UK CAA Warns Estate Agents

[Scotflieger]

If a farmer wanted to use a drone to keep an eye on his property and/or livestock he can without any permits or license. He is exempt from the law because he is "farming" growing produce. as long as it is on his farm. I am pretty sure if you do a job for a farmer without compensation. you do not need permits or license to do so. Farmers are exempt from many things even DOT regulations, with certain limits.

We have been discussing UK drone regulations but I take your point. A farmer here is fully entitled to do as he wishes by himself. It would be different if he 'employed' pilot to survey or photograph his land. That is where there would be a commercial gain and licenced done pilot is managed under UK law.

 

[turramin]

If a farmer wanted to use a drone to keep an eye on his property and/or livestock he can without any permits or license. He is exempt from the law because he is "farming" growing produce. as long as it is on his farm. I am pretty sure if you do a job for a farmer without compensation. you do not need permits or license to do so. Farmers are exempt from many things even DOT regulations, with certain limits.

It's a bit different in the UK, if a farmer uses a drone here for anything related to his business then it would be classed as "valuable consideration" and would require PFAW from the CAA, this would also be the case for anyone undertaking work for the farmer, even without compensation.

 

[AllanM]

^^ It's the second bit I don't understand.
"this would also be the case for anyone undertaking work for the farmer, even without compensation."

CAA clearly states 'paid work'..?

 

[turramin]

^^ It's the second bit I don't understand.
"this would also be the case for anyone undertaking work for the farmer, even without compensation."

CAA clearly states 'paid work'..?

If the farmer benefits from the UAV work commercially, regardless whether the operator was paid for it, it is still considered valuable consideration. Can you show me where it clearly states "paid work" ? I'm pretty sure it states "valuable consideration"

 

[AllanM]

^^ Reading the CAA documentation led me to believe the law applied to pilots / operators / operating companies. I can't find any information stating this applies [also] to [potential] 'benefactors'..
This is what I was getting at in my earlier post.

 

[Mad_angler1]

If the farmer benefits from the UAV work commercially, regardless whether the operator was paid for it, it is still considered valuable consideration. Can you show me where it clearly states "paid work" ? I'm pretty sure it states "valuable consideration"

But the question is does he really benefit , just using a different tool to achieve the same end result

The consideration could be the same with or with out it.






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[turramin]

^^ Reading the CAA documentation led me to believe the law applied to pilots / operators / operating companies. I can't find any information stating this applies [also] to [potential] 'benefactors'..
This is what I was getting at in my earlier post.

You are quite correct, the law at the moment only applies to operators / pilots. In the example we are talking about the farmer would not be in trouble, only the operator. That is what I meant in the sentence that you did not understand, "this would also be the case for anyone undertaking work for the farmer, even without compensation." Legally ,the operator would not be able to do any work, even for free, for the farmer if he did not have PFAW. I didn't mention or imply that the benefactor of the work would be in trouble.

 

[turramin]

But the question is does he really benefit , just using a different tool to achieve the same end result

The consideration could be the same with or with out it.

No, unfortunately it's not a case of using another tool to do the same job, it would be considered on whether he used a drone to benefit or did not do it at all.

 

[RAEP]

If a farmer wanted to use a drone to keep an eye on his property and/or livestock he can without any permits or license. He is exempt from the law because he is "farming" growing produce. as long as it is on his farm. I am pretty sure if you do a job for a farmer without compensation. you do not need permits or license to do so. Farmers are exempt from many things even DOT regulations, with certain limits.

That is certainly the case in Aus with CASA who allow any business to fly drones over their own property for their own internal uses provided that they are not within restricted airspace and operate below 400' AGL as this is not deemed to be a "Commercial Operation" and does not require an Air Operator's Certificate. This has been the view for a considerable period and CASA have never insisted that properties construct compliant Aircraft Landing Areas (ALA's) or for pilots to hold a commercial licence. A private licence holder was legally able to fly in support of their own commercial operations. Drones are no different under the law in Australia. If your primary business is farming or forestry and you happen to use an aircraft to support your own operations this is not considered as commercial operation and you don't require an AOC and commercial licence. If you employ staff and one of their duties was to pilot a drone they would need an operator's certificate to ensure insurance coverage for the property and public liability.

As for real estate agents and their grasp of ethics and social responsibility, I wouldn't trust them to operate tethered balloons let alone a drone in a built up area.

 

[AllanM]

....Legally ,the operator would not be able to do any work, even for free*, for the farmer if he did not have PFAW. I didn't mention or imply that the benefactor of the work would be in trouble.

Still can't get my head round this.
The operator does the work for free, i.e. takes no compensation, payment or consideration. How therefore can he be guilty of breaking any CAA rules?

 

[SimonMW]

The operator does the work for free, i.e. takes no compensation, payment or consideration. How therefore can he be guilty of breaking any CAA rules?

Depends on the fine detail. If they did it for utterly no compensation whatsoever, and didn't publicise what they did as self promotion, and the footage wasn't used o a demo reel etc. Then fine, they would not be breaking the rules. But if the farmer said "Here, take this sack of potatoes to return the favour" then that would be considered payment.

