A Crow flirts with my drone at 400'

[LoudThunder]

It's illegal in the UK to exceed 400ft regardless.

I have not yet found the UK Law or Statue that governs the max height in the event of an emergency, but I find this very interesting, in the UK the "published" max altitude is 120-meters, 400-feet, however this paragraph is published on the official United Kingdom's Civil Aviation Authority Handbook, "The Drone and Model Aircraft Code Booklet.

https://register-drones.caa.co.uk/drone-code/the_drone_code.pdf

Quote…
If the person or organization responsible for a very tall structure
over 105m asks you to carry out a task related to their structure,
you’re allowed to fly higher than 120m (400ft). For example, if
they ask you to take pictures for a survey.
You must never fly more than 15m above the structure.
Your drone or model aircraft must be within 50m of the
structure horizontally when flying over 120m (400ft).
End of Quote…

So, if I owned the Emley Moor transmitter (330 metes) in West Yorkshire, a very tall radio or TV transmission tower and I need photos of it, I have the authority to grant the drone pilot permission to fly to 345-meters (1,130-feet…), it's all perfectly legal…

Therefore; I find it very suspicious that if an emergency arose where a drone might very well be in the path of a low flying aircraft, like a crop duster, I would already have pre-decided to climb rather than drop lower possibly into the path of the plane; remember, the pilot is staring very intently at the ground and not overhead…

I've looked pretty intensively for the actual Law or Statue that governs the flying of drones in the UK and all I can find are brochures, publications, and web pages, not one reference to the statue that governs the altitude.

When I was a little kid, my mother taught me that it was "illegal" to kill a "Praying Mantis" bug. And over the years, I've heard from other folk, all over the country that this seems to have been a "mother's go to phrase…" rather than just telling us that a Praying Mantis is a good bug and don't kill it…

It makes me think the UKCAA is acting very much like a mother… L L…

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

So, if I owned the Emley Moor transmitter (330 metes) in West Yorkshire, a very tall radio or TV transmission tower and I need photos of it, I have the authority to grant the drone pilot permission to fly to 345-meters (1,130-feet…), it's all perfectly legal…

I wonder if the idea behind that rule might be that such isolated 'buildings' are legally oblidged to have flashing beacons fitted that are visible to aircraft pilots as a warning ( I recollect they are ) and probably 'registered' with the CAA. High rise cranes etc. might also have to have flashing beacons fitted.
Extending that idea might there be exclusion zones around and perhaps above such structures intended to keep manned aircraft away from them.

 

[LoudThunder]

I wonder if the idea behind that rule might be . . .

The way the rule is written it says " a very tall structure" so it also applies to buildings. Here is the US, any structure that exceeds 200 feet above ground level generally needs to be marked (lighted) according to FAA/ICAO Regulations. And that handbook only specifies that the pilot has to be asked to perform a task, like, "Hey shoot a photo of the bird's nest up there…" Well that's not very formal at all…

Here in the US, we have two classes of Drone Pilots, Recreational Pilots who fly for fun and Part 107 Licensed Pilots who fly for commercial purposes, I have my Part 107 license and I had to take an expensive examination ($175.00) on the rules and laws governing the operation of Drones.

Once you have the Part 107, you can use it to fly for fun too, and the license opens the door for us to fly up to 400' over any structure and we can start the climb when we are still 400' away from the structure. Now, depending on the class of airspace we are in we might need to get an authorization from the FAA so they can ensure we do it according to the rules and that we notify appropriate authorities when necessary…

For example, I am hired to take a photo of the top of the tallest building the US, One World Trade Center, in NYC, at almost 1,800', I could legally fly my drone up to 2,200' to shoot that photo… Now, I am not sure how that works out with the "Must Maintain Line Of Sight…" that's a long ways away…

But contrary to some folks, even with my part 107 license, if I am fling over level ground and there is no obstetrical, I am still limited to a maximum of 400' AGL, just like the Recreational Flyers.

Now, if a Part 107 Pilot wants to fly above the 400' AGL limitation, they would submit a Waiver to the FAA to fly higher and maybe an Authorizations if it's in controlled airspace. For example, I have a job to photograph the approaches to an airport from 500', I would need a Waiver to exceed 400' and an Authorization to fly in that controlled airspace.

So, did you actually find where the Statues are actually written in stone at the old bailey, or is it all the handbook (which by the way has no legal authority, it is really only for information purposes…).

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

The way the rule is written it says " a very tall structure" so it also applies to buildings. Here is the US, any structure that exceeds 200 feet above ground level generally needs to be marked (lighted) according to FAA/ICAO Regulations. And that handbook only specifies that the pilot has to be asked.......

So, did you actually find where the Statues are actually written in stone at the old bailey, or is it all the handbook (which by the way has no legal authority, it is really only for information purposes…).

My post was my speculation about the reasoning behind the rule that you cited, I myself know nothing of the rule, sorry about that.

 

[Felix le Chat]

I have not yet found the UK Law or Statue that governs the max height in the event of an emergency, but I find this very interesting, in the UK the "published" max altitude is 120-meters, 400-feet, however this paragraph is published on the official United Kingdom's Civil Aviation Authority Handbook, "The Drone and Model Aircraft Code Booklet.

https://register-drones.caa.co.uk/drone-code/the_drone_code.pdf

Quote…
If the person or organization responsible for a very tall structure
over 105m asks you to carry out a task related to their structure,
you’re allowed to fly higher than 120m (400ft). For example, if
they ask you to take pictures for a survey.
You must never fly more than 15m above the structure.
Your drone or model aircraft must be within 50m of the
structure horizontally when flying over 120m (400ft).
End of Quote…

So, if I owned the Emley Moor transmitter (330 metes) in West Yorkshire, a very tall radio or TV transmission tower and I need photos of it, I have the authority to grant the drone pilot permission to fly to 345-meters (1,130-feet…), it's all perfectly legal…

Therefore; I find it very suspicious that if an emergency arose where a drone might very well be in the path of a low flying aircraft, like a crop duster, I would already have pre-decided to climb rather than drop lower possibly into the path of the plane; remember, the pilot is staring very intently at the ground and not overhead…

I've looked pretty intensively for the actual Law or Statue that governs the flying of drones in the UK and all I can find are brochures, publications, and web pages, not one reference to the statue that governs the altitude.

When I was a little kid, my mother taught me that it was "illegal" to kill a "Praying Mantis" bug. And over the years, I've heard from other folk, all over the country that this seems to have been a "mother's go to phrase…" rather than just telling us that a Praying Mantis is a good bug and don't kill it…

It makes me think the UKCAA is acting very much like a mother… L L…

It's only just occurred to me... In a left-handed way, I think that this CAA drone regulation quote concerning overflight of tall structures answers another knotty question.... The one concerning the minimum height a drone can be flown OVER a privately owned built structure without impinging on the owners airspace 'property'.... it looks like the CAA interprets curtilage limits at 15 metres, or 49 feet in old money.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

The one concerning the minimum height a drone can be flown OVER a privately owned built structure without impinging on the owners airspace 'property'.

If someone was flying a drone 15m above your house without you permission what would you be thinking? Where's the Old Bill or the pressure washer etc. perhaps?
I think the pivot would be wide open to invasion of privacy allegations and a lot of scrutiny?

I would be very surprised if you deduction is correct, I think it is much likely that the thinking behind that is keeping the drone well below manned aircraft, even rogue ones.

 

[LoudThunder]

I have to agree with @Yorkshire_Pud 's assessment. In the US , with our more liberal 400' freedom over an obstruction could very likely put us into the air space a lot of private aircraft fly at… Limiting you to 15-meters is a clearer safety margin.