Flying in public - what's the UK law?
- Thread starter tikigod19
- Start date
vulcan2go
Member
OK - got a response from the CAA Flight Ops Policy (GA and Rotorcraft) unit (Gerry Corbett).
My question was:
If surveillance and data acquisition is prohibited in 167 unless authorised by the CAA (Exemptions and Permissions), does this mean that it only applies to a commercial application (for gain) as the exemption is granted to allow commercial work, or does it also cover a hobbyist taking snaps of his home or the open countryside? If it also applies to the hobbyist then how is that remedied to allow him/her to take pictures for their own use. In addition, what is the CAA's definition and therefore the application of the words "data application" and "surveillance"
So here is what Gerry said - word for word (it seems I was off a bit with my understanding as I was applying it to my commercial standpoint - so apologies to swisser!):
Happy to answer your question and I hope I can give you something that is clear enough;
Firstly, people are often concerned that article 167 prevents the use of data which helps ‘service’ the flight (such as the data that might be used for monitoring battery life, altitude etc). This is not the case and we have put a note into CAP658 (at Chapt 2, para 4.2.3 after the article 167 details) which says, “The provision of data solely for the use of monitoring the model is not considered to be applicable to the meaning of ‘ surveillance or data acquisition’”
Turning to your main question, no, I’m afraid that it doesn’t only apply to commercial (aerial) work - it applies to all users. Don’t panic however, I’ll try to explain in the following. The surveillance aspects for aerial work purposes are actually covered in Article 166(5) in that as a part of the permission that you get, the CAA would stipulate the minimum distances that you can fly from 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] parties (people, property etc), and these would be very similar to those laid down in Art 167. The requirements for Article 167 was introduced to cover off a possible loophole that could occur where a person operating a small unmanned aircraft privately (ie. not for any gain and therefore not requiring any permission from us) would not be prevented from flying as close as he liked to anybody or any thing whilst taking photos or similar. A classic example of this could actually be a Police force flying a small UAS down a high street and putting other members of the public at risk – essentially they could be called a ‘private’ operator, as they are not performing aerial work, so they would not necessarily fit the requirement in 166(5). So, Art 167 covers off the private operators as well, so that everybody is clear about what they can do, how close they can get to people or property not involved in the activity, and where they can do it. The devil is in the detail however, and the most important set of words to note are in 167(2)(c) and 167(4) – these are the words that say not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft . The regulations are there to protect 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] parties (ie. people who are not involved in the activity) and it’s all about having control of the environment you are flying in. So, if the people or property are under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft (eg. he owns the house and he has adequately protected his family and/or visitors) then he can fly within the laid down distances and take as many photos as he wants. If he wants to fly over his neighbours house taking snaps however, he must either keep to the laid down distances or, get ‘control’ of the environment (by getting the neighbour’s permission and making sure that the people in/around the house are aware and briefed on what they can/can’t do). There is no problem in flying over the countryside and taking as many snaps as you want for your own use as long as you respect the distances from other people and property that you can’t control or predict their behaviour.
Surveillance and data acquisition are essentially ‘all encompassing terms’ – they cover all forms of photography, video, sound recording etc, whether or not it is recorded, streamed, transmitted or whatever. If we simply stated photography, people would have tried to get around it by saying they are ‘videoing’, ‘only recording sound’ or some other clever get out.
My question was:
If surveillance and data acquisition is prohibited in 167 unless authorised by the CAA (Exemptions and Permissions), does this mean that it only applies to a commercial application (for gain) as the exemption is granted to allow commercial work, or does it also cover a hobbyist taking snaps of his home or the open countryside? If it also applies to the hobbyist then how is that remedied to allow him/her to take pictures for their own use. In addition, what is the CAA's definition and therefore the application of the words "data application" and "surveillance"
So here is what Gerry said - word for word (it seems I was off a bit with my understanding as I was applying it to my commercial standpoint - so apologies to swisser!):
Happy to answer your question and I hope I can give you something that is clear enough;
Firstly, people are often concerned that article 167 prevents the use of data which helps ‘service’ the flight (such as the data that might be used for monitoring battery life, altitude etc). This is not the case and we have put a note into CAP658 (at Chapt 2, para 4.2.3 after the article 167 details) which says, “The provision of data solely for the use of monitoring the model is not considered to be applicable to the meaning of ‘ surveillance or data acquisition’”
Turning to your main question, no, I’m afraid that it doesn’t only apply to commercial (aerial) work - it applies to all users. Don’t panic however, I’ll try to explain in the following. The surveillance aspects for aerial work purposes are actually covered in Article 166(5) in that as a part of the permission that you get, the CAA would stipulate the minimum distances that you can fly from 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] parties (people, property etc), and these would be very similar to those laid down in Art 167. The requirements for Article 167 was introduced to cover off a possible loophole that could occur where a person operating a small unmanned aircraft privately (ie. not for any gain and therefore not requiring any permission from us) would not be prevented from flying as close as he liked to anybody or any thing whilst taking photos or similar. A classic example of this could actually be a Police force flying a small UAS down a high street and putting other members of the public at risk – essentially they could be called a ‘private’ operator, as they are not performing aerial work, so they would not necessarily fit the requirement in 166(5). So, Art 167 covers off the private operators as well, so that everybody is clear about what they can do, how close they can get to people or property not involved in the activity, and where they can do it. The devil is in the detail however, and the most important set of words to note are in 167(2)(c) and 167(4) – these are the words that say not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft . The regulations are there to protect 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] parties (ie. people who are not involved in the activity) and it’s all about having control of the environment you are flying in. So, if the people or property are under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft (eg. he owns the house and he has adequately protected his family and/or visitors) then he can fly within the laid down distances and take as many photos as he wants. If he wants to fly over his neighbours house taking snaps however, he must either keep to the laid down distances or, get ‘control’ of the environment (by getting the neighbour’s permission and making sure that the people in/around the house are aware and briefed on what they can/can’t do). There is no problem in flying over the countryside and taking as many snaps as you want for your own use as long as you respect the distances from other people and property that you can’t control or predict their behaviour.
Surveillance and data acquisition are essentially ‘all encompassing terms’ – they cover all forms of photography, video, sound recording etc, whether or not it is recorded, streamed, transmitted or whatever. If we simply stated photography, people would have tried to get around it by saying they are ‘videoing’, ‘only recording sound’ or some other clever get out.
vulcan2go
Member
You are subject to the same rules so it must remain within line of sight of the aircraft and no higher than 400 feet. There are two ways to fly FPV, either with a buddy lead where the lead pilot always has control and the FPV pilot is the slave controller, or under the general exemption, which was agreed during our meetings with the CAA last year, you can fly without a buddy lead but you must have a "Competent Observer" - see http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/ORS4_945.pdf
Cheers,
As a slightly further comment to this, insurance is particularly where the councils may get involved.
Two areas of public land near me, are council owned, and they require that you have a certain level of insurance to fly here. The BMFA insurance is the easiest, and the membership card is accepted as proof that you have this cover.
Best Wishes
Two areas of public land near me, are council owned, and they require that you have a certain level of insurance to fly here. The BMFA insurance is the easiest, and the membership card is accepted as proof that you have this cover.
Best Wishes