3d Printing Service
Printing 3d Forum
Started by Jumpy07, Tuesday,February 12, 2013, 09:46:58
Quote Official Record Series 4 United KingdomCivil Aviation AuthorityMiscellaneous The Air Navigation Order 2009 General Exemption No: 956Publication Date: 26 March 2013 Small Unmanned Aircraft - First Person View (FPV) Flying11) The Civil Aviation Authority, in exercise of its powers under article 242 of the Air Navigation Order 2009 ('the Order'), exempts any person in charge of a Small Unmanned Aircraft (SUA) from the requirement at article 166(3) of the Order to ensure that direct unaided visual contact is maintained 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. 2) This Exemption only applies if the conditions at paragraphs 3 to 7 are met. 3) a) The person in charge is the person piloting the SUA 2. b) The person in charge is accompanied by a competent observer who maintains direct unaided visual contact with the SUA sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions and advises the person in charge accordingly. c) The maximum take-off mass of the SUA does not exceed 1.8 kg for an aeroplane, or 2.5 kg for a rotorcraft, including any batteries or fuel. 4) The person in charge must not fly the SUA: a) in Class A, C, D or E airspace unless 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 permission of any such air traffic control unit has been obtained; c) at a height of more than 400 feet above the surface; d) over or within 150 metres of any congested area; e) over or within 150 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons; f) within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft; g) within 50 metres of any other person, apart from the competent observer, except when taking off or landing; or 1 First Person View flying is the ability to control a radio controlled aircraft from a "pilot's eye" perspective through the use of an on-board camera and ground-based receiving and viewing equipment. The viewing equipment is normally a set of video goggles. 2 The person in charge remains responsible for the safety of the operation and may only fly the SUA if reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made. The latest version of this document is available in electronic format at www.caa.co.uk/publications, where you may also register for e-mail notification of amendments. Details for purchasing paper copy can be found at the same web address 26 March 2013 Page 1 of 2 h) within 30 metres of any other person, apart from the competent observer, other adjacent model operators, or any model flying club members, during take-off or landing. 5) For the purposes of this Exemption, a 'competent observer' means someone whom the person in charge of the SUA has designated as the competent observer. 6) Before designating someone as the competent observer, the person in charge of the SUA must be satisfied that he or she: a) has been briefed in accordance with paragraph 7; b) is competent to perform the tasks which he or she may be called upon to perform in accordance with paragraph 7; and c) is competent, by direct unaided visual observation of the SUA, to assist and advise the person in charge with the safe conduct of the flight. 7) The person in charge must ensure that: a) the competent observer is fully briefed on the planned flight and what is expected of him/her taking into account the prevailing conditions; b) the competent observer understands that he/she must stay directly adjacent to the person in charge and maintain direct unaided visual contact with the SUA at all times, to visually and aurally monitor the airspace for other aircraft and the take-off and landing area for any persons; c) the competent observer has been instructed on the actions to take in the event of another aircraft being spotted and a risk of collision is assessed; and d) the competent observer understands that he/she must advise if the SUA is proceeding beyond the point at which he/she is able to monitor its flight path sufficiently to identify a risk of collision. 8) This exemption supersedes Official Record Series 4 No. 945, which is hereby revoked. 9) This Exemption has effect from the date hereof until 31 March 2014, unless previously revoked. J E Benyon for the Civil Aviation Authority 25 March 2013 NOTE: This exempts only from article 166(3). The other provisions of article 166 and the whole of article 167 continue to apply, so far as may be applicable. In particular, article 166(5) prohibits flight for the purposes of aerial work except in accordance with a permission granted by the CAA. UK Civil Aviation Authority Official Record Series 4, No. 956 26 March 2013 Page 2 of 2
Quote from: dani_r on Saturday,June 22, 2013, 13:04:54 Interesting stuff on the weight limits there!
Quote from: teslahed on Saturday,June 22, 2013, 15:44:37 Yes - a 2.5kg limit on the total flying weight of a multirotor would limit quite a few people i think.
Quote from: tony on Sunday,October 27, 2013, 09:34:02 most police men are not going to no these laws
Quotemaintain direct unaided visual contact
Quote from: mikim on Tuesday,May 27, 2014, 11:06:42 Oh yes, of course... using binoculars would be stupid as I forget the image is completely different when seen through glass. I';m not stupid though I can see what they are getting at; I';m sure they mean that by having unaided visual they are suggesting that the viewer has FULL visual reference of the ground as well as the flying vehicle, but there is no harm if out of useful range (vertically). But then I guess the argument is that really we shouldn';t be flying that high in the first place? To be honest I';m all for regulation as it makes for sensible guidelines and there is always a muppet out there that has no respect for others and needs sorting out when they screw it up for everybody else. Unfortunately like any regs there are difficulties with the grey areas. Thank goodness there is good representation from the likes of RCHA and FPVUK, and by the sounds of it TBS are fighting for a happy ground too.What would be good is a set of non statutory guidelines that are recognised by us and the law, followed up by some statutory regs that are more extreme. It is hard to argue that it is right to have statutory law surrounding ariel camera work though (not including FPV). Why should this differ from flying a 3.5KG rotor without a camera... a little bird tells me this is a financial gain getting ahead of safety?
Quote from: jimmyhorns on Sunday,June 23, 2013, 13:47:09 I do think the CAA need to wake up and smell the coffee.2.5kg ??? Really?...So, any muppet can fly a nice big heavy fixed wing, line of sight along with all it';s problems, with almost no rules about flying close to people and buildings (no distances specified), but someone who has invested in fpv has to abide by such stringent rules......If you make rules realistic, there is much more chance of people following them
Quote from: Friskle on Monday,September 08, 2014, 14:53:33 Take the Blackpool vid, you cannot do that with a large aircraft, the difference is, these can literally be flown anywhere, a fixed wing cannot.
Quote from: flybywire on Monday,September 08, 2014, 14:56:31 But that';s why they';re so appealing, and fixed wing flying is boring
Quote from: Wyntrblue on Wednesday,October 22, 2014, 22:15:40 I found this particularly usefulhttp://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/spectrum/information/licence-exempt-radio-use/licence-exempt-devices/ofw311
Page created in 0.124 seconds with 42 queries.