UK The dreaded "congested area"

[NickOfLeeds]

Phew! So I'm not going mad, you have no idea how many times I read and re-read that section, just to make sure!

So even though it doesn't say I can't fly overhead....I still can't because of an ANO.......I need to find this!

Why doesn't the CAA just email us all when operating rules are updated......would make life a lot safer!

What do you expect... they are still scanning paper PfAWs to create PDFs... which positively stone age! (i bet they are still using a fax machine too!)

OK,
It appears 'OVER' has been removed from article 95 for sub 7kg aircraft!

(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.

This is interesting as there will now be a disparity (and a commercial advantage) for PfCO's issued after the new ANO if 'OVER' has now been purposely removed!

NOPE - Correction....Congested area is still there so same rules stand.

hmmm... article 95 of the new ANO states...

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;

which to me suggests that the PfAW trumps this article and hence the Wing commander may fly over stuff whilst I must not!

 

[The Editor]

What do you expect... they are still scanning paper PfAWs to create PDFs... which positively stone age! (i bet they are still using a fax machine too!)




hmmm... article 95 of the new ANO states...

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;

which to me suggests that the PfAW trumps this article and hence the Wing commander may fly over stuff whilst I must not!

Yes, it does appear that way. Since Wing Commander has the newest PfCO amoungst the three of us I wonder if that is going to be the norm.

However, that means individuals having PfCO's issued now have a distinct commercial advantage over existing ones yet to expire! Not that the CAA would care one jot about that (it wouldn't have even entered their prehistoric brains)

 

[ash223]

Are you sure?

Under 'Permission', Section 2. 'Operational Conditions for all Classes:' paragraph 'e'

"directly overhead or within 50 meters of any person, vessel, vehicle...........etc"

My PfCO was issued a couple of weeks ago. I just re-read my PfCO and it is the same. It does not say anything about directly overhead just not within 50/30 meters

 

[NickOfLeeds]

...so it does look like a new version... not just a new name!

How long did it take the CAA to issue your PfCO [ash223]?

It took them 45 days (elapsed) to issue mine!
...and I'm still waiting for a reply to a simple question that I email in 5 + weeks ago.

Does anyone fancy writing in to ask for clarification about the impact of the PfAW vs PfCO differences?

 

[ash223]

...so it does look like a new version... not just a new name!

How long did it take the CAA to issue your PfCO [ash223]?

It took them 45 days (elapsed) to get back to me!.. I'm still waiting for a reply to a simple question that I email in 5 + weeks ago.

Does anyone fancy writing in to ask for an explanation?

around 28 days and that included updating and re-submitting my OM to include the new references.

 

[SimonMW]

Would this not be like other additions/changes that the CAA have made in the past whereby they assume existing permissions holders are considered to be updated to the new rules/regs?

 

[NickOfLeeds]

I wrote to the CAA asking for clarification regarding the inconsistent texts of the PfAW and the PfCO and this is what I get back...

'We believe the overriding principles here are adherence to the law and that an operator should not be more restricted by a permission than is the case without. The overriding concern is that the flight can be safely made and will not endanger; we are simply looking for people to operate with common sense and safety in mind and to consider the potential ‘fallout’ if a failure occurs.

The 50m 'dome' is the absolute limitation within the law (it always has been) and there are no set parameters for where ‘directly overhead’ would be considered (within 10m, 1m, 10cm, 1cm! ?) – as a result, the use of the term would not stand up to any proper scrutiny and was removed. The removal of the term does not measurably provide operators with any more freedom than they had previously because the flight must still be safely made and not endanger. If the drone is operated exactly directly above someone, what are the failure case mitigations to prevent endangerment vs if the drone is not operated 'over'?

In summary, we do not believe the new wording offers an advantage to operators with a PfCO rather than a PfAW; both sets of operators must conduct the flight safely and ensure that no one is endangered. I hope this answers your question. Please let me know if we can be of any further assistance.'


so... stack up your questions gentlemen!

 

[Mad_angler1]

I wrote to the CAA asking for clarification regarding the inconsistent texts of the PfAW and the PfCO and this is what I get back...

'We believe the overriding principles here are adherence to the law and that an operator should not be more restricted by a permission than is the case without. The overriding concern is that the flight can be safely made and will not endanger; we are simply looking for people to operate with common sense and safety in mind and to consider the potential ‘fallout’ if a failure occurs.

The 50m 'dome' is the absolute limitation within the law (it always has been) and there are no set parameters for where ‘directly overhead’ would be considered (within 10m, 1m, 10cm, 1cm! ?) – as a result, the use of the term would not stand up to any proper scrutiny and was removed. The removal of the term does not measurably provide operators with any more freedom than they had previously because the flight must still be safely made and not endanger. If the drone is operated exactly directly above someone, what are the failure case mitigations to prevent endangerment vs if the drone is not operated 'over'?

In summary, we do not believe the new wording offers an advantage to operators with a PfCO rather than a PfAW; both sets of operators must conduct the flight safely and ensure that no one is endangered. I hope this answers your question. Please let me know if we can be of any further assistance.'


so... stack up your questions gentlemen!

Well that's clear then lol.

 

[NickOfLeeds]

...at least they answered my question promptly.
I find the response a bit disappointing; it worries me that an organisation that I expect to provide clear 'set in stone' style rules from ...appears to favour the woolly, vague non-specific approach.
I'm not going to dissect the reply and over analyse it, I'm too tired for that... but I do know that I would rather have received a solid, hole-free, comprehensive and tangible answer that I could have faith in.
This wishy-washy non-descript answer wouldn't help me if I was being accused of some wrong doing.
This is exactly the type of answer that I would expect from an organisation that has no faith in the rules they have defined... deliberately 'designing in' ambiguity so that if/when someone makes a mistake that results in a death, the CAA will be able to hide behind their own smoke and mirrors to accuse the poor sod of breaching the ANO; when in reality almost everyone has a slightly different understanding.
Is this really the best we are going to get from the CAA?

