Commercial aerial photography in UK

[pcoombes]

Hello

I'm new to the whole RC thing and want to take aerial shots in central London for architectural visualisation.

Does anyone have any real experience of this? I have feeling its going to be a no-go, but have yet to receive any reply back from the CAA.

I don't have an issue with getting licensed or having the kit approved, but where it does seem complete overkill is having to get CAA permission for every flight.

I'd like to be able offer a 'rush' service for my clients (architects and developers generally want everything at the last minute!), but the delay from the CAA would kill that.* Also, since I could, in theory, do a few jobs in a day I'd prefer a blanket permission to fly in London rather than individual permissions.

It seems the CAA haven't caught up with the new technology and the speed with which it can be deployed.

Or am I missing something? Like I say, I'm new to all this so may have got the wrong end of the stick.

On a side note, it's tricky finding out all this info., especially for commercial work. Perhaps a 'How to' page listing exactly what you need to do to get flying for commercial work. Just a thought.

Cheers
Pete

 

[plingboot]

i thought the process was:

bnuc-s exam parts 1 and 2 -> sending your pass certificate to the CAA for their ok -> get appropriate insurance

once you have those sorted then you can shoot as and when…

 

[pcoombes]

I've just spoken to a helpful chap at the CAA, Laurence Haye, and it's basically a no-go.

If you can control the area 50m around where you fly (cones put out in hyde park, say) then they'll give permission. But if you wanted to fly above Picadilly Circus then they wouldn't give permission. If its a large enough site (building site that is) and you remain within it, then they would give permission.

Using form SRG1320 to obtain permission, they can issue a range of dates to fly on ie. June to August, so that you're not fixed to a specific date. They would aim to get the permission back within 28 days, but usually quicker. Not that useful if someone is rushing to get a planning document in by the end of the week! All the other regulations are in CAP722 (section 2, chapter 6).

Interestingly, he said that under the Pilot Experience entry, a formal qualification wasn't necessary, just put down how many hours or other flying experience you have. Clearly a formal qualification would be a good thing, but if you can only get it from one or two places that charge a fortune, then it's good to see experience counts for something.

There's also this to comply with from ANO 2009 article 167

Small unmanned surveillance aircraft

167.—(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;
(c)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.


So, not totally impossible, but severely restricted.

I may have to rethink the exciting new business plan!

Pete

 

[AerialVue]

The rules that have just been quoted to you are for craft over 7 kilos. Under 7 kilos and there is a different set of rulings. As far as I know if you are new to RC then your ONLY way is via the BNUC-s qualification. Believe me the whole experience is going mean a serious investment. We do work for a firm of London Architects, BBC, independent film makers and people as diverse as farmers to extreme sports film makers. I would be quite happy to demonstrate our systems to you and you may think that the use of a professional service is far cheaper than the investment in time and the hair pulling that we have gone through to get to where we are now.

We are in the middle of setting up a co-operative of qualified sUAV operators in the UK

We will be posting more when we are fully operational and inviting qualified operators to apply for inclusion in the co-operative

AV

 

[pcoombes]

I did make sure he understood that it was for craft under 7kg.
This is the problem I'm finding at every turn; that the situation seems confused.

Could you be more specific? What are the 'different set of rulings'? And what do you mean by 'serious investment'?

If the co-operative had some sort of influence with the CAA to clarify rules and also to make sure they are up to date with the latest technology, then I think it's a great idea.

Pete

 

[plingboot]

I'm going through this process at the moment.

You will need to attend a two day EURO USC ground course and a few weeks later a one day flight test for the BNUC-S. Between the ground and flight tests you will need to write a comprehensive 'Operations Manual'

The BNUC-S will cost £1500 to complete.

Once you have that certificate, it's used as proof of competence for CAA permissions

There isn't a whole bunch of reference for your OM (but here's a free hint) and you have to do a lot of research, reading and writing at the moment, so folks rightly are holding tight to their work for good reason… there's generic stuff to understand, but also a lot of information specific to your operation, people and craft you intend to use for your AP work.

