RunRyder RC
 21  Topic Subscribe
WATCH
 9 pages [ <<    <     4      5     ( 6 )     7      8     NEXT    >> ] 11636 views
Scorpion Power Scorpion Power
HelicopterAerial Photography and Video › CAA new regulation proposals
07-13-2008 10:53 PM  9 years agoPost 101
patrickegan

rrKey Veteran

Sacramento, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I would start here

http://www.uvs-info.com

If you have 20 years interfacing with the CAA, why is it just now that you became aware of regulation?

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
07-13-2008 11:20 PM  9 years agoPost 102
coffman

rrApprentice

NL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Become aware of what regulation? I have only just become aware of 'the proposal to amend the Air Navigation Order to bring unmanned aircraft of less than 7kg mass within the scope of regulatory oversight' as this proposal has only recently been proposed with a decision date of 11 august 2008, this is a proposal, not a regulation - YET

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
07-14-2008 12:37 AM  9 years agoPost 103
patrickegan

rrKey Veteran

Sacramento, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

The UK CAA been kicking around the 7 kg deal (prior to CAP 722 April version), and what to do with it for a while. The CAA has been working the UAV question for many years. I don’t know what they call the end of a cricket match, but here (American Football), we’d call that 4th down and 20 with 30 seconds left in the Super Bowl! With less then a month left I’d say really the only play left is the old Hail Mary! Then again maybe English bureaucracy moves much different???

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
07-14-2008 04:23 AM  9 years agoPost 104
JohnC

rrVeteran

East Yorkshire,​England

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I don't think anybody in the UK is doubting that the new regulation will be passed in August whatever anybody has to say about it.

I for one do not object to some form of regulation to weed out those who might operate without proper consideration of what is safe and what isn't.

Once this amendment to to the ANO has been made, the CAA will have a list of conditions they expect an operator to meet in order that they will be granted permission to operate.

THIS is what we are trying find out here. We are all hoping that it is sensible and realistic so that responsible operators of sub 7Kg aircraft can continue with minimal interference. The change will not come into effect until 2009.

We need some information direct from the horses mouth - which is the guy who is responsible for handling this matter. It may well be the case that the regulation is entirely workable. The LMA >20Kg certification scheme put the wind up a few people because it is complete overkill. Other people have said their contact with the CAA indicates it will be much less formal.

I agree with coffman that it makes me uneasy if someone from outside the UK is lobbying the CAA and discussing our regulations on my behalf while I have no knowledge of what he is saying or trying to achieve.

Patrick,

Are your powerpoint presentations available for public viewing ?

JohnC

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  Attn:RR
07-14-2008 05:08 AM  9 years agoPost 105
patrickegan

rrKey Veteran

Sacramento, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

You guys are going off the deep end, I’m not lobbying on your behalf. I made a presentation at UAS2008 in front of CAA people from around the world, follow the link below…

http://members.tripod.com/wcs_bbs/reporter/id3.html

I facilitated a Q and A between one poster in this forum and Mr. Whittaker. Go back to page 3, he posted his answer on my computer under my account.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
07-14-2008 04:25 PM  9 years agoPost 106
cameraman

rrNovice

Yorkshire, England

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Hi guys,

I recently phoned Chris Finnigan at the CAA and, without wishing to sound over optimistic, the proposals seem quite workable from an AP point of view (no pun) for <7kg.

The basic reason for the proposed regulation is to allow the CAA to be certain that AP companies know about the ANO and that the companies have a means of declaring that they will abide by it.

He was keen to stress that he did not want to over-regulate. He was mostly concerned about law enforcement, emergency and news/media organisations using small unmanned aircraft in proximity to people or emergency situations which may cause a hazard. In other words, the CAA should have nothing to fear from most AP companies as that is what we don't do.

BUT he would not commit to a general set of conditions which may be attached to a Permission. Each application for a Permission will be dealt with individually on its own merits - it will have to include an operations manual detailing under what circumstances and conditions the company will operate. He also said that a Permission will not necessarily include those conditions which currently apply to >7kg (e.g."congested area" 150m rule).

What we should be trying to achieve is an acceptance by the CAA of the conditions under which we operate at the moment and not forcing them into imposing more stringent ones. Certainly the proposed ANOs themselves do not present any difficulties and Permission conditions such as those for >7kg should be shown to be not necessary.

I am currently drafting a formal reply to Chris and it will include explicitly that we do architectural photography, that we do not cover events or news, that we do not fly near people, and that we monitor for hazards at all times. I am reasonably confident that Permissions will be granted on that basis. If we all reply in a similar vein I am sure that the regulation will have minimal impact on the vast majority of responsible operators (apart from having to shell out 200 quid a year of course).

Remember, less than a month to go for replies.

Happy lobbying, David
(Dragonfly Aerial Photography)

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
07-14-2008 09:26 PM  9 years agoPost 107
coffman

rrApprentice

NL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

David, you appear to listen well and interpret clearly, no fancy buzz words and acronyms. The UK clearly needs an organisation of it's own to act as the voice for UAV Aerial photographers and cinematographers and must be represented by active operators.

