UK The dreaded "congested area"

[The Editor]

Right its 50M from anything not under your control so roads / houses etc

If you want to fly closer than 50M to anything NOT under your control OSC time

Yup, but IN-2014/184 effectively removes the restriction for sub7kg aircraft not being able to fly over congested areas so long as you remain 50 above the buildings/houses/roads.
Basically it is an 'implied' permission where previously an OSC was required.
But absolutely agree, anything closer require OSC submission.

 

[Grasshopper]

IN-2014/190 para 6.1.3 the standard CAA permission for SUA/SUSA in the 7 kg or less category gives an automatic exemption that allows flight within congested areas to within 50 metres of persons, structures etc. Interestingly para 6.1.4 states that in any circumstances or weight category, it should be noted that flights directly overhead persons and vehicles will not be allowed at any height in a congested area unless they are under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft. It omits structures - so roof surveys directly overhead are ok!!! Hope this helps.
.

 

[Adrian Greaves]

I'm pleased to see this thread clarifying a nebulous area. I have found the CAA regulations confusing and could only assume what they mean.. Just what is a congested area for example? If you guys need to get closer to photograph/video, then I can highly recommend the Olympus 45mm lens on the X5R. I have just bought one for this very reason and am very satisfied

 

[The Editor]

IN-2014/190 para 6.1.3 the standard CAA permission for SUA/SUSA in the 7 kg or less category gives an automatic exemption that allows flight within congested areas to within 50 metres of persons, structures etc. Interestingly para 6.1.4 states that in any circumstances or weight category, it should be noted that flights directly overhead persons and vehicles will not be allowed at any height in a congested area unless they are under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft. It omits structures - so roof surveys directly overhead are ok!!! Hope this helps.
.

This (in theory) would mean for example, you could legally fly at say 60m agl along an entire row of terrace houses and or gardens providing at no point were you perpendicularly overhead of a person or vehicle.
Thinking logically, this makes more sense from a safety aspect since a corner going out on a quad will mean it will fall directly downwards.
Very unlikely to do any damage to a building but could cause an accident and/or damage to a vehicle and could most definitely injure or kill a person.

 

[Nigel Payton-miles]

It boils down to under your control and mitigating the risks. I use between 1 and 6 staff, just t have things covered.
Westminster city council turned me down in theatre land saying I needed to have a temporary traffic order in place, closing roads and diverting all the to ascertain full control of the area.
Still arguing the point in that one.
Best of luck.

 

[Grasshopper]

A congested area is defined in the ANO Art 255 as any area in relation to a city, town or settlement which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes. Substantially is for the most part - you would have to interpret that for yourself. Does that help?

 

[Grasshopper]

Editor I agree with you. I would go for 50 metres above the highest roof top along the side of the roof so that if it did fall out of the sky it would bounce and fall into the garden area not into the road ( where there might be cars! ) I would look along the garden row first because if there people there then it could be construed that I would be directly overhead them - not allowed. However, knock on doors and ask and if they are ok with the drone being there momentarily then I would take that as being a yes. What do others think?

 

[Adrian Greaves]

This is where we need clarification. What does substantial mean? What does majority mean - 50% or 99%. The terms are all open to misinterpretation, we need numbers!

 

[The Editor]

It boils down to under your control and mitigating the risks. I use between 1 and 6 staff, just t have things covered.
Westminster city council turned me down in theatre land saying I needed to have a temporary traffic order in place, closing roads and diverting all the to ascertain full control of the area.
Still arguing the point in that one.
Best of luck.

Within your control is one thing but we are talking buildings/structures etc NOT in your control and therefore subject to the usual stand-off distances within 166/7.
What IN-2014/190 basically does is relax the standard permissions for operating a sub 7kg SUA within a congested area without the need for the previously required OSC.
Since vehicles and people are specifically mentioned flying directly overhead of them would not be permitted (unless under your control).
However, structures, houses, etc are not specified and therefore it would be permissable to fly over them WITHOUT permission providing 50m height was maintained from the heighest structure.
Previously it was a lateral distance that needed to be maintained, however given IN-2014/190 this can now be satisfied in a congested area by a height of 50m providing no vehicles or people are flown over.
Oh, good luck with London - you MUST be a terrorist if you want to fly a UAV in the Capital.

 

[Nigel Payton-miles]

Within your control is one thing but we are talking buildings/structures etc NOT in your control and therefore subject to the usual stand-offs distances within 166/7.
What IN-2014/190 basically does is relax the standard permissions for operating a sub 7kg SUA within a congested area without the need for the previously required OSC.
Since vehicles and people are specifically mentioned flyi g directly overhead of them would not be permitted (unless under your control).
However, structures, houses, etc are not specified and therefore it would be permissable tomfly over them WITHOUT permission providing 50m heigh was maintained from the heighest structure.
Previously it was a lateral distance that needed to be maintained, however given IN-2014/190 this can now be satisfied in a congested area by a height of 50m providing no vehicles or people are flown over.
Oh, good luck with London - you MUST be a terrorist if you want to fly a UAV in the Capital.