I've been doing A LOT of research and writing so i have a shell OM for discussion when i take my Part 1 course - to hopefully reduce the time between Part 1, Part 2 and a pass.

It's in our own interest and the longevity of MR's that we bite the bullet and follow the process.

(others feel free to correct me if i'm wrong)

 

[pcoombes]

Again, confused!

According to Laurence at the CAA and the SRG1320 form, you need to supply a 'mini' operating manual. This can be very basic and include the tech specs of the aircraft, and basic information about safety procedures. All this applies only to sub 7kg craft.

As far as I can tell, there are flight restrictions in London, but that, depending on the specific situation, you can get an exemption from the CAA. As for the actual craft and pilot, you just have to tell them about what you're flying and that the pilot is experienced.

This is from the horses mouth. Are there different horses at the CAA telling people different things?

Pete

 

[AerialVue]

Are there different horses at the CAA telling people different things?

Exactly. They were beginning to get over run with applications hence the adoption of the BNUC-s as a benchmark..

@ Plingboot.. good luck on getting clarification for the OM.. Thats what took us the longest time to get sorted on. Since we wrote ours a better guide has been issued. YOU WILL BE TESTED ON YOUR OM.

The link you have posted is the latest from the CAA but there are better

AV

 

[Macsgrafs]

BNUC-s in my book is a complete rip off!!!! Quicker they scrap that, the better.

Ross

 

[Droider]

Aye up everyone.. I have been there and done it.. unfortunately it IS the only way to get CAA permission to fly commercially. Maybe it should be reported to the monopolies and mergers commission as they are the only ones approved to certify sUAV operators. It aint perfect BUT its better than no way like in the states and Germany where it is impossible to get permission for commercial work.

It continues to amaze me that the likes of Jeoff Scholl and the likes arent being leapt on by the department for home land security or the FAA in the USA. JUST ONE mistake by anyone in the US and I am sure it will bring the whole house of cards crashing down there. IF THEY HAD A BNUC or similar qualification and a route to legal commercial operation then the industry would be able to move forward..

At least here i the UK we have that route to legal operation. Ross I know how you feel about all this but unfortunately OR fortunately the CAA here has chosen the BNUC as the standard. This is better than the situation in the US and it looks like being the standard thet will be accepted my a lot of EU states... well that is apat from Germany who operate on a state by state basis.. Believe me I want to shoot a couple of places commercially in Bavaria, one is for a world renowned artist who specialises in distorting HUGE lumps of steel but its never going to happen.... looks like Ill have to do it for nowt!

A co-operative approach may be the way forward in the UK to eventually have an influence on the future of MRs in the aerial imaging business.


Dave

 

[Macsgrafs]

Sadly you are right Dave...but there are ways around it. One thing that always makes me laugh about the BNUC-s is that they give a license & many then see it as an excuse to fly over people & property...I see the videos & photos all the time, so it puts the safety bit out of the window. A few of us are taking things further with the CAA, but I'm not going to mention names at this time! I find it strange that the CAA used to accept the BMFA A cert for heli pilots, but not for new people!!!!! Of course now there is money invloved & when this goes to court there WILL be a change in the legallity of it all, of that i'm sure.

Compare it with driving whilst using a mobile phone...we ALL know the problems with that. I dont take my eyes off my octo, I dont have to & the camera is operated by a 2nd person, so why should I need a license?? I'm flying safer than single operators as my eyes never leave my ship! It's not a dig, but just pointing out why the BNUC-s is all about money.

