Questions for the Experienced guys about the video recording and its playback issues

[YuKay]

Well, it's a stone cold certainty that you don't need to have any commercial operator's license or any commercial-level insurance to undertake commercial work with a <2kg drone in Australia so I guess sweeping statements should be avoided in forums or media which have an international readership.

"Getting licensed and certified to fly a drone

If you want to fly a drone commercially, you might need to be licensed and/or certified by us.

If you intend to fly a drone commercially that weighs between 100g and 2kg, you can fly your drone in our 'excluded' category. Find out more about the excluded category and the standard operating conditions that apply."​

----------------------------------------------------------

"If you fly a drone (remotely piloted aircraft) RPA under 2kg but for commercial reasons, you can fly your drone in what is called the 'excluded' category.

This means you'll need to notify us before you fly and operate within the standard operating conditions.

If you want to fly outside these operating conditions, you will need to be licensed (hold a remote pilot's licence RePL) and fly with a certified operator to fly commercially."​

I'll see if I can get some clarity from the UK CAA about the meaning of 7(b).

 

[PatR]

In search of justification...

 

[FlushVision]

...<snip>... To me such an act does not reflect well on the business person's decision making as the cost of obtaining a commercial license is far less than the cost of a decent camera drone, and the fines, or damage awards after an incident, far outweigh both the cost of the drone and obtaining a license. ...<snip>...

Pat. In the U.K. it is far more expensive to get a PfCO (what a commercial pilot needs to conduct his operations lawfully in the U.K.). A typical cost of the course which is in two parts (classroom and a field Flight Operation evaluation) costs anything between £1000 and £2000 and that's just to get the Remote Pilots Certificate. There are further costs once you have the certificate when applying to the CAA for the PfCO which can be granted or not. There is no guarantee that a pilot will be approved for commercial operations even if he has the Remote Pilot's certificate if the PICs Operations Manual isn't up to scratch.

So, there is a bit more incentive in the U.K. for a hobby pilot to take on paid work without approval because the cost outlay to get approved for commercial operations is often beyond some hobby pilot's means. If he does it properly (including the cost of an appropriate UAS) the cost can easily be in the region of £4000, if not more.

 

[FlushVision]

In search of justification...

I've already given up.

 

[PatR]

Sounds like your PfCO process is about as onerous as our 333 process but we omit flight tests. Prepping for and filing for one often ended up costing $5,000.00 or more and many months of waiting after the filing. All that excludes the cost of the rig in the deal. The cost and time is why many waited for our 107 qualification to come into being.

Depending on your perspective, the implementation of the 107 certificate process might be good or bad. Although it is significantly simplified and expedited the licensing process has opened things up to many that despite having a license aren't well operationally qualified or have the knowledge to operate in a true commercial environment. All they have to do is pass one or two written tests. There's no requirement to demonstrate flight proficiency, knowledge of the aircraft, it's flight system, or components. Aircraft are self certified instead of receiving FCC certification based upon documentation and class. There's no mandate for ops or maintenance manuals, just a suggestion to develop them. Training and safety programs are left to the certificate holder to develop, or not. There's no requirement to be insured but only a fool would avoid obtaining insurance. Back "in the day" a 333 holder could apply for and obtain a certificate of authorization (CoA) while a 107 holder could not. That's still applicable but obtaining permission to fly in controlled airspace is becoming a lot faster and easier to obtain for either type of certificate now.

Those that obtained a 333 certificate pretty much assured their customers they were on top of their game in most if not all aspects of aircraft operation and safe operating practices. That's not the case with the 107 as applicants need only memorize the answers to some test questions, pay a few bucks to file, and pass the written tests to obtain one. They obtain a legitimate certificate but most will lack the knowledge and experience that helps make them safe to employ in high density working environments.

That may well be why the cost of commercial liability insurance is so darn high over here, which in turn provides cause for legitimate commercial operators to go after unlicensed hobby operators competing with them. When you have a liability policy that costs $600.00/year per covered aircraft it's impossible to compete with an amateur that operates without a business license, commercial operating certificate, and insurance. Toss in commercial vehicle insurance and a legitimate commercial operator's base rate increases even more. From my perspective the only reason for amateurs to charge for their services is because they can get away with it. If the law was enforced and severe penalties levied a lot of that would cease. I see that happening in the very near future as our FAA is actively working with local municipalities to develop rules and enforcement procedures.

