NOW the CAA give Airspace control to LANDOWNERS?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 лип 2024
- Following up on our live show from yesterday, we now have access to the original email thread. Sadly, the advice given gets even worse. Join Sean and Graham as they take a look and pose questions to the CAA. Watching the replay? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
________________________________________________________
⏩ Subscribe to Geeksvana for more content like this! Click here:
/ geeksvana
________________________________________________
📱 Follow Geeksvana on social media:
Twitter: / geeksvana
Instagram: / geeksvana
Facebook: / geeksvana
________________________________________________
📄 ABOUT GEEKSVANA:
Geeksvana is a UA-cam channel focused on drones, or as you might call them UAS, (Uncrewed Aerial Systems). We cover all types of drones from hobbyist to commercial, with a focus on drone rules and future flight. Primarily a news channel looking to bring our audience the latest news, leaks and information on the drone world - we also provide how to guides and reviews on products. Geeksvana is an independent source of news and guidance.
Sean Hickey, founder of Geeksvana and main channel presenter is a UK registered journalist who seeks to provide accurate information on what is an often misquoted and misrepresented industry and hobby. Sean currently holds certificates from the UK Civil Aviation Authority, including both the A2 Certificate of Competency (A2 CofC) and the General Visual Line of Sight Certificate (GVC). Flying all sizes of multirotor aircraft from the small DJI Mini 2 to larger aircraft including the DJI Inspire series for both hobby flights and commercial work.
________________________________________________
♣️ BECOME A MEMBER!
You can become a channel member and enjoy a range of benefits including custom emojis in live chat and comments. You can also join regular video meetups exclusively available to members. Find out how you can show your direct support of the Geeksvana channel from just 0.99p/c per month! Click here:
/ @geeksvana
________________________________________________
📹 GEEKSVANA STUDIOS
We work with clients to produce a range of high-quality video content for their own social media accounts. From training videos and internal support content to UA-cam content and live streaming events, Geeksvana Studios can provide a cost-effective solution. With studio space available we also have a team of male and female presenters available if required. Find out more here:
www.geeksvana.com.
________________________________________________
🛩️ DRONE SERVICES
Geeksvana Studios can also offer you a range of drone services. From data capture to videography or event coverage, we have a range of aircraft and A2 CofC and GVC qualified operators to complete the task. For more information, visit: www.geeksvana.com.
________________________________________________
📰 GOT A STORY?
Have a news story you would like to send us? Something you want to discuss? Email sean@geeksvana.com
________________________________________________
©️ Geeksvana 2022. This content is subject to copyright and represents original work. No permission to copy, rebroadcast or otherwise distribute is provided. For more please visit: www.geeksvana.com - Наука та технологія
It's like a rollercoaster of answers from them. Will be very interested to see if we find out who the person was that answered that email thread.
I really think that the CAA should release that information. Perhaps not the person's name but definitely their position and qualifications.
The trouble being as i was a licenced aircraft engineer for40yrs,the dear old caa just make things so complicated, with rules and sub-rules,and at the end of the day they even lose the thread..they never ever kept things simple
The subject on getting permission from landowners with regards to trespass is interesting. As well as flying drones, i go wild camping. Technically, this is illegal in England without permission but it is perfectly legal in Scotland. Thankfully i live close to the Scottish border. In Scotland there is right to roam and a landowner would need a very good reason to stop you. If this also applies to drones, permission is assumed unless otherwise notified.
Disclosure: I was once a regulator for another sector.
Answer: Sometimes the "tech" guy in the team is away, and a junior firms a reply, which gets checked & approved by a non-texh senior. Then poor/wrong answers go out as public answers.
Also clarifications can change previous answers.
Either way, demand a review, and it being struct off the public website if the reply has been published.
Escalate, escalate, escalate. Then ask your MP, minister for transport etc.
If any answer is a policy change, it should be considered for public consultation. Given the public have asked about it, it definitely passes the test of requiring consultation.
I have dealt with the CAA for 25 years as a biz jet Captain ! They do not always get everything right depending on the person responding
Mate, this is absolutely shocking!!!! My biggest issue is how many people think the Drone Code is the guide for what's legal and what's not, which it absolutely isn't (although it should be!)
As it happens I approached the bridge master only last week. As the new owner of a sub 250g drone I was keen to get their direct thoughts on drone flights around the bridge.
Their initial response was no drones allowed as the bridge has a no fly zone around it. He stipulated it was a 100m - contrary to the 50m on their website. I gave up questioning at this point!!
He basically said any drones spotted near the bridge the police will be called.
To be fair he did say if the pilot approaches them first, makes them aware of what and where they will be flying, and keeps a safe distance from the bridge, they will be fine with it.
As a Bristol resident there is actually a Byelaw which restricts drones being taken off from parks & green spaces. (apart from 4 dedicated parks). I do find this a bit nuts as rather than finding a small quiet patch of open green space near the bridge to take off, I have to find a built-up area to take off.
FEDREAL Aviation's authority is KING they can't have any Law that controls Airspace as it is Federal property and under their control and no one can enforce any law that is contrary to the Aviation authority
Have you ever phoned the HMRC and have to phone again to get a complete different answer , all depends on who answers .....enough said here
A crowd was always previously considered "a assembly of 1000+ people who could not move away from a falling drone."
Public Consultation required !
