always "in control" of that

I'd say the distance is direct line so 50m above is OK. For example the 500' rule for aircraft is certainly direct line. So whilst there is an exemption for gliders hill soaring, when I'm flying the tug I have to be careful not to get within 500' laterally or vertically (or diagonally) of hillwalkers when I'm towing a glider into the hill. If it meant 50m laterally I think it would say so.

So Matty was OK as long as he maintained 50m altitude as he passed over the locks or the moored boats. I can't be bothered to review the whole video to see if that was always true.

 

MP.

Edited December 7, 2016 by MoominPapa

[AndyV]

I think that the technicalities of what is or is not allowable for drone flying now will inevitably be superseded quite soon.

I have a 2 year old drone (a Phantom 2). One of my hobbies for a while has been flying radio controlled helicopters and I also have a pilots licence so I am probably as competent as most at flying the thing, which is actually really easy anyway.

My drone, at two years old, is an antique now. Nonetheless I find it's capabilities frightening. It can be programmed to fly "missions" on its own and it has GPS stabilisation and navigation etc. The only thing preventing it from being a very nasty weapon (if I were inclined to use it as such) is that it has a very small payload.

A friend has a drone that he built himself. He is a serious photographer and built it to carry a full digital SLR camera. It can do everything mine can do plus carry a fair amount of weight. You don't have to be paranoid to see how this could be misused.

Somehow these things have to be constrained to being used by licenced professionals. Their potential for causing damage by accident is huge. There have been many "flyaways" with machines clearing off on their own, presumably through electronic or software malfunctions and, of course, a motor can easily fail. Much worse though is the potential for deliberate malicious use.

I really enjoy flying my drone but I will happily give it up when the time comes, and I hope that is soon.

[WotEver]

There are plenty of reports of near-misses, serious injuries and deaths from hobby drones. Gravity is always there, it never goes away.

[Cheshire cat]

Can you tell me when that was?

 

It may have been me. I was photographing Shade House on behalf of the owner, with a view to helping him sell it. It was launched from his land, in this case his private mooring opposite his house, and flown overhead his property with his permission. As far as I'm aware, I was operating within all the guidelines issued by the CAA, including checking for 'No Fly Zones' which do not apply to this area, and waiting until there were no boats nor people within 50m (that I could see).

 

It was August Bank Holiday weekend, either Saturday afternoon or Sunday. The drone was all white and flying low enough for me to think that in my youth I could have shot it down with my catapult.

[Sea Dog]

Rights, wrongs, definitions, regulations and legalities apart, it seems pretty clear that these things do tend to upset rather a lot of people.

[NigelMoore]

I thought the "rules" said you hadn't to fly over areas where you didn't have the owners permission and CRT hadn't/were unlikely to give permission. Have I got this wrong?

 

The ‘rules’ quoted by nicknorman don’t say that.

 

No activity is unlawful in, on, under, or over the waterways simply because you do not have CaRT’s permission; it is only unlawful if you need their permission and do not have it. To be in a position to prohibit flying RC aircraft over the canals, CaRT would need consent to a byelaw to that effect.

 

As the draft set of new Byelaws that was drawn up to benefit Johnson’s retirement fund clarifies: [7(2)] -

 

“Where any of these Byelaws prohibit the doing of anything except in accordance with the consent of BW . . .”

 

Flying model aircraft over the waterway was intended to be made subject to purchasable licences: [79] -

 

“(1) No person shall (without the consent of BW): ( a ) on the waterway release any power-driven model aircraft for flight or control the flight of such an aircraft; ( b ) cause any power-driven model aircraft to take off or land on the waterway . . .”

 

It would not have covered most drones though, because it only relates to “power-driven” RC aircraft, which means driven by an internal combustion engine; electric powered aircraft would have been exempt [but only, I imagine, because Johnson and co were innocent of developments in electric RC aircraft].

[Arthur Marshall]

It's OK. I said I've changed my mind and I'm not getting one. I'll just sit on top of the boat and quietly get on with my trombone practice.

[ditchcrawler]

It's OK. I said I've changed my mind and I'm not getting one. I'll just sit on top of the boat and quietly get on with my trombone practice.

Well that wont annoy anyone will it

[nicknorman]

The ‘rules’ quoted by nicknorman don’t say that.

 

No activity is unlawful in, on, under, or over the waterways simply because you do not have CaRT’s permission; it is only unlawful if you need their permission and do not have it. To be in a position to prohibit flying RC aircraft over the canals, CaRT would need consent to a byelaw to that effect.

 

As the draft set of new Byelaws that was drawn up to benefit Johnson’s retirement fund clarifies: [7(2)] -

 

“Where any of these Byelaws prohibit the doing of anything except in accordance with the consent of BW . . .”

 

Flying model aircraft over the waterway was intended to be made subject to purchasable licences: [79] -

 

“(1) No person shall (without the consent of BW): ( a ) on the waterway release any power-driven model aircraft for flight or control the flight of such an aircraft; ( b ) cause any power-driven model aircraft to take off or land on the waterway . . .”

 

It would not have covered most drones though, because it only relates to “power-driven” RC aircraft, which means driven by an internal combustion engine; electric powered aircraft would have been exempt [but only, I imagine, because Johnson and co were innocent of developments in electric RC aircraft].

Where do you find that "power driven" doesn't include electrically powered aircraft? Is it defined in the bylaw? Otherwise I suggest that an electrically powered model aircraft / drone is "power driven". As opposed to a glider, which isn't.

[Cheshire cat]

I was quite surprised by how noisy a drone is. Not quite up to a trombone though.

[Guest]

It's OK. I said I've changed my mind and I'm not getting one. I'll just sit on top of the boat and quietly get on with my trombone practice.

Very good.

[NigelMoore]

Where do you find that "power driven" doesn't include electrically powered aircraft? Is it defined in the bylaw? Otherwise I suggest that an electrically powered model aircraft / drone is "power driven". As opposed to a glider, which isn't.

 

Yes, it is defined in the byelaw: -

 

79 (2) In this byelaw :

 

( b ) “power-driven” means driven by the combustion of petrol vapour or other combustible vapour of other combustible substances.

[AndyV]

With RC helicopters it has been the case for some time that "power driven" ones can only be flown at organised clubs and not in public areas. Electrically powered ones have no such restriction.

The improvement in performance of electric motors and batteries etc seems to have been dramatic in recent years. The power of electric helicopters is now at the point where they are at least as dangerous as petrol ones. Last year there was an experienced RC pilot who, at an RC Model show in America, was decapitated by an electric helicopter.

It seems to be a case of the "rules" not keeping pace with the technology.