Ross

 

[Droider]

One thing that always makes me laugh about the BNUC-s is that they give a license & many then see it as an excuse to fly over people & property

But Ross that is what is all about.. I can fly over people and property within the guidelines. My craft is as safe as it can be and tested by the BNUC examiner who believe me is more than qualified to access airworthiness. All the craft I flew in the test are now classed as air worthy and have a GUAV number assigned to them. Its now my responsibility to maintain them in an airworthy sate and complete the necessary paper work to ensure the crafts are always as tested. Its all about proving competency and airworthyness for safety just like a full scale aircraft..

Its necessary and sets a standard that IMHO is required. Otherwise everyone and his/her dog will be buzzing the Queens Fusileers with any redress.. That cant be allowed to happen.

I'm flying safer than single operators as my eyes never leave my ship!

What if you lose TX Ross? I know we can thrown so many things in here like motor failure / bird strikes etc etc. but as long as all these thing have ben covered in your OM then you are covered.. No approved and tested OM means negligence.

Ross I know you have strong feelings on this but unfortunately thats how it is.. maybe monopoly comes in to mind here but as I have previously stated I have always done things by the book and now my qualification allows me to continue to do so...

Dave

 

[Bowley]

Have you considered mast photography Pete?

 

[Macsgrafs]

But Ross that is what is all about.. I can fly over people and property within the guidelines. My craft is as safe as it can be and tested by the BNUC examiner who believe me is more than qualified to access airworthiness. All the craft I flew in the test are now classed as air worthy and have a GUAV number assigned to them. Its now my responsibility to maintain them in an airworthy sate and complete the necessary paper work to ensure the crafts are always as tested. Its all about proving competency and airworthyness for safety just like a full scale aircraft..

Its necessary and sets a standard that IMHO is required. Otherwise everyone and his/her dog will be buzzing the Queens Fusileers with any redress.. That cant be allowed to happen.



What if you lose TX Ross? I know we can thrown so many things in here like motor failure / bird strikes etc etc. but as long as all these thing have ben covered in your OM then you are covered.. No approved and tested OM means negligence.

Ross I know you have strong feelings on this but unfortunately thats how it is.. maybe monopoly comes in to mind here but as I have previously stated I have always done things by the book and now my qualification allows me to continue to do so...

Dave

So what makes your quad/octo/heax/Y6 more airworthy than mine? It's the same as an MOT...its only valid for 24hrs, same as the doc you get from BNUC-s. As for flying over people...what makes you more qualified than me Dave?...£1500, that's what!
It's alla con, I will continue to operate without to be honest. Safety is my main concern, if it isnt safe, i don't fly.

Dave I'm not digging at you, far from it. But its total Bollox to be honest. What if your TX fails when your over someone? What if your motor fails when over someone?? Its NO different to mine...true?
Negligence has nothing at all to do with a £1500 test! You might well have the certificate...but does that mean you are never negligent? Because I don't have a certificate does that mean I'm straight away negligent?

Ross

 

[Bowley]

your biting your nose off to spite your face Ross!
Seize the benefits and stop focusing on the money, its not that hekin much, try and get any professional certificationl for cheap.
you could make it back in a couple of days with your quality work and eqpt for quacks sake!!

 

[Macsgrafs]

your biting your nose off to spite your face Ross!
Seize the benefits and stop focusing on the money, its not that hekin much, try and get any professional certificationl for cheap.
you could make it back in a couple of days with your quality work and eqpt for quacks sake!!

hahahahaha what planet do you live on Bowley????? this is Devon...there is NO money here my friend. I would NEVER recoup £1500 from the S/West of UK.
You hyave missed the point as well Bowley. As I said to Dave, what makes his MR aicraft anymore safer than mine? If I'm putting my camera gear in the air than trust me, if the MR is not safe...Im not going to risk my camera gear. It's like a driving license for a car...you can still be done for driving without due care & negligence...so the BNUC-s doesnt cover anyone in my book, if your MR has a complete power failure...someone is going to die!

I'm not against taking a test, but I am against being ripped off. I will continue to offer my BOGOF as that means I'm flying as any other MR operator...we dont need this BNUC-s to fly RC MR's...just when money is going to be made...that's the only difference...MONEY!