 

[FlushVision]

Sounds like your PfCO process is about as onerous as our 333 process but we omit flight tests. Prepping for and filing for one often ended up costing $5,000.00 or more and many months of waiting after the filing. All that excludes the cost of the rig in the deal. The cost and time is why many waited for our 107 qualification to come into being.

We have nothing directly equivalent to Part 107 in the U.K. Yes, our PfCO, or I should say the course one has to do in order to get a PfCO, is a bit more closely related to 333. When applying for a PfCO it can take around 6 weeks for it to come through...IF IT COMES THROUGH AT ALL (No guarantees). The CAA tell us to allow 28 days but that's 28 working days. Every year my PfCO is up for renewal on the second of November so I usually submit my renewal application at the beginning of September.

When I first embarked upon getting a PfCO I started the course at the start of one July and finally got the PfCO at the start of the November that year...4 months and a few thousand pounds poorer.

 

[YuKay]

"From: [email protected]
Date: 5 March 2018 15:13:53 GMT
To:
Subject: Small drone commercial operations

Dear Customer

We acknowledge receipt of your email. Please note that our turnaround time for general email queries is 10 working days. However complex enquiries will be referred to our technical staff, who will endeavour to respond within 30 working days.

The standard turnaround time for licence applications is 10 working days, however our current turnaround time is 14 working days.

We kindly ask that you do not chase your query or licence application within the stated timeframe as we are experiencing a high volume of emails and applications and are responding as quickly as we can.

You can check our website Civil Aviation Authority for further information where you may find the information you require.

We have dedicated webpages for converting to an EASA licence (Converting to an EASA licence from a UK national or JAR licence | UK Civil Aviation Authority) and for help with eLicensing (About eLicensing | UK Civil Aviation Authority).

We do ask that you email us if you no longer require a response so that we can cancel your enquiry. This is an automated response as we are currently experiencing a high volume of emails and therefore your patience would be appreciated.

Kind Regards

Personnel Licensing
Civil Aviation Authority
Aviation House
Gatwick Airport South
West Sussex RH6 0YR"
​

I will let you know what they eventually say.

FWIW, I have no vested interest whatsoever. It's just that as a future drone owner, I would like the regulations to be clear - especially for hobbyists with low mass (<2kg) drones. And I guess I don't see why a properly prepared, regulation-compliant, adequately-insured and safety-conscious hobbyist whose profession/business is unrelated to drones should be prevented from accepting a box of vegetables from a neighbour for an aerial photograph - if only to cover the cost of the flight.

After all, without any taxi license or additional safety qualifications, I can legitimately offer to share my car with passengers who contribute to the cost of the journey. And I'm finding it difficult to grasp why an amateur drone pilot should be any less safe within his restricted flying window than a commercial pilot in his wider sphere of operations.

And this is about safety, right?

 

[PatR]

And this is about safety, right?

Not always Where governments are concerned it's usually more about $$ along with power and control.

BTW, over here a Private Pilot has to be very careful when offering to split expenses with someone that's riding along to the same destination. What makes sharing expenses allowable is a very, very narrow path, and has been the cause of many license suspensions and numerous legal articles over the years. Perhaps we should make a distinction between driving a car and piloting an aircraft?

 

[YuKay]

While waiting for the CAA to reply, I have found some authoritative, if incomplete, guidance on the meaning of the CAA's definition of a commercial operator.

The guidance comes from the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and may relate to the regulations governing larger passenger-carrying craft from where the CAA seems to have lifted the definition for drones, without modification. It says:

"The reference to operations "not made available to the public… where the latter has no control over the operator" is troublesome, because the term 'control' is not defined in the regulatory framework. However, it does serve as a useful guide to carve out those instances where a customer does have some control over the operator, such as in a typical owner-manager-operator scenario, and it would also likely cover fractional ownership schemes. EASA has provided the following guidance:

"the legislator has not further specified the term 'control'. It is therefore EASA's view that it should be understood in a wider sense, i.e. the term is not limited to operational control. In this sense, control could for example also encompass financial control, control of management decisions etc. This notion of the definition is for example particularly valid for managed operations or fractional ownership. These are operations where an aircraft is owned by one or several persons who contract a management company to manage operations and continuing airworthiness. It then depends on the specific contract between the owner(s) and the management company how much control the owner(s) still have over the operation."​

See also this EASA FAQ.

