CAA New Rules - Congested Areas Operating Safety Case (CAOSC)

[Asomaro]

The CAA have issued their New rules for the UK: Congested Areas Operating Safety Case (CAOSC) - check this blog out for more info:
http://dronelaw.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/new-rules-for-uk-congested-areas.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+DronesTheLaw+(drones+and+the+law)

[Heliotrope]

Thanks for the post, I appreciate it although Coyote may have your guts for garters :o :laugh:

[Asomaro]

Thanks for the post, I appreciate it although Coyote may have your guts for garters :o :laugh:

lol - nah he knows I'm as mad as a hatter so he'll hopefully let me off

[Coyote]

If there is a change in the rules then it needs to be posted up so we all know :)

Lets try to discuss this "new development" without getting heated or making it personal. If it does not the original post will stand alone locked for reference

[Loopdreams]

This is a change to the way you get permissions to fly in the sorts of places where you can never fly anyway unless you've done the BNUC-S stuff, right?  Or in other words it's mostly for the concern of commercial operators?

[Coyote]

From what I read ................

The guys that were doing it correctly in the first place now need more paperwork and permissions and pay out more for the right to do it...........

The guys that do what they want regardless or the rules will still do what they want regardless of the rules.

So this in effect will be penalizing the legitimate guys for doing nothing wrong ?

Unless I missed the whole point

[electrotor]

The CAOSC would appear to mainly affect those who are flying commercially because those flyers are more likely to be carrying out aerial work in congested areas. All weights are now covered rather than just 7-20kg as suggested before. I guess this is because smaller and lighter aircraft now have the capability that used to be available only to the heavier machines.

I have never been happy that the CAA does not define surveillance. It is more common to use this word to describe the activities of armed forces, state agencies, etc for the purposes of military or security activities. It was one of the things which mali67 was done for. The CAA does not appear to differentiate between aerial photography and surveillance.

Bottom line for most of us is to stick to the guidlines. Do that and you are considered to be taking the necessary precautions for safe operation.
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1995&pageid=16012

[electrotor]

Coyote, I think this section of the linked blog sums it up quite well.

Why is the CAA doing this? They think (and I agree) that we need a higher threshold to safeguard the public in congested areas. This is driven by the recent boom in the industry over the last 12 months or so (here), including use of buy and play drones by reckless so called "hobbyists". I also think this is a canny move by the CAA - it has limited resources and is under pressure to safely process the spike in demand to fly in congested areas. This move allows them to implement higher standards, giving them the comfort to issue more permanent permissions to trusted operators. I hope this will free up some resource at the CAA to prosecute rogue pilots more aggressively and build its communication programme (regulators need teeth and ignorance of the law is no excuse).

I don't think it is penalising licenced operators.

[Coyote]

I know what you mean Eric, it does seem like a good move. But for me the licensed registered operators that have took the exams and paid their dues all seem to fly with a very high standard and with safety paramount as part of their flight plans. For them flying responsibly is now going to cost more money and more red tape to please the authorities.

I can not see any of it effecting the "reckless so called ""hobbyists"" because they do not know of / aware of / care about any of these implementations so the numbers of those still carrying out those flights will not drop but rise as they have been.   

[Loopdreams]

I think it means that commercial operators don't need to get permissions on a case by case basis, they can do their own assessments.  It's less burdensome, not more.

[Coyote]

If that`s the case ( like I say I might be reading it wrong ) then that`s great for them.

[Billy_boy_2010]

This is a change to the way you get permissions to fly in the sorts of places where you can never fly anyway unless you've done the BNUC-S stuff, right?  Or in other words it's mostly for the concern of commercial operators?

That's how I see it.

We are still bound by the 50m distance rule, amongst others.

[Asomaro]

Still awaiting a reply from EUROUSC which is disappointing to say the least giver the impact of this notice

Why doesn't that surprise me........ hmmmm

[Heliotrope]

Well I still Have not heard back from Euro USC
I think we should all email them demanding they wake up and deal with this issue

Have you tried asking ARPAS? They're usually pretty switched on.

[MarkLincs]

Same as you guys it's murky at the moment

The CAA sprung it on everyone so now there trying to get there facts right.

But over 7kilos will need a the congested area stuff and air worthyness will be required and that's 1900 plus VAT.

I'm gratefully I have 2 under 7 kilos rule.