 

[tweaker]

For free...... is a whole can of worms.

In my experience random strangers do not rock up and "do" things for you for free!!

If you use aerial footage for your business that is a commercial consideration( you can try and talk it this way or that but if it goes to prosecution you are wide open)

Its like a driver and a taxi driver. Yes you can give a mate a lift however when you start charging money (gain) you ARE a taxi.

The regs are designed to be vague by using "gain". This phraseology is to catch people out who wish to abuse the system. If they used "financial" people would just say they are doing the video etc for nothing. No licence required cheers easy. By using gain they close that loophole.

Do you really want to test it in court? I mean we all love to play Rumpole Of The Bailey but when it comes down to it....

 

[turramin]

Still can't get my head round this.
The operator does the work for free, i.e. takes no compensation, payment or consideration. How therefore can he be guilty of breaking any CAA rules?

It's a hugely over complicated matter and if someone did break the rules the chance of them being prosecuted are pretty minimal but to stay on the correct side of the law, what I've above stated is actually true, I'll give an example to explain.

Say that an pilot with no PFAW did an aerial survey of a crop, as a favour for a farmer, for letting him fly on his land. He gives the farmer some photos and takes nothing in return. Everything is fine, the farmer has some nice photos and the pilot has had some flying practice. End of story.

Now, lets say the farmer studies these photos and notices that there is a huge area of weeds in among his crop. He passes these photos on to his agronomist who uses the information to apply a targeted weed killer over the specific area, saving that part of the crop and making a saving in weed killer use as he only needed to spray the highlighted area.

The UAV pilot could be blissfully unaware of it but his flight and photos have now been used to gain "valuable consideration" it makes no difference if it is the farmer or the UAV pilot who has that gain, it would still be considered aerial work as a gain had been made. The pilot is the person who flew the job so he is ultimately responsible to make sure he has permission from the CAA to do the work regardless whether he gets paid.

The same rules apply in any industry, for example, estate agents: If an estate agent uses an unlicensed UAV pilot to take some photos of a house, its not the estate agent who gets prosecuted, it's the UAV pilot.

Does that explanation help at all? It's a ridiculous situation but that's the way it is at the moment.
I've been working towards my PFAW for a the last 4 months (just passed my RPQs flight assessment today) specifically to use my Inspire on our farm as the money saving potential is huge for some specific tasks, I've looked at every avenue for this as I want to do it cheap as possible , believe me , if I could do it without being qualified I would definitely have done it as it's not a cheap route to take.

 

[AllanM]

Is CAP 722 article 3.10 not applicable to farming?

 

[Scotflieger]

Is CAP 722 article 3.10 not applicable to farming?

There are multiple 3.10 but I think you are referring to this under Chapter 3 - Approval to Operate:

"Flying operations such as research or development flights conducted ‘in house’ are not normally considered as aerial work provided there is no valuable consideration given or promised in respect of that particular flight."

The key term is "In House" which would cover a farmer doing his own flying not engaging a third party.

 

[turramin]

Is CAP 722 article 3.10 not applicable to farming?

Allan, I think I've covered everything pretty thoroughly in my explanation, I'm not about to check up on the small details in CAP 772, I've been up to my eyeballs in CAP documents over the last week and after gaining my RPQs today I'm away out for a well deserved pint
What is it exactly that you are asking whether it is applicable to farming? Farming has no exemptions its the same as any other industry.
I'm also not about to get in to an argument on the internet with someone I've never met , I'm happy with my explanation, you obviously either dont believe what I've written or think you know something that I don't, thats fine, if you feel happy to do aerial work for someone without PFAW, then good luck, you'll probably be safe enough as the CAA dont seem to be that keen to prosecute anyone. Let me know how you get on.

 

[Ikopta]

It's the YouTube bloggers that are using uav in there daily uploads. Some like this guy (

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

) get some stunning stuff, but they make £1000's from each video. So how can it be recreational? How the fridge does he get away from doing this in congested NY? Why are the CAA & FAA not sitting on YouTube not writing fines? It would be self financing!

 

[Alastair]

It's the YouTube bloggers that are using uav in there daily uploads. Some like this guy (

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

) get some stunning stuff, but they make £1000's from each video. So how can it be recreational? How the fridge does he get away from doing this in congested NY? Why are the CAA & FAA not sitting on YouTube not writing fines? It would be self financing!

Yes, I've seen many of his videos and he breaks every rule in the book.

 

[Paul Mac]

This is an interesting report on the UK CAA warning Estate Agents with the threat of hefty £5000 fines for using amateur drone flyers to take aerial photographs of properties instead of those holding PFAW. Progress at last.

Aviation safety chiefs warn estate agents over drone photographs - Deadline News

Probably not new, but has anyone come across the following, which appears to be common practice in my area:

Rather than engaging private (unlicensed) drone operators themselves, some local Estate Agents are simply putting vendors in touch with unlicensed operators to take aerial photos of their houses.
This ensures that the Estate Agent is removed from any formal or informal contract with the drone operator, thus circumventing the CAA's rules