CAA training

[mcbutler]

Hi all,

Toying with the idea of going 'pro'.

Are there and 'pro' pilots on here who can recommend a CAA training provider, I am in South West of UK.

Thanks guys

 

[FlushVision]

Hi all,

Toying with the idea of going 'pro'.

Are there and 'pro' pilots on here who can recommend a CAA training provider, I am in South West of UK.

Thanks guys

Unless you are intending to use high-end equipment, are a large organisation, or expect to have lots of confirmed work lined up that pays a proper rate then I would recommend that you don't. Having a PfCO will give you some small advantages over a hobby flyer like being able to fly to within 50m of a congested area, for example, but the cost of getting that PfCO, which can easily run into thousands, is a lot to pay for those small privileges if you aren't going to recover your outlay because you are being undercut to the bone by illegal hobby fliers that are willing to put their aircraft up for peanuts or even free.

The market is saturated and many current PfCO holders never renew their permissions after the first year. I've been operating commercially for a couple of years now but this last year has been tough and when my PfCO is due for renewal in November I'm thinking of chucking it in.

I received an email from the CAA this morning saying that I will have to make some changes to my Operations Manual to reflect the 2018 ANO amendments and it also pointed out that there will be further changes in due course. I've come to the conclusion that holding a PfCO is just not worth the bother any more..

 

[OnTheRopes]

I would kind of echo what Flushvision said, I renewed my PfCO in May having had my Ops manual rejected three times (It was okay a year ago). It is a lot of expense and hassle if you are not going to get value out of it. That being said if you are planning commercial work then you really do need it and I would not advise being one of the illegals (tempting though that is currently).
I also am the PIC for a company I work for who have a PfCO so I will possibly drop my own next year, I am going to have to monitor it over the next few months.

The market is certainly saturated and if you expect to pick work up because you have a PfCO then forget it. If you have a business or job that would benefit se of a drone then maybe worth it.

I use RUSTA Rusta UAS they do occasonal courses in your area,

 

[Ren57]

Hi all,

Toying with the idea of going 'pro'.

Are there and 'pro' pilots on here who can recommend a CAA training provider, I am in South West of UK.

Thanks guys

I would echo what has already been said. I also used RUSTA, very professional, all ex RAF or army aircrew. You're probably looking at £1,500 for the 3 day theory course, at the end of which you have to take an examination. Then the bit I found the most difficult, you have to write your own operations manual. It should reflect how YOU are going to operate. Do not copy someone else's operations manual, or it will be rejected! It will have to be about 50 pages long. They will show you an example of what is expected in your operations manual when you take the course. After the theory course and writing your ops manual, you will have to take a flight planning and practical flight test. This is probably the most fun part of the course because you actually do some flying! The way RUSTA do it is, they give you a fictitious job and you have to plan, do a risk assessment and do the task that they have selected for you.You have to operate according to YOUR operations manual. You will have to demonstrate that you can fly and control your aircraft without GPS. So if you fly something like a Mavic Pro, you're going to have to use something else. The guy that took my planning and practical flight test was a current army helicopter pilot. So, you pass the theory course, write your own ops manual and hopefully pass the flight planning and practical flight test. The whole thing took about 3 months for me from start to finish. If you successfully pass the 3 elements, whoever you choose to train with will recommend you to the CAA for a permission for commercial operations (PFCO).

There are a lot of people doing this now. Unless you already have customers lined up and ready to go, I wouldn't bother. There are plenty of illegal operators that will undercut you at every opportunity and the authorities are not really that bothered about that sort of thing. The CAA have handed day to day UAS matters over to the police, and they don't even bother to turn up at your house if you get burgled anymore. You just get a crime number over the phone and told to contact your insurance company! So do you think they are going to be bothered chasing illegal UAS operators? Also, the constraints of the standard permission are pretty limiting. With planning, most difficulties can be overcome but believe me, it's a lot of work and a hard slog if you're doing it on your own. The biggest constraint is the 50 metre rule. You have to operate at least 50 metres away from all persons, buildings, vessels, structures and livestock that are not under your control. So if you're thinking of doing house roof inspections or property related matters, then just think, you will have to get permission of all the properties that are within 50 metres of where you intend to work. There is something called the dome rule that may let you operate closer if you're at a certain altitude but you get my drift, you'll spend most of your time trying to get permission to work from people that aren't anything to do with the job you intend to do and there's always one that will say no! I get it,the CAA are erring on the side of safety but really are drones really that dangerous, I mean really? Are drones falling out of the sky every day killing and injuring thousands of people? No. Has any one actually been killed by a drone anywhere in the world? No, as far as I am aware. And yet various aviation authorities around the world are regulating drones out of existence. And the CAA have jumped on this bandwagon, listening to over hyped media reports. I get it, I really do, flying a drone near manned aviation is a dangerous thing to do and there is the potential for something very bad to happen but geo-fencing has to the largest extent put a stop to this. So why even more regulations?