Patrick,

The CAA may have been kicking it around for a while but there’s no way a permit holder would have known until recently, you appear to be privy to info that UK operators are not. I'm neither a catholic nor a pessimist and I find your advice fairly shoddy so I'll not be taking it. We have a saying over hear "It's not over until the fat lady sings".

Are you fighting for the US UAV AP scene so that you can get back into AP?

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
07-15-2008 12:06 AM  9 years agoPost 108
BigguyOz

rrKey Veteran

Forster, New South​Wales, Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Coffman, the information has been around this forum for years. Patrick's information has not been shoddy in any way, perhaps it is your comprehension of the situation...

Tony Stott

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
07-15-2008 12:23 AM  9 years agoPost 109
coffman

rrApprentice

NL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Pleas read my post properly Oz.

What info has been around for years. The point I'm concerned about is the one I as a permit holder have only been informed about for 8 weeks the proposal to amend the Air Navigation Order to bring unmanned aircraft of less than 7kg mass within the scope of regulatory oversight, if this has been around for years on this forum then give me the link.

My comment about 'shoddy' advice was Patricks advice, I quote "With less then a month left I’d say really the only play left is the old Hail Mary!"

If this is the only advice he can give then is he the chap to help UK UAV AP!!!!

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
07-15-2008 02:59 AM  9 years agoPost 110
patrickegan

rrKey Veteran

Sacramento, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Yes, I (and many others), would like to be able to do RC AP legally.

I am however not chairing the UK anti-regulatory effort nor am I running for office, just offering up some friendly advice. An association carries much more weight than just the individual but in this case it’s too late for that. My advice (Hail Mary) is that every UK forum reader should write, fax, email and follow up with a call to the CAA with their views. A cautionary word, feelings don’t work well with those in the regulatory business. Prepare facts and guidelines a professional might use to mitigate risks to the public at large. (Remember, all the advice is free so take it for what it’s worth!)

To be honest, I haven’t read the whole thing (CAP 722), some of it is being used as information in the ARC and some caution that it is restrictive. (I believe it lists the revision dates in the document)

We have the same saying (about the fat lady), and from all outward signs, she’s warming up in the green room with little more than a fortnight before the big show! (I am unaware of her religious affiliations!)

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
07-15-2008 07:59 AM  9 years agoPost 111
ki-gas

rrApprentice

All over Europe,​mainly England

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Isn't 'Hail Mary' suggesting that at this point everyone should start praying for forgivness?

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
07-15-2008 09:49 AM  9 years agoPost 112
pigs dont fly

rrKey Veteran

City, State -​Country

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Hi there
The links I posted and the comments I made earlier, were due to my feelings that perhaps Patrick Egan was showing the various bodies (and particularly the CAA in our case) risky examples of AP, ie very close to property, people and more importantly traffic.
My argument is that if you are trying to seduce someone or party i.e. CAA or FAA etc, into giving you what you want, then you don’t shock them with the extremes of what can be done, but more likely show them passive and acceptable examples of the subject in question.
It seems subsequently that now that Mr. Whittaker has returned from his trip and presumably been in contact with Mr Finnigan, all contact with us has dried up, which then gives rise to the feeling that they are perhaps going to change their minds, and go along with Mr Whittaker's draconian LMA suggestion for AP after all.
I dont know for sure, and the above may or may not be the case, however as also an owner operator of UAV's flying AP in the UK, it concerns me.

Warning...This hobby is very addictive and may damage your wealth

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
07-15-2008 04:58 PM  9 years agoPost 113
patrickegan

rrKey Veteran

Sacramento, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Explanation of the Hail Mary play...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail_Mary_pass

A Hail Mary pass or Hail Mary play in American football is a forward pass made in desperation, with only a small chance of success. The typical Hail Mary is a very long forward pass thrown near the end of a half or end of a game where there is no possibility for any other play to score points. This play is unlikely to be successful, because of the general inaccuracy of the pass and the defensive team's preparedness for the play makes it likely that it can intercept or knock down the ball.

Pigs,
It’s a popular misconception so you’re not alone. The UK CAA (as have CAA’s from around the globe), have been grappling with what to do with UA’s for probably 10 years or more. In the beginning it was more of just the military but now the technology and knowhow are readily available to the public. Over here the FBI has been having friendly chats with people who do this for years. One of our congressmen even came out a couple of years ago and stated that RC Flying should be banned.

So on one hand you have the contractors (military), selling high cost magic and the hobby people doing the same things for what amounts to peanuts with little or no guidance.

Understand that my chat with Mr. Whittaker and Mr. Dodson was short. They both seemed to be nice enough fellows, but they have official capacity that mandates that they look out for the welfare and safety of the general public.

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
07-15-2008 08:52 PM  9 years agoPost 114
cameraman

rrNovice

Yorkshire, England

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Coffman, thanks. In my experience of dealing with the CAA on other matters I have found them to be reasonable and pragmatic. The regulation of the airline industry being a case in point where the bulk of responsibility rests with the airlines themselves. My point is that if we are seen to be reasonable and responsible in our responses we should get what we want.