...now, ... will someone, please help me down off this soap box?

 

[JimM]

Here's my take on this:

The problem with a solid set in stone style rule is that to be relevant to all situations, it needs to consider worst case - not always useful to us. The removal of the 'overhead' clause, along with the 50m clarification gives us the ability to exercise our own judgement on a case by case basis, and decide according to geographical and environmental conditions, as well as aircraft mass, speed etc, what our own safe distance should be. After all, the granting of a PFAW / PFCO suggests that we are deemed capable of assessing an area of operations and able to fly safely doesn't it?

 

[Mad_angler1]

The rules are "gray" so if something goes wrong they have an avenue to take against the pilot.

If tied them down and something bad happens and the pilot followed the rules to the letter then they are stuffed.

I have been convinced for an long time the whole set of rules PFCO or not have been left wide open to basically allow an avenue for prosecution regardless of pilot error, policy failing or just random accident.

 

[whirleybloke]

I got my PfCO (0-7kg) last October and have read it very carefully quite a few times, quizzed my NQE during training and this is how I interpret it in plain language:

2a. Only my suitably qualified company employees can fly under this PfCO. I don't have any so it only applies to me.
2b. Can't go over 400ft high.
2c. VLOS at all times and max distance of 500m (sort of conflicts with 2b at some angle, but I don't like to stray too far anyway).
2d. Not over or within 150m of organised crowds of over 1000 people outdoors.
2e. No closer that 50m (30m takeoff/landing) of anything I can't brief, human or otherwise.
2f. Need permission of the land owner where I want to take off and land.
2g. My SUSA has a working return to home function, triggered manually and if the SUSA comms fail.
2h. Can only fly in weather conditions the SUSA is rated for and it's safe to fly.
2i. Log all flights and systems.

Anything related to 7-20kg like section '2m. Not directly over or within 150 metres of congested area", doesn't apply to me. So I just use the 50m bubble approach.

As long as I fly within these rules mean I can fly an Inspire Pro over a town/village/road as long as I keep over 50m/165ft (I assume the highest point here) However, you have to use common sense. I'd never feel comfortable hovering over a busy motorway interchange at 200ft for ages. Yes, it's flying within the rules, but I suspect I'd have a torrid time defending it in court if something broke, crashed and caused all sorts of damage. There are ways to mitigate these risks, but everyone will have their own approach to this.

 

[palms_1990]

After following this thread I'm still thinking that surely everything the ANO states takes precedence over an individual PfCO. If the PfCO doesn't mention a certain line that is in the ANO I wouldn't just assume that it's allowed.

*edit*
Taken from whispercam's website:
"What is a "Standard Permission"? This is another name for what was called the Permission for Aerial Work. Since August 2016, Aerial Work is referred to as Commercial Operation. It grants permission to fly in congested areas if your aircraft weighs less than 7 Kg."

 

[NickOfLeeds]

After following this thread I'm still thinking that surely everything the ANO states takes precedence over an individual PfCO. If the PfCO doesn't mention a certain line that is in the ANO I wouldn't just assume that it's allowed.

no no - its the other way around !
The ANO states:..

95.—(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.

so the ANO is the base line and your PfAW may include privileged modifications that permit you to operate with reduced restrictions.

 

[palms_1990]

no no - its the other way around !
The ANO states:..

95.—(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.

so the ANO is the base line and your PfAW may include privileged modifications that permit you to operate with reduced restrictions.

Brilliant, I missed that. It's like trying to work out a riddle a lot of the time

 

[Mad_angler1]

Where did we end up with his one, I’m currently writing my Ops manual and trying to get my noggin around this sub 7kg Congested thing.

It’s clear in Cap 722 it states that below the below 7kg category both SUA/SUSA can fly in congested area with in 50m of the usual but the 2016 ANO clearly states in part 5 chapter 4

95 for SUSA states must not over or with in 150m of congested EXCEPT in accordance with a permission issues by the CAA

So is PFCO classed as that permission ?

Finally have you guys written this specifically into your ops manual for aircraft under 7kg that you won’t fly with in 50m in congested area ?

 

[MarkLincs]

Okay sub 7kilo can over fly but 241 applies you cannot recklessly endanger anyone or thing.

yes a pfco lets you fly in a congested area 30 / 50m

 

[rich146]

Hi All
I’m in the process of applying to take a PFCO course probably mid year. I’m finding the congested area confusing when it comes to roads. I was told a drones for farming conference that a quiet farm track that’s used by tractors for example is a congested area so 150m applies (pre PFCO) yet I read earlier this eve on a forum that a structure is classed as a road which must mean 50m anyway ? At my workplace there is a private ring road used by staff between buildings etc. I want to fly on site but is the ring road classed as structure or congested area ? Cheers.

 

[NickOfLeeds]

A lonely farm track is not a congested area!

Take a look at the ANO 2016
SCHEDULE 1 Article 2
INTERPRETATION
(page 124)
“Congested area” in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is
substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes;

 

[rich146]

Thanks Yes, ive read the ANO more times than I can count. The confusion with specifics seems to be becoming even more confusing. I was told the farm track being congested by a company representative that provides training so find it difficult to dismiss . So as for the ring road at my work place, what does that come under?