If you've got really high-end equipment, maybe thermo cameras and intend to specialise, you might have a chance. Lot's of big industries now employ their own UAS pilots, industries such as utilities or forestry. So if you go looking for work there, it'll probably be a no. It's not just the flying equipment you'll have to buy and learn to use either. You're going to have to learn to edit video, colour grade and there are plenty of video production companies out there that use UAS as part of their toolbox, that'll be able to do that a lot better than you or me! I don't want to put you off, but it's more work and expense than you've ever imagined. If you've really got your heart set on it, then go for it but most people that attain a PFCO don't renew it after their first year. I will probably not bother to renew mine when it next expires, there's just not enough work for the little guy out there.

 

[AH-1G]

 

[FlushVision]

I use RUSTA Rusta UAS they do occasonal courses in your area,

I did my course with Rusta in Blackpool. I recommend them.

 

[FlushVision]

Yep. It's that bad in the U.K. So tough for the little guy that most don't bother to renew for a second year.

 

[AH-1G]

Here in the great and wonderful USA, we have rules and regulations for drones but don't enforce them.

 

[OnTheRopes]

Here in the great and wonderful USA, we have rules and regulations for drones but don't enforce them.

No different to the UK then

 

[PatR]

No different to the UK then [emoji35]

But we have a far greater number of people breaking the unenforced rules. When we consider the FAA has established we have over 100,000 licensed 107 operators we have to consider that for every legal commercial operator there are 10 operating illegally, and that does not factor in the group that refused to register themselves in the system, or those that own a given business who buy a drone for use in augmenting their advertising.

Best way I know to go broke is ti start a small drone business and spend lots of time and money promoting it with the intent to make money. For most the one thing that won’t happen is make money. They’ll spend $1,000.00 for every dollar earned. Those that appear to be making money likely have an associated business that finances their drone operations with plenty left over to carry them.

For those that feel they just have to do this I’ll suggest they become extremely good at doing one thing extremely well and locate businesses that could take maximum advantage of what you do. If you find one that will sign you up, kiss a lot of butt as professionally as possible to maintain as much repeat business as possible.

 

[Ren57]

But we have a far greater number of people breaking the unenforced rules. When we consider the FAA has established we have over 100,000 licensed 107 operators we have to consider that for every legal commercial operator there are 10 operating illegally, and that does not factor in the group that refused to register themselves in the system, or those that own a given business who buy a drone for use in augmenting their advertising.

Best way I know to go broke is ti start a small drone business and spend lots of time and money promoting it with the intent to make money. For most the one thing that won’t happen is make money. They’ll spend $1,000.00 for every dollar earned. Those that appear to be making money likely have an associated business that finances their drone operations with plenty left over to carry them.

For those that feel they just have to do this I’ll suggest they become extremely good at doing one thing extremely well and locate businesses that could take maximum advantage of what you do. If you find one that will sign you up, kiss a lot of butt as professionally as possible to maintain as much repeat business as possible.

When I was taking my PFCO theory course (that's the equivalent of your part 107) by far the majority of people on course were from video production companies. Using a drone for them, is just one more tool to add to their box. They have a variety of staff that can do the leg work for you, like getting permission from people and businesses that fall within the 50 metre rule. Meaning, the PIC just has to turn up and fly the drone, get the shots and go home. Then other technicians edit the video and colour grade it, using equipment I can but dream about. One guy was showing me a piece he had done at a music festival, where ground based video had been seamlessly edited together with the drone video. With the music and everything, it was very professional and I sort of knew there and then that I could never hope to compete with the likes of these guys. But I had already paid my money and was there, so I thought I might as well go through with it. I enjoyed the course and the other people on the course were great people. But ultimately, all I've really got out of it is a much better awareness of the 'perceived' dangers involved with flying a drone. Which (I think) have been massively over estimated by aviation authorities and hyped to death by the media.... Hey ho......!