Pigs, I hope it won't come down to seduction! Seriously, I don't share your pessimism - I honestly think the CAA will find the LMA proposals too restrictive.

Patrick,[A cautionary word, feelings don’t work well with those in the regulatory business.] - Yup

David

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
07-19-2008 11:26 PM  9 years agoPost 115
coffman

rrApprentice

NL

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Camerman,

You right, I've dealt with them for many years but I agree with the other chap, if someone is going to voice my industry I would rather they do not highlight the negatives with pictures that are clearly not taken under the safest conditions, but highlight the positives and then express that there are areas that these operators need to be educated in.
----------------------

Sounds like I was right with the hail mary then, but thanks for the explanation, I know nothing about AF and proud of it.
--------------

The under 7kg proposal does not effect me and to be honest once the initial shock to the under 7kg commercial operators has passed I think they will agree that some regulation is good and a professional way to proceed so long as it does not get over regulated. I agree with cameraman, they do talk and listen so long as you aim for a solution not a fight. The fees are not silly but in normal CAA fashion will go up every year, 2006 - £194, 2007 - £200, 2008 - £206. The UK UAV AP industry now needs an association, any nominees for the post?

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
07-20-2008 12:34 AM  9 years agoPost 116
patrickegan

rrKey Veteran

Sacramento, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

How about you?

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
08-06-2008 11:10 PM  9 years agoPost 117
ki-gas

rrApprentice

All over Europe,​mainly England

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Is my interpretation of 'Article 1' (Proposed new wording for article 98 of the ANO) at the bottom of the impact statment, correct?http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1727/2008...tAssessment.pdf

I initially understood that the requirement for an 'Aerial Permission' was only going to be for those that stick a camera on their helis for commercial use but unless I'm missing something it will be illegal for anyone to bolt a camera on their heli, even a crappy VGA jobby on your medivac!! TELL ME I'M WRONG.

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
08-06-2008 11:41 PM  9 years agoPost 118
patrickegan

rrKey Veteran

Sacramento, CA

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I haven’t read CAP 722 (I need to) , reading EUROCAE WG-73 for comment by the ICC (only US representation), in between my ARC duties. In Mr. Finnigan’s reply he states FROM IAN’S POST
Many thanks to Mr Finnigan, so reading that as follows...

snip...
To answer your questions, if you are intending to carry out aerial work using an unmanned aircraft system, including a model aircraft, that is equipped for surveillance or data gathering, then we will require you to obtain a permission from us. Aerial work, as I'm sure you know, essentially means that you will be paid for the activity. We anticipate that you will be able to apply for a permission using a standardised paper form or, when available, an electronic format.

Along with the last part regarding AP for fun...

snip...
'Lastly, as regards the use of model aircraft and other UAS for non-commercial or purely recreational activities, we are particularly mindful of the need to avoid interfering with the long established and generally responsible model flying community and its activities, and so we are only looking to regulate aerial work not recreational flying.''Lastly, as regards the use of model aircraft and other UAS for non-commercial or purely recreational activities, we are particularly mindful of the need to avoid interfering with the long established and generally responsible model flying community and its activities, and so we are only looking to regulate aerial work not recreational flying.'

You guys have till close of business Monday, what are the efforts being made?

You’ll be living with this for a while…

PM  EMAIL  HOMEPAGE  GALLERY  Attn:RR
08-07-2008 01:21 AM  9 years agoPost 119
ki-gas

rrApprentice

All over Europe,​mainly England

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

Thanks for that. That's how I originally took it and I agree that 'aerial work' is interpreted as so in article 157 of the ANO.

But 'recreational flying' in my book means flying a model (UAV) with no suggestion of attached surveillance eqpt., There is no interpretation in article 155 of the ANO for 'recreational flying' so why should we assume the CAA meaning of 'recreational flying' is flying a model for NO finacial gain fitted with surveillance equipment. I think clarification should be sort!

PM  EMAIL  Attn:RR
08-07-2008 01:27 AM  9 years agoPost 120
BigguyOz

rrKey Veteran

Forster, New South​Wales, Australia

My Posts: All  Forum  Topic

I can't think how Mr Finnigan could be any clearer..
we are only looking to regulate aerial work not recreational flying
I reckon you are being paranoid. Remember he specifically mentions "model aircraft and other UAS". What other category are you thinking of?

Tony Stott

PM  EMAIL  GALLERY  Attn:RR
WATCH
 9 pages [ <<    <     4      5     ( 6 )     7      8     NEXT    >> ] 11636 views
Scorpion Power Scorpion Power
HelicopterAerial Photography and Video › CAA new regulation proposals
 Print TOPIC  Make Suggestion 

 21  Topic Subscribe

Saturday, November 18 - 7:26 pm - Copyright © 2000-2017 RunRyder   EMAILEnable Cookies

Login Here
 New Subscriptions 
 Buddies Online