While this clarifies that "control" over the operator doesn't mean control over the drone, its other possible meanings are (intentionally) left wide open. They cite a couple of examples but there must be hundreds of scenarios where the customer can exert a measure of control over the operator and thereby render a flight non-commercial even when a payment is made.

 

[Tuna]

​

And this is about safety, right?

You seem to be making a bit of a meal of this. Yes, it's about safety, but it's also about making it as easy as possible to identify the different groups involved. It's not enough to say "I'm a safety conscious hobbyist", because I'm not aware of any hobbyists who doesn't think they fly safely and in control of their craft.

The issue here is that when you don't know about potential safety issues, it's very common for you to not know that you don't know. The point is that being unaware of a subject doesn't flag up something in your head that tells you what it is you're unaware of. A gap is a gap.

So, when the CAA (or other organisations) set up what appear to be draconian rules, it's largely about ensuring that people have actually been given enough information and training to make informed decisions about their safety, and that the authorities have an audit trail that show that to be true. It's just not enough to say "I'm safety conscious".

As it is, I think the CAA have screwed up. By not having a more accessible route to commercial operation, they've hogtied UK drone development, and the industry seems to me to be in a state of suspended animation - particularly when compared with the US and China which appear to be far more supportive of innovation in this area. I don't know what the answer is, but despite being great technical innovators, we seem to be sitting this dance out, and letting other countries develop drone technologies and benefit from the industries they enable.

That doesn't make it acceptable to ignore the rules, the reason for their existence is quite clear.

 

[AH-1G]

You seem to be making a bit of a meal of this. Yes, it's about safety, but it's also about making it as easy as possible to identify the different groups involved. It's not enough to say "I'm a safety conscious hobbyist", because I'm not aware of any hobbyists who doesn't think they fly safely and in control of their craft.

The issue here is that when you don't know about potential safety issues, it's very common for you to not know that you don't know. The point is that being unaware of a subject doesn't flag up something in your head that tells you what it is you're unaware of. A gap is a gap.

So, when the CAA (or other organisations) set up what appear to be draconian rules, it's largely about ensuring that people have actually been given enough information and training to make informed decisions about their safety, and that the authorities have an audit trail that show that to be true. It's just not enough to say "I'm safety conscious".

As it is, I think the CAA have screwed up. By not having a more accessible route to commercial operation, they've hogtied UK drone development, and the industry seems to me to be in a state of suspended animation - particularly when compared with the US and China which appear to be far more supportive of innovation in this area. I don't know what the answer is, but despite being great technical innovators, we seem to be sitting this dance out, and letting other countries develop drone technologies and benefit from the industries they enable.

That doesn't make it acceptable to ignore the rules, the reason for their existence is quite clear.

@Tuna Brovo, Brovo!

 

[YuKay]

That doesn't make it acceptable to ignore the rules, the reason for their existence is quite clear.

I don't think anyone has advocated ignoring the rules. That would be irresponsible. My quest is simply to clarify them. I need to know that if my neighbour offers to buy me dinner if I film his house, I won't end up with a fine.

And I can't see how the act of accepting his hospitality makes any difference to the safety of the flight. His home and his family and his dogs and his greenhouse are in no greater peril because I got rewarded.

Put another way, if the flight were to be dangerous then I shouldn't be flying, period.

 

[AH-1G]

I don't think anyone has advocated ignoring the rules. That would be irresponsible. My quest is simply to clarify them. I need to know that if my neighbour offers to buy me dinner if I film his house, I won't end up with a fine.

And I can't see how the act of accepting his hospitality makes any difference to the safety of the flight. His home and his family and his dogs and his greenhouse are in no greater peril because I got rewarded.

Put another way, if the flight were to be dangerous then I shouldn't be flying, period.

@YuKay
It's about RULES!!!!!! Sleep on it for a few years and maybe they will simplify what is confusing.