 

[The Editor]

No message on your post - just my quote.

 

[Nigel Payton-miles]

My point about control af a building is hypothetically, if I have control of entrance/exits and so on I can fly within the specified limits.
Surveying work is close proximity work, for detailed images one would have to be within 15m of the roof/ structure.

 

[The Editor]

My point about control af a building is hypothetically, if I have control of entrance/exits and so on I can fly within the specified limits.
Surveying work is close proximity work, for detailed images one would have to be within 15m of the roof/ structure.

Understood. I am meaning video work whereby for instance you want an establishing shot of a village and houses etc.
Previously (prior to IN-2014/190) it would not have been permissable to fly over houses/structures within a village town since it would have been regarded as flying over a congested area and in any case you would have needed to maintain 150m or have an OSC in place.
Now, providing you are sub 7kg you are able to get these shots without permission providing you remain above 50m and not directly over vehicles or people.
It has made life a little easier.

 

[Nigel Payton-miles]

Understood. I am meaning video work whereby for instance you want an establishing shot of a village and houses etc.
Previously (prior to IN-2014/190) it would not have been permissable to fly over houses/structures within a village town since it would have been regarded as flying over a congested area and in any case you would have needed to maintain 150m or have an OSC in place.
Now, providing you are sub 7kg you are able to get these shots without permission providing you remain above 50m and not directly over vehicles or people.
It has made life a little easier.

Yes, thank you.

 

[AndyD]

Hi Guys,

I just caught this post...very interesting and informative. And I thought I'd offer my interpretation on it as I'm in the process of applying for a UASOSC to get in closer for congested area stuff like estate agency work and inspections. I've read the notes in the INs and CAP722 and I think they can be ambiguous. That's one of the problems here, if there is a problem, the CAA will have to use the ambiguity to satisfy the subsequent investigation so we have to ensure we err on the side of clarity (whatever that is!).

IN-2014/190 is superseded by CAP722 sixth edition (March 2015) and if you look at chapter 2 Approval Requirements Map it'll give a better idea. Page 31 shows the complexity graph and sub 7kg fits neatly into category A. The trouble is, as you get to 3.5kg AUW (which is what the Inspire 1 Pro is I think), you're hitting a bit of B as the technical and operational complexity increases. Now look at the table on page 32 and under the various headings except Airworthiness, you'll see further explanatory notes. It looks to me that congested areas fall into category B, in which case we need a UASOSC volume 1,2,3.

With regard to overflying roads, they are a structure but I think in this case, it's the vehicles and people that are the main issue, so if the road is clear I would expect to be able to overfly it (remember, we'd be able to loiter in a safe area while you wait for the road to clear up to the endurance of the battery etc.). You might also be able to argue that if the road is clear (of potential hazards), it is technically under your control since you've risk assessed it and it's clear of vehicles/people?

Also check the wording of your PFAW as it may be slightly different to a 'Standard' permission as described in these documents.

My PFAW states under section 2, Operational Conditions for all Classes: "that the said aircraft shall not be flown: (e) directly overhead or within 50m of any person, vessel, vehicle or structure that is not under the control of the person in charge..." So in this case, it could be interpreted as not directly overhead (at any height) OR not within 50m etc.

I look forward to your views!

AndyD

 

[MarkLincs]

Your going to be lucky to get much of a reduction with an inspire I'm afraid.

the OSC is interesting though for sure

 

[Nigel Payton-miles]

How would that complexity graph work it one used a phantom with a parachute, 2kg max.

 

[AndyD]

Your going to be lucky to get much of a reduction with an inspire I'm afraid.

the OSC is interesting though for sure

Probably! I'm using a Phantom 4 for this one as it's 1.4kg and with a bunch of safety features so it should at least be considered.

 

[AndyD]

How would that complexity graph work it one used a phantom with a parachute, 2kg max.

I don't know about the parachute thing but if you know of one, let us know please.
There are kinetic energy values that the CAA want in the UASOSC and the P4 comes in really low compared to the stated values so it has to be a contender for congested ops.

 

[Nigel Payton-miles]

I really think there should be a system where small uavs with parachutes and perhaps even tethered are able to work to congested areas easily if the operators are qualified with PFAW. After all the CAA are fully aware that most operators will be using UAVs for structural surveying as part of their work.