 

[PatR]

Here in the U.S. the precursor regulation that led to the development of Part 107 was the Part 333. As the FAA had made it clear operation of drones for commercial purposes was not permissible, several (I believe 6) professional drone companies that were already doing work for large cinema and energy firms banded together and obtained attorneys familiar with the FAA regulatory process to develop operational manuals for presentation to the FAA with the intent to force allowance of their operations through regulatory compliance. The cost for each company to do this was extravagant as each piece of equipment employed was required to possess its own use, service, and design documentation, and each had to be approved by the FAA for use.

After a few very expensive years of effort, during which those companies continued to operate but did so outside of the U.S., they were slowly granted individual 333 waivers. One interesting requirement was that the individual granted a 333 waiver also had to be a licensed full scale pilot, along with a requirement to obtain a CoA in many situations. A CoA is extremely time consuming to obtain and costs much in documentation development.

From that point forward people began complaining rather loudly about the commercial qualification process along with the time and expense involved, which brought about the Part 107 NPRM, which took another couple years to pass. During this time those first 333 recipients built a considerable “home field advantage” in securing high dollar cinema work, an advantage they still maintain today.

 

[AH-1G]

Yep, right on PatR. This is a poor mans business that will only bring in cracker crumbs rather than dough.

 

[PatR]

There are times when being involved in early process experiences well enough to recall them instead of researching them kind of sucks. It lays a “first hand” foundation for what you know will later come. The whole thing is running like a basic physics experiment where an object in motion will continue in motion unless something deflects or hinders it. Thus far nothing has deflected the ball that started rolling in 2007.

 

[Ren57]

I would kind of echo what Flushvision said, I renewed my PfCO in May having had my Ops manual rejected three times (It was okay a year ago). It is a lot of expense and hassle if you are not going to

Ha! They rejecting mine 3 times when I renewed it this year...... because 1 word was wrong!

 

[AH-1G]

It would be interesting to know, if the people who give out these exams (written and flying skills) are able to pass them, "themselves".

 

[FlushVision]

Ha! They rejecting mine 3 times when I renewed it this year...... because 1 word was wrong!

In previous years my Ops Manual has passed first time. It looks like they are getting tougher on them now.

 

[FlushVision]

It would be interesting to know, if the people who give out these exams (written and flying skills) are able to pass them, "themselves".

Well, the training body that I went with (RUSTA) is run by current and ex RAF personnel so they would definitely be able to pass the exams. Not sure about other training organisations but I'm sure that in some cases they could well have difficulty.

 

[Ren57]

It would be interesting to know, if the people who give out these exams (written and flying skills) are able to pass them, "themselves".

Indeed. I couldn't possibly comment about other training organisations but RUSTA are all ex/current RAF or ex/current ARMY flying personnel. You could tell immediately upon starting the training, that they know what they are talking about. Other organisations, (I have heard) are just in it for the money. Although they are all supposedly assessed to make sure they are teaching at a required standard. How well this is policed, I really don't know......

What I really find irksome, is the CAA (our equivalent to your FAA) rejected my operations manual because one word was incorrect. As new regulations become operational, you have to update your operations manual accordingly. There had been some minor changes to the Mandatory Incident Reporting Portal, which I hadn't realised would need updating. When I did update it one word was sort of out of context.... Yes, the CAA do seem to be getting tougher on the content of operations manuals. I feel the whole industry is getting bogged down in red-tape and regulation. At least the CAA have now started to actually inform PFCO holders of upcoming changes that may be required in OPs manuals. But it's just another reason to not bother next time around. It should be a lot easier than this if you've actually bothered to take professional training, taken a lot of time and spent a not inconsiderable amount of money attaining the required qualification. I get it, regulations and stuff will change/ be updated over time but why can't the CAA simply inform us of the changes, job done. But no, we've got to write a whole chapter about it and reflect it in our OPs manuals. What!

 

[PatR]

The CAA seems to closely follow our original 333 process, where everything had to be documented, reviewed, and approved by our FAA. In a way some of our 333 process wax worse as it allowed public comment in some areas. Full scale commercial pilots, commercial unions, and a few individuals were extremely negative with every application submitted. Muddied the water more than anything else. However, our 333 process permitted those awarded one a lot of latitude to apply for waivers to operate under some pretty difficult conditions and permitted them to operate at a higher general altitude than later 107 operators.

The implementation of Part 107 greatly simplified the process and does not require a documentation package, but does suggest developing one. In time we should expect documentation to become mandatory instead of optional. When that happens it will be interesting to see how demanding they become.