 

[PatR]

Law is written in the literal sense. What is written is what "is". Where definition is required it's provided. There is no allowance for interpretation. Where you might be running into comprehension issues is in the definition of payment/consideration/compensation. When a law is written allowing or prohibiting compensation they don't go down rabbit holes to exempt this or that. Payment or consideration of any kind is payment in the U.S. We might want to remember that U.S. aviation law forms the basis for much of the world's aviation law.

In the area of differences in flight safety between a commercial and amateur pilot, an area I feel drone regulations seriously drop the ball, is with full scale aviation a commercial pilot is trained to much higher standards in all aspects of the operation of the aircraft. In full scale a pilot is trained to make maximum utilization of an aircraft's capabilities. This is an area where an amateur/Private Pilot can run into a lot of problems as their ability to control the aircraft in some situations may not be up to what is needed to survive when attempting to maximize aircraft capability. So they crash and die, perhaps killing others on the ground. IMO it's unfortunate that all commercial drone operators don't have to test and demonstrate their ability similar to full scale. That day is probably on the horizon but it's not here yet. However, a commercial drone operator at least in principle certifies through their testing process they are cognizant of all the rules that promote flight safety and have the ability to recognize when a flight or action would be unsafe. The commercial testing process also establishes the commercial operator is aware of his/her responsibilities in understanding their aircraft, systems, and emergency procedures should they become needed. They also certify they understand airspace and how it is to be used. Anyone can read the various forums and easily see that most amateur operators don't have a clue in any of those areas and are totally dependent on their aircraft's automation to save the day if and when something failed within the system. That something will eventually fail is pretty much assured.

We should bear in mind that drone regulations are being written using pre-existing full scale regulation formatting so drone flyers hoping for more laxity in regulation are not likely to see much of what they hope for. We should also understand that commercial aviation regulations are heavily influenced by professional aviation groups that are doing all they can to protect the jobs of those employed in manned aviation from incursion by drone operators. Commercial carriers are adding even more influence to shape the regulations to favor their slice of the commercial pie. In the EU and UK they already pretty much own the the airspace system. In the U.S. many of our regulations were developed "after the fact". Our CAA became the FAA to start getting a better handle on air safety after a mid air between a couple airliners over the Grand Canyon. A great many new rules have come into being only after many people died due to a lack of them. Where drones are concerned, even though regulatory agencies are far behind where they should be, they are trying to get ahead of the game by developing rules before people are killed instead of after. Something that has become very clear over the years is that aviation accident rates for amateur pilots are much, much higher than they are for commercial pilots. Professional pilots, even with drones, have a better understanding of what they fly, train to higher standards, and work hard to maintain their proficiency. Their livelihood depends on it. I think we can agree that is not the case with the average amateur hobby flyer.

 

[AH-1G]

Law is written in the literal sense. What is written is what "is". Where definition is required it's provided. There is no allowance for interpretation. Where you might be running into comprehension issues is in the definition of payment/consideration/compensation. When a law is written allowing or prohibiting compensation they don't go down rabbit holes to exempt this or that. Payment or consideration of any kind is payment in the U.S. We might want to remember that U.S. aviation law forms the basis for much of the world's aviation law.

In the area of differences in flight safety between a commercial and amateur pilot, an area I feel drone regulations seriously drop the ball, is with full scale aviation a commercial pilot is trained to much higher standards in all aspects of the operation of the aircraft. In full scale a pilot is trained to make maximum utilization of an aircraft's capabilities. This is an area where an amateur/Private Pilot can run into a lot of problems as their ability to control the aircraft in some situations may not be up to what is needed to survive when attempting to maximize aircraft capability. So they crash and die, perhaps killing others on the ground. IMO it's unfortunate that all commercial drone operators don't have to test and demonstrate their ability similar to full scale. That day is probably on the horizon but it's not here yet. However, a commercial drone operator at least in principle certifies through their testing process they are cognizant of all the rules that promote flight safety and have the ability to recognize when a flight or action would be unsafe. The commercial testing process also establishes the commercial operator is aware of his/her responsibilities in understanding their aircraft, systems, and emergency procedures should they become needed. They also certify they understand airspace and how it is to be used. Anyone can read the various forums and easily see that most amateur operators don't have a clue in any of those areas and are totally dependent on their aircraft's automation to save the day if and when something failed within the system. That something will eventually fail is pretty much assured.

