Employers wants to use footage

[choo choo]

That's not a fact, it's you thinking aloud.
As pointed out in post #33, the CAA has said (what needs to be taken into consideration.

On their website, the CAA does say in relation to determining whether a flight is commercial or not ...
The essential question that needs to be asked is “what is the purpose of the (specific) flight?” i.e."If I were not receiving payment/valuable consideration, would I still be looking to fly?"

Cymruflyer is confusing the private pilots prosecution under an entirely different regulation.
I suspect there’s a lot more to that story.
A private pilot is not allowed to carry passengers for hire or reward. In exactly the same way that I’m not allowed to carry passengers in my car for hire or reward without the appropriate licence and insurance. If I did and let’s say the person came up to me several months later and says “hey Brian, thanks for flying/driving me over to France, I really appreciate the favour, let’s have a meal, I’m buying’.
Now that doesn’t retrospectively make the flight/drive illegal because no verbal contract was explicit or entered into at the time. We all have heard of stories like this which become a sort of urban legend with the re-telling and passage of time.

 

[Cymruflyer]

That's not a fact, it's you thinking aloud.
As pointed out in post #33, the CAA has said (what needs to be taken into consideration.

On their website, the CAA does say in relation to determining whether a flight is commercial or not ...
The essential question that needs to be asked is “what is the purpose of the (specific) flight?” i.e."If I were not receiving payment/valuable consideration, would I still be looking to fly?"

No it is not me thinking aloud at all, it is referring to what the CAA has done in the past. Please tell me why the guy that went for a recreational flight to France with a friend, was at a later date, prosecuted for doing a commercial flight as a PPL? If you can explain that one I'll be happy.

The intended purpose of the flight was pleasure, at the time of his flight, but the fact is, and I repeat "Fact", not me thinking aloud, that the CAA did prosecute someone who, at the time of the flight, was conducting in his mind, a non commercial pleasure flight. I can read what the CAA are saying in your quoted section above, I don't dispute that.

 

[Cymruflyer]

Cymruflyer is confusing the private pilots prosecution under an entirely different regulation.
I suspect there’s a lot more to that story.
A private pilot is not allowed to carry passengers for hire or reward. In exactly the same way that I’m not allowed to carry passengers in my car for hire or reward without the appropriate licence and insurance. If I did and let’s say the person came up to me several months later and says “hey Brian, thanks for flying/driving me over to France, I really appreciate the favour, let’s have a meal, I’m buying’.
Now that doesn’t retrospectively make the flight/drive illegal because no verbal contract was explicit or entered into at the time. We all have heard of stories like this which become a sort of urban legend with the re-telling and passage of time.

What regulation would that be, that you speak of please? I can not say if there are different regulations that pertain to taking a drink or diner for a flight, as reward, or for taking a photo and later someone buying that image from you, as reward. I also don't know if the CAA have a time frame they apply to such things, to determine if it is something they wish to take up or not. I'm sure there are plenty of urban legends out there regarding flying, however, the case I am speaking of is not an urban legend.

 

[Meta4]

Please tell me why the guy that went for a recreational flight to France with a friend, was at a later date, prosecuted for doing a commercial flight as a PPL? If you can explain that one I'll be happy.

I think it sounds very unlikely but if it really did happen as you say, I would expect it was either a strange case of a CAA officer overstepping his authority or there is more to the story than we have heard.
Making a contribution to share costs on a recreational flight is not the same thing as flying for hire or reward.
And to take that further and suggest buying a meal or a drink for the in appreciation, is commercial flight is just plain preposterous.

 

[Cymruflyer]

I think it sounds very unlikely but if it really did happen as you say, I would expect it was either a strange case of a CAA officer overstepping his authority or there is more to the story than we have heard.
Making a contribution to share costs on a recreational flight is not the same thing as flying for hire or reward.
And to take that further and suggest buying a meal or a drink for the in appreciation, is commercial flight is just plain preposterous.

It was printed in one of the UK flying magazines many years ago and did happen. Yes it does sound preposterous and seems a ludicrous rule but it does exist in the UK and the US. Technically a pilot is not allowed to accept money for fuel towards, or for the full amount of the flight from their passenger, despite the fact that is happens all the time. No one is disputing how stupid the rule/law is, or the fact that people do it all the time, the point is to be aware that such a thing exists and to be careful about it, that is all. At our flying club in the UK, we were all stunned at the time, when we saw the report about the incident because it was common practice of sharing flying costs. The article did not delve into whether there was a back story to it, they only reported on the facts.

 

[choo choo]

What regulation would that be, that you speak of please? I can not say if there are different regulations that pertain to taking a drink or diner for a flight, as reward, or for taking a photo and later someone buying that image from you, as reward. I also don't know if the CAA have a time frame they apply to such things, to determine if it is something they wish to take up or not. I'm sure there are plenty of urban legends out there regarding flying, however, the case I am speaking of is not an urban legend.

Regulation 6 & 21 of the air navigation order and insurance regulations. The only parts pertaining to drones are 2, 91, 92, 94, 95, 239, 241 and 257 (this is specified in article 23 of the ANO).