Regards
Ross

 

[Bowley]

All covered previously thanks Ross. I haven't missed your point either I just look at things in another way
If you dont have commercial aims, then whats your problem? quit your whinging.

My boiler broke down 2 weeks ago, I had to pay an engineer £250 for 15min work. why because he was a CORGI engineer and had liability insurance, that doesnt mean my boiler wont blow up tomorrow but it does mean I,m protected by said engineer having liability insurance obtainable by virtue of his CORGI certification which is a certificate of competence required by law (and me, a client). That why I didnt fix it myself.

My comment was actually a subtle compliment, but hey ho I'll get back to whatever planet I live on.

 

[Macsgrafs]

As I pointed out before, I'm not digging, running anyone on here down, just the corrupt BNUC & CAA. why do they accept the BMFA heli A cert (which I have), but have now decided not to??? Because they are taking back handers from the BNUC!!! What does CAA stand for?
Civil Aviation Authority....who gives them that authority? WE do! so what happens when we dont give them that authority...authority over us, because after all we ARE the highest authority, not some for profit company! Thats why its called HUMAN rights & not PERSON rights..a person is a legal fiction created by your birth certificate. I wont get into that here, its to in depth & makes people very angry when they find out they have been lied to all thier lives.

Let's try this another way. I pay my camera operator to control the camera...I dont even see a video downlink from it. so i am flying for fun, not for profit, my camera operator is the one who charges for thier services....do I still need a BNUC????

You need the BNUC-s to get insurance or so i'm led to believe on here...let me enlighten you about that insurance. If they find anything illegal on your MR, your insurance is NOT valid.....video downlinks for example!!! don't ask how I know this as it's a long story. but I see many on here posting videos etc that use a downlink....those same people are flying 2.4GHz...that tells me thier video downlinks are NOT on 2.4GHz & in fact illegal unless they have a radio ham license...I have a full UK radio ham license. do you see where i'm comming from Bowley? all thse guys with BNUC-s & illegal video downlinks are going to find themselves in hot water should anything ever go wrong, the insurance company will say the video downlink is illegal & caused the problems...NO INSURANCE!

im not against a test, far from it, but it seems many seem to think "I've paid £1500 so must you"!

It's like those who pay £10000's on a car & think they own it...they DON'T!!! they are ONLY the registered keepers & NOT the owners!

so how would the BNUC-s make a difference to me in my setup...I fly the MR & someone else flies the camera, I'm not a single crew operator.

Respectfully
Ross

 

[Droider]

Dave I'm not digging at you, far from it. But its total Bollox to be honest. What if your TX fails when your over someone? What if your motor fails when over someone?? Its NO different to mine...true?

As proved in my flight test and as written in my OM if I loose TX my copter does not fall out of the sky it returns to home and lands.. unlike yours.. well thats unless you have managed to workout the MK strategy and implement it to risk your investment falling from the sky. If I loose a motor I can land them all except my 1.6kg quad. But as I did not write that in to the OM i did not have to prove that.. Ross I understand what u are saying.. BUT unfortunately the regs are regs.. and I am more than guilty of charging lots of money to be as far as I am concerned as responsible as I can possibly be.. I am a GAS SAFE registered engineer.. it costs me the beat part of 5/6K every five years to be re tested as a compertent person to do what I do both domestic and commercially along with with being a Part P electrical engineer I am also, a registered and an MCS accredited engineer for heat pumps and domestic and large scale commercial thermal solar. I cannot possibly operate my main business with out these qualifications its a fact of life in the UK..

Anyhow lets agree to disagree on this.. all of us.

Ill carry on doing what I truly believe is the correct way to carry out my business, you are totally free to have your own opinion and continue to carry out your business in the way you believe is correct.

Dave

 

[usnooz]

Regardless of opinion i've found this thread most imformative. Thanks