We should bear in mind that drone regulations are being written using pre-existing full scale regulation formatting so drone flyers hoping for more laxity in regulation are not likely to see much of what they hope for. We should also understand that commercial aviation regulations are heavily influenced by professional aviation groups that are doing all they can to protect the jobs of those employed in manned aviation from incursion by drone operators. Commercial carriers are adding even more influence to shape the regulations to favor their slice of the commercial pie. In the EU and UK they already pretty much own the the airspace system. In the U.S. many of our regulations were developed "after the fact". Our CAA became the FAA to start getting a better handle on air safety after a mid air between a couple airliners over the Grand Canyon. A great many new rules have come into being only after many people died due to a lack of them. Where drones are concerned, even though regulatory agencies are far behind where they should be, they are trying to get ahead of the game by developing rules before people are killed instead of after. Something that has become very clear over the years is that aviation accident rates for amateur pilots are much, much higher than they are for commercial pilots. Professional pilots, even with drones, have a better understanding of what they fly, train to higher standards, and work hard to maintain their proficiency. Their livelihood depends on it. I think we can agree that is not the case with the average amateur hobby flyer.

@PatR
Brovo Nicely said Pat!

 

[Rubik]

Perhaps we should make a distinction between driving a car and piloting an aircraft?

Yes! If the aircraft is a Typhoon H or similar, the car is MUCH more likely to cause serious damage, injury or death. I think is counterproductive to regulate these small drones as though they were human carrying aircraft. These regulations regarding commercial drone operations seem to more for protecting business interests than safety of the public. Is that the job of the FAA or CAA?

I am a hobby drone flyer and never accept any kind of remuneration for my flying. If I were to put that same CGO3+ camera on my ActionCam and accept money for taking handheld video of my neighbor’s house (at his request, of course), the FAA or CAA wouldn’t care.

I shudder to think that my YouTube aerial videos (which are not monetized in any way) might someday be seen as “commercial” because they allow YT to get money from advertisers. This is clearly not about safety. It’s about protecting commercial interests.

If it were about safety, every drone pilot, commercial or recreational, would need to be licensed in some way since we all share the same pubic airspace. Just like anyone operating an automobile on public roads must be licensed. BUT, I just don’t see how flying a small aerial camera system like the Typhoon H can be considered anywhere near as dangerous as manned aircraft operations or even driving down the freeway at a mile-a-minute.

 

[PatR]

Based upon how the FAA is being lobbied by a larger drone industry, I have no doubts individual licensing to operate them is in our future. The registration process was just the first step in achieving that goal.

 

[PatR]

Yes! If the aircraft is a Typhoon H or similar, the car is MUCH more likely to cause serious damage, injury or death. I think is counterproductive to regulate these small drones as though they were human carrying aircraft. These regulations regarding commercial drone operations seem to more for protecting business interests than safety of the public. Is that the job of the FAA or CAA?
............................
If it were about safety, every drone pilot, commercial or recreational, would need to be licensed in some way since we all share the same pubic airspace. Just like anyone operating an automobile on public roads must be licensed. BUT, I just don’t see how flying a small aerial camera system like the Typhoon H can be considered anywhere near as dangerous as manned aircraft operations or even driving down the freeway at a mile-a-minute.

Rubik,

Your post opened several new dimensions within this subject. To address your first question relative to the responsibilities of the FAA, their charter originated around public safety and the promotion of aerial commerce. Both encompass a lot of territory. In the greater scope they aren't as much concerned about the aircraft but they are **** serious where all the pieces may fall and the people inside of them, which in turn puts focus back on the aircraft, and how it's operated. The rules expand as needed to attempt to preserve the safety of people and property on the ground and passengers inside the aircraft, and whatever it takes to make those happen is fair game. The rules are in constant flux because aircraft and the engineering that design them are ever changing. In some places they probably go over board but every time I ride in a passenger aircraft I'm grateful for the excess. Bear in mind one of the responsibilities of the NTSB is to determine why aircraft crash and to assess those incidents to determine if changes to regulations will better serve aviation safety.