 

[Ren57]

The much bigger slap in the face for those that paid so much to obtain their PFCO is that the CAA does nothing about the very large number of flyers blatantly engaging in commercial activity.

Agreed. In fact the CAA have handed day to day matters of this type over to the police to investigate, so even worse then!

That's just fanciful and isn't going to happen at all.
The CAA aren't the aerial photography police and they can't can't someone because the person that flew the aerial video they bought, did something wrong.
It's the flying that matters and the only person they can take action against is the one that did the flying.

I have contacted the CAA directly for clarification on this matter. We will see if they even bother to send me a reply.

 

[choo choo]

Agreed. In fact the CAA have handed day to day matters of this type over to the police to investigate, so even worse then!


I have contacted the CAA directly for clarification on this matter. We will see if they even bother to send me a reply.

That’ll be interesting to see the response.
I’m out on Thursday with 2 amateur photographers to record some old Victorian buildings before they are demolished in November. They have some historical, interest as some of the last remaining buildings of their type , (I haven’t a clue about them). They have invited me along this time with my drone (last time I went along with them with a still camera) to enable some images to be shot from an aerial perspective to gain an overview of the general settings that these buildings are in. The buildings are in a very remote rural area surrounded by fields and I have permission from the landowner to take off from his field nearby.
Now I have agonised over whether this is a commercial flight or hobby flight. I’m sure it falls into the hobby flight.
No money has changed hands, it’s purely voluntary, in my own time, with 2 blokes whom I became friends with a number of years ago, who are interested in photographing these old buildings. I’ve scouted the area, found the safe place to fly to and from, made sure there are no restrictions, checked the weather, gained permission from the buildings owner and then the land owner, made a flight plan and identified an alternative landing area in case of emergency or anyone comes along and strays into where we will taking off from (unlikely because they are in the middle of nowhere, but you never know). Is there anything more I can do as a responsible drone operator.
Or I could have just rocked up, got the MP out and flown it without thinking of the consequences.

 

[Cymruflyer]

Regulation 6 & 21 of the air navigation order and insurance regulations. The only parts pertaining to drones are 2, 91, 92, 94, 95, 239, 241 and 257 (this is specified in article 23 of the ANO).

Thanks, it will be interesting to hear what the CAA have to say on the matter.

 

[Ren57]

Now I have agonised over whether this is a commercial flight or hobby flight. I’m sure it falls into the hobby flight.
No money has changed hands, it’s purely voluntary, in my own time, with 2 blokes whom I became friends with a number of years ago, who are interested in photographing these old buildings. I’ve scouted the area, found the safe place to fly to and from, made sure there are no restrictions, checked the weather, gained permission from the buildings owner and then the land owner, made a flight plan and identified an alternative landing area in case of emergency or anyone comes along and strays into where we will taking off from (unlikely because they are in the middle of nowhere, but you never know). Is there anything more I can do as a responsible drone operator.
Or I could have just rocked up, got the MP out and flown it without thinking of the consequences.

You've done it all by the book. You won't be flying in a congested area, the people who are there and the buildings are under your control. You've got permission from the landowner and have an emergency landing site. No money is changing hands. I'd say, you can't do any more than that. Just the weather on the actual day of the operation to consider and you're good to go...! Make sure you keep all of your logs and records. The last thing you write in your post flight log is..... "Flight completed safely, without incident"

 

[choo choo]

You've done it all by the book. You won't be flying in a congested area, the people who are there and the buildings are under your control. You've got permission from the landowner and have an emergency landing site. No money is changing hands. I'd say, you can't do any more than that. Just the weather on the actual day of the operation to consider and you're good to go...! Make sure you keep all of your logs and records. The last thing you write in your post flight log is..... "Flight completed safely, without incident"

Many thanks for your input. Especially the last bit for my flight log. Much appreciated. Fly safe my friend. Regards Brian

 

[choo choo]

Thanks, it will be interesting to hear what the CAA have to say on the matter.

I agree. Take care my friend and fly safe, it’s been a fabulous discussion with you, it would have been much nicer with you over a beer.
Many thanks for joining in and your invaluable input, for sticking your head above the parapet, and by doing so, gave us all a great discussion.
Best wishes from Brian in North Yorkshire (UK)

 

[Cymruflyer]

I agree. Take care my friend and fly safe, it’s been a fabulous discussion with you, it would have been much nicer with you over a beer.
Many thanks for joining in and your invaluable input, for sticking your head above the parapet, and by doing so, gave us all a great discussion.
Best wishes from Brian in North Yorkshire (UK)

Ahhh, nice bit of country you live in Brian. When we were back home for a visit to Wales about 7 years ago, we took 4 days to run around your area, staying in York as a base and doing day trips each day, before driving back down to Wales.

 

[sbishop1488]

Just give them the footage and let them use it how they want, breaking zero laws. The benefit to you is seeing your footage in the final promotional video and it can’t do you any harm with your employers, of course once you get your licence and they actually ask for something, then discuss costs.

