UK The dreaded "congested area"

[The Editor]

Mostly straight up or down but getting 20m closer to what your filming makes a big difference with some nice lenses

Nothing wrong with coming in laterally when landing and keeping the recording going.....there are many ways to skin a cat when things are tight.

As an aside - many of this will (hopefully) soon be a moot point since the CAA have been putting in place guidelines for the last 18 months to relax the 166/7 standard distances for PFAW holders running lower mass machines (under 5kg).
This will effectively give all PFAW holders blanket permission to 30m and probably 20m for take offs and landing. Stumbling block thus far has been coordination with EASA but hopefully they are nearly there.

 

[MarkLincs]

Yes the EASA stuff will make it interesting...

 

[AndyD]

I wish they'd hurry up!

I found this for ballistic recovery systems for UAVs... Mars Parachutes | Fly safe, Drone parachutes add a Mayday device and it looks the business. Reduce the kinetic energy with a parachute and the CAA have to be happy...don't they!?

Happy to have this moved to another post if you like.

 

[MarkLincs]

It can help in an OSC, I was at Vulcan a bit ago and it was interesting how they need the anchor points on the bottom frame or they rip off the frame or will cause the top frame section a lot of stress

 

[The Editor]

Can we keep this one on topic guys please.
Mars Parachute threads can be found on the forum
There's one HERE for instance.

Thanks

 

[SCM660]

Interestingly enough if this question was relating to military low flying we would refer to this as an MSD or Minimum Seperation Distance. Think of it as a 50m bubble around the aircraft which can't be impeded by anything

(Minimum separation distance is defined as the distance that must be maintained between any part of an aircraft in flight and the ground, water or any object. It does not apply to separation between aircraft in the same formation).

The CAA and in particular CAP 722 is a fairly new document compared to the long established aircraft and military documents, and is still evolving. Hopefully the 50m rule will become more clear and easier to understand as the publications develop. A very good thread though and a potential minefield. Lots of different interpretations of the rule which just goes to prove how open to suggestion it is.

 

[Yellow Fellow]

I have a PFAW and I always err on the side of caution.

But my greatest confusion is over the interpretation of "under the control" of the pilot... What does that mean?

If you inform people of what you're doing and ask them to be aware is that enough? Or do they have to consent and tell you they're happy to consider themselves under your "control"? Or do they have to actually be part of your operation?

How do you place a building under your control? Does it essentially mean any people entering or exiting the building?

 

[MarkLincs]

Well this should of been covered in the ground school

Under your control

So you brief them and they know where and what your doing.

So yes people entering or exiting a building need to be under your control.

My advise would be this if your working on a large building have signed or designated route away from the building

Make sure people do not walk towards the aircraft at any point and they know the emergency landing areas are.

 

[Yellow Fellow]

Sure. But simply telling people what you're doing doesn't necessarily place them under your "control".

 

[IrishSights]

Sure. But simply telling people what you're doing doesn't necessarily place them under your "control".

Correct. If they disagree they are not under your control.

 

[MarkLincs]

You can post staff at door ways and direct them in and out if required.

 

[simon@DEF]

A lot of RAMS mitigation can be done when near roads by removing the traffic and people, eg quiet time of day with spotters.

 

[Nigel Payton-miles]

You can post staff at door ways and direct them in and out if required.

Westmister city council do not consider you have full control of a road unless you have a temporary traffic order in place to divert traffic even if it's at 05.00h

 

[JimM]

Westmister city ouncil do not consider you have full control of a road unless you have a temporary traffic order in place to divert traffic even if it's at 05.00h

..and neither do many other boroughs

 

[Mactab]

'Not directly overhead (at any height) or within 50 metres of persons, vehicles,
vessels and property, unless those persons are 'under the control of the person in
charge of the SUA'.'

This is in the heading of CAP 1361 SUA operators list issued on the 4th August. It doesn't make any distinction between sub 7kg or 7-20kg SUA's.
Wish we could get clarification once and for all. It's this sort of thing that insurers love as if (heaven forbid) there is an accident or incident it gives them the perfect excuse for rejecting a claim.

1916 operators recorded as active now.

 

[The Editor]

'Not directly overhead (at any height) or within 50 metres of persons, vehicles,
vessels and property, unless those persons are 'under the control of the person in
charge of the SUA'.'

This is in the heading of CAP 1361 SUA operators list issued on the 4th August. It doesn't make any distinction between sub 7kg or 7-20kg SUA's.
Wish we could get clarification once and for all. It's this sort of thing that insurers love as if (heaven forbid) there is an accident or incident it gives them the perfect excuse for rejecting a claim.

1916 operators recorded as active now.

In a court of law any ambiguity will always be construed in favour of the insured - there is precedent on this already

 

[Mactab]

Thanks Editor I agree but wouldn't it be so much better if there wasn't the ambiguity for everyones sake?

 

[IrishSights]

'Not directly overhead (at any height) or within 50 metres of persons, vehicles,
vessels and property, unless those persons are 'under the control of the person in
charge of the SUA'.'

This is in the heading of CAP 1361 SUA operators list issued on the 4th August. It doesn't make any distinction between sub 7kg or 7-20kg SUA's.
Wish we could get clarification once and for all. It's this sort of thing that insurers love as if (heaven forbid) there is an accident or incident it gives them the perfect excuse for rejecting a claim.

1916 operators recorded as active now.

I read that too. But's its poppycock. Nowhere in the ANO does it mention the 50m over property thing. Persons, vehicles and vessels are very specific. I would not be flying anywhere as 'property' is everywhere. It's the CAA overstepping the actual regulation.

What would be disastrous is if they added this wording into the Permission. Anyone checked their recently issued PFAW?

PFAW Holder
BNUC-S Qualified

 

[MStacey]

I read that too. But's its poppycock. Nowhere in the ANO does it mention the 50m over property thing. Persons, vehicles and vessels are very specific. I would not be flying anywhere as 'property' is everywhere. It's the CAA overstepping the actual regulation.

What would be disastrous is if they added this wording into the Permission. Anyone checked their recently issued PFAW?

PFAW Holder
BNUC-S Qualified

"directly overhead or within 50 metres of any person,vessel,vehicle or structure that is not under the control of the PIC" is what it states on a standard PFAW issued by the CAA. This is a PFAW issued by the CAA under ANO2009 in August 2016. Of course this could change with the advent of the new ANO2016 being introduced at the end of the month.

 

[Wing Commander Smyth]

I think it has changed MStacey.

I've just had my PFAW renewed and sent through last week, and it states under article "d" ... "over or within 150 metres of an organised open air assembly of more than 1,000 persons"

and for article "e"..."within 50 metres of any person, vessel, vehicle or structure that is not under the control" etc etc...

So there is a definite lack of the word "over" in the article "e" which means we can fly over.....just not within 50m of anything not under our control.

Finally cleared up!