Drones generate new problems and perspectives and we need to view them in broad scope. What we may be flying may well be at the lower end of the size and weight allowances but the class we are in runs from 0.55lbs all the way up to 55lbs. The entire class is limited to 100mph. Thinking about that for a moment with only a Typhoon H in mind we have a 4lb-5lb. aircraft capable of flying at a max speed of somewhere around 50mph. Personally, I would not want to be hit in the head with a 1lb object flying at 30mph or falling from 100', let alone a heavier one flying even faster. Although most small multirotors, and I include the Typhoon H in the small class, are somewhat frangible and disperse some amount of kinetic energy through parts separation during impact they still have parts that are quite dense and impact with a lot of energy. Things like the gear and motor booms can break and become spears. The end result could easily be fatal. Propellers are a whole different story. A glancing blow from a Typhoon H moving at 30-50mph could expose a lot of flesh if they hit someone right. A friend ended up getting 95 stitches on his face when an 800mm hex lit off his work bench without being commanded to take off. Total distance it moved was less than two feet. The props did all the damage. We should remember the word drones covers a lot of territory. A drone could be fixed wing, rotary like a helicopter, rotary like a multirotor, winged like an ornithopter, or anything else that can fly.

As far as being as dangerous as a full scale aircraft, it's quite possible our drones may be more so. We need to remember that manned commercial aircraft are subject to an in depth inspection every 100 hours of service. They are also subject to an annual inspection. If the aircraft was to fail either inspection it could not be used for commercial operations. Many of their aircraft components have a service life measured in flight hours and must be replaced or rebuilt when they achieve that limit. We have neither inspections or service limits. The pilots of manned commercial aircraft are much, much better trained than most commercial drone operators. Full scale commercial pilots must pass a fairly strict medical every couple years. They also have to subject themselves to a flight review every two years. They have to actually prove they are the master of the aircraft periodically. Drone operators are supposed to self certify their medical condition and nobody has to subject themselves to an actual flight review. We should also remember how many drone operators like to fly fast and low. The odds of them hitting a person are off the scale compared to the odds of a manned aircraft hitting someone. I'm actually a bit surprised that we haven't heard about FPV racers hitting people and causing injury. They are small but they are very fast with must faster spinning propellers.

So are drones safer than cars doing a mile a minute? In general I would say yes but it depends on how a drone hit someone. David slew Goliath with a small stone proving that placement can be everything. From where I sit drones are more dangerous than full scale aircraft as most full scale aircraft are certified. Those that are not are restricted in where and when they can be flown. Full scale pilots at some point in their endeavors were much better trained than multirotor operators. Those that continue flying remain much better trained than drone operators. Where automobile drivers are concerned, I think their record speaks for itself as somewhere between 36,000 and 48,000 auto occupants have been killed every year for at least the last decade. Then again, in an average year there are about 110,000 bath tub incidents in the U.S. and a lot of them end up fatal. Those are right up there with medical malpractice events.

Sorry about the tangent. Just my way of showing how nothing is truly safe. What's unfortunate is that most improvements in safety seem to occur after people are killed or injured instead of before.

 

[Rubik]

Well, we sure did get off on a tangent! The original question of Robbie (Tower_King) had nothing to do with hobby vs. commercial operations or drone safety. He was interested in why his video playback looked bad. I hope you got a satisfactory answer, Robbie. However, I think this has been an important discussion.

I agree that nothing we do can be truly safe. I just think that we are not talking about 2-ton speeding cars, airplanes full of passengers or weapons of mass destruction here. I would like to see our FAA spend their capital on more dangerous activities. Failure of anything carrying passengers is bound to be more dangerous to more people than a small object falling out of the sky.

Perhaps we should lobby for dividing the drone categories a bit finer than 2 the orders of magnitude (0.55 to 55 lbs.) of the current legislation. Perhaps drones under, say, 5 lbs. should not require FAA pilot certification for hobby or commercial operation. Or perhaps an energy based differentiation would work better; maximum speed times weight. Perhaps the probability of serious human injury or property damage due to a failure in the pilot or aircraft should be included in the analysis.

 

[PatR]

A diversification of classification would not be out of line. What might be done with qualifications for a class afterwards could end up a a lengthy debate by itself.