 

[ac0j]

I dont care what country it happens in. It is a sad thing that they consider a hobbyist "commercial". Its one thing if they do it every day and advertise services. Then its commercial for sure. For a guy that MIGHT sell 5-10 photos a year as a RESULT of a hobby flight to have to worry is stupid.
and what makes them believe that just because someone has met the "requirements" to do commercial flights with their flying toy will fly any differently that a safety minded hobbyist? I have seen a thread or two posted by Part107's that were VERY questionable. The Parade guy I think said he was part 107. Yet he still flew within 50 feet of the end of an active runway. A lot of 107's recommend flying into parks with restrictions from an adjacent property.

 

[choo choo]

Ahhh, nice bit of country you live in Brian. When we were back home for a visit to Wales about 7 years ago, we took 4 days to run around your area, staying in York as a base and doing day trips each day, before driving back down to Wales.

Thank you. I live just outside of the ancient Viking city of York.

 

[choo choo]

I dont care what country it happens in. It is a sad thing that they consider a hobbyist "commercial". Its one thing if they do it every day and advertise services. Then its commercial for sure. For a guy that MIGHT sell 5-10 photos a year as a RESULT of a hobby flight to have to worry is stupid.
and what makes them believe that just because someone has met the "requirements" to do commercial flights with their flying toy will fly any differently that a safety minded hobbyist? I have seen a thread or two posted by Part107's that were VERY questionable. The Parade guy I think said he was part 107. Yet he still flew within 50 feet of the end of an active runway. A lot of 107's recommend flying into parks with restrictions from an adjacent property.

What you say is true, just look at how many fully qualified drivers on the roads that have accidents. Strange,y enough, the worst drivers seem to be so called professional drivers.
However, having said that, if we extrapolate driving into flying and have a completely unregulated, unlicensed, unpoliced scenario, it will be carnage in the air as the ownership of drones grows exponentially.
So the FAA/CAA have to do something.
Can you imagine the outcry when (not if) an airliner crashes onto, say downtown LA, on its critical take off because a drone went into the engine and smashed those delicate engine turbine blades spinning at many thousands of rpm.
I have been looking through the archives at the list of CAA prosecutions over the last almost 20 years. It amazed me, reading them,at just how stupid even licensed pilots can be. The one theme that has developed is they were all traceable for prosecution through their registration, (so you can see what the next step will be)....except for one.
And that was a home made drone found floating in the sea off the coast in the U.K.
When the memory card was recovered, they saw video of the drone flying too low over a built up area, tracked down the take off point, found and prosecuted the pilot.

 

[ac0j]

What you say is true, just look at how many fully qualified drivers on the roads that have accidents. Strange,y enough, the worst drivers seem to be so called professional drivers.
However, having said that, if we extrapolate driving into flying and have a completely unregulated, unlicensed, unpoliced scenario, it will be carnage in the air as the ownership of drones grows exponentially.
So the FAA/CAA have to do something.
Can you imagine the outcry when (not if) an airliner crashes onto, say downtown LA, on its critical take off because a drone went into the engine and smashed those delicate engine turbine blades spinning at many thousands of rpm.
I have been looking through the archives at the list of CAA prosecutions over the last almost 20 years. It amazed me, reading them,at just how stupid even licensed pilots can be. The one theme that has developed is they were all traceable for prosecution through their registration, (so you can see what the next step will be)....except for one.
And that was a home made drone found floating in the sea off the coast in the U.K.
When the memory card was recovered, they saw video of the drone flying too low over a built up area, tracked down the take off point, found and prosecuted the pilot.

Turbine blades are not that delicate. They are at least 100 times stronger than the 10" blade on my table saw, that would not miss a beat ripping through a drone made mostly of plastic,save for the motors, and a couple small heat sinks.
I am ALL FOR finding the drone pilots that are doing dumb things and laying down HEAVY penalties. Making people agree to rules wont keep the criminals from doing the crimes. The only ones that are limited by regulations are the ones who dont need them.

 

[choo choo]

Turbine blades are not that delicate. They are at least 100 times stronger than the 10" blade on my table saw, that would not miss a beat ripping through a drone made mostly of plastic,save for the motors, and a couple small heat sinks.
I am ALL FOR finding the drone pilots that are doing dumb things and laying down HEAVY penalties. Making people agree to rules wont keep the criminals from doing the crimes. The only ones that are limited by regulations are the ones who dont need them.

That is very true.
Again, using a driving analogy, can you imagine the carnage on the roads if we didn’t have some sort of test and licence scheme, if anyone could just jump behind the wheel and take to the roads? You only have to look at the death toll in some of the less developed nations where the driving test is rudimentary at best, non existent at worst.
It won’t stop the criminal element, but the average joe will be trained to drive and become socially responsible.
As individuals we owe it to every one as a nation and society to act safely and responsibly, when we don’t, the authorities,on behalf of the nation and society,will act.
It’s a fine line they tread between laws to protect society from itself, laws to protect commerce and draconian laws.

 

[ac0j]

If you elect people to a position described as “law makers” they will diligently make new laws. Whether you need them or not.