This is not surprising. Suspect the CAA has had a revolving door season
The bridge authority is claiming legislation over the first 50metres around the bridge rather similar to landowners stopping walkers from walking over their land. Is a mass aerial trespass required to ensure legal access to the airspace?
Unbelievable, should be dismissed.
Everyone makes mistakes but this is there job.🤦
@@thedroningoflife *their job
I believe the official designation is required due to it being a “public body” and because under the Official Secrets Act it is about government policy needs to state if it restricted viewing.
Disclosure: I was once a regulator for another sector.
Answer: Sometimes the "tech" guy in the team is away, and a junior firms a reply, which gets checked & approved by a non-texh senior. Then poor/wrong answers go out as public answers.
Also clarifications can change previous answers.
Either way, demand a review, and it being struct off the public website if the reply has been published.
Escalate, escalate, escalate. Then ask your MP, minister for transport etc.
Great couple of tubes.
It's another one of those BRIDGE TOO FAR Films.
I expect the C AA staff feel they have better things to do than speak with the general public.. The emails were probably coming from a contractor working for the C AA who happened to be tasked with dealing with public...no protocol is really needed to be dealing with the public.. Collapse of the institutions a lot of the time they can have contempt for the public.. If you're not the credentialled class then you don't matter... sometimes break off communications wait a couple of weeks and reach out in a different way you will get a different answer... Anyway hopefully somebody from the CAA at a higher level will see this video🤣🤣🤣🤣
As a service delivery manager this is not at all surprising.
CAA are providing a service and it's crucial you anticipate how you provide things like information and clear, consistent advice before allowing anyone to provide an advisory service.
Failure to do this gives you a really good chance of reputational damage, litigation, and introducing danger and risk in the area it's responsibility is to protect.
You cannot let advisors loose on enquirers with anything short of watertight, defined and limited frameworks within which to communicate. The most natural thing in the world is for people in an advisory capacity to provide an opinion in the absence of training, knowledge and definition of their remit and role.
What I've seen a few times on this channel is the hallmarks of bodies like the CAA cobble together policies and procedures that leave me in no doubt that these basic principles are not understood or applied. For a legislative/regulatory body to have a free reign over how they implement policy, advise and communication is fairly typical but unfortunate for anyone finding themselves having to comply with the resulting ambiguity and seemingly casual attitude toward safety that is seen here.
CAA = Cancel All Aviation! 😂
@geeksvana my (fading) memory of crowds from when I did the GVC course was that it should be based upon how easy it is for the uninvolved persons to escape if something goes wrong.
E.g. 2 people in a confined space with limited exits could be considered a crowd, whilst 10 people on an empty beach might not.
Two questions; 1. Is my memory correct/do you agree with that assesment and 2, could this apply to a bridge given that options to escape may be limited by barriers, traffic etc.?
i'll let dj audits know😂
😂😂😂😂😂
The CAA should be very embarrassed about this person working for them. No chance in hell that cars moving along a bridge is considered a crowd.
Id be inclined to crack on and take the flight.
Omg your interview from years ago , that's the same bloke from the camera show that I spoke to .he seemed to just want to push sub 250
That fire alarm blasted through my headphones deafening my hearing. 😮
Funny enough I went to the Clifton Bridge last week to fly my Air 3 and take some video and pictures. I didn’t give a thought to check their website as I know I am OK as long I stay 50m laterally from it and don’t fly over it which wasn’t my intention.
It was too windy when I got there so didn’t fly anyway.
I've often wondered where these misconceptions come from in auditors facing this trash, I guess now I know.
Interestingly, at the end of the last episode of S2 of "The Outlaws" a no doubt very large camera drone flies directly under Bristol Suspension Bridge.
Edit - Yep ignore. It did it again a little later on. Just seemed funny that it happened at that exact point the first time I noticed it 😉
At 8:53 was the logo flashing on the screen deliberate as a joke to go along with what you were saying? 😉
No idea why I noticed it happen there and it may be that it does it at other times so if that's the case then please ignore!
more important is change of Govt and Lab intending to a more unification of standards ! Hopefully my Air 3 will go under C car allowing 5 metres in
slow mode below 5.7 mph
According to a local drone copper in Corsham where I live a crowd legally is classed as 500 people or more is this correct.
It was years ago, that is outdated legislation now. Check cap 722H
What time were those replies sent at? Because if they were sent after 5pm or at the weekend, then I suspect that the office cleaner found a computer on and wrote them! 🤦♂️
This is most likely someone in a junior position. As drones 'generally' don't pose a significant risk the CAA have probably thought that giving the job of answering the questions to someone without as much knowledge isn't too bad.
Of course it is bad if they're giving out incorrect information.
I only believe it may be someone junior due to the spelling mistake in one of the emails. Could have been a genuine slip but I'm getting a younger person vibe by the way the replies are worded anyway.
Not putting a person's name on an email I think is exceptionally unprofessional and I definitely wouldn't expect it from a body such as the CAA. I'm wondering if they're aware that emails are being sent out with literally no oversight? Hopefully all the emails are logged against who is working at the time though so they can figure out who sent what if required though. If not then that is a fairly worrying state of affairs.
I've had to point out section 4 a few times to people online who made the exact same mistake as this CAA bod.
My thinking is they are viewing the PDF and not checking 'over the fold' to the next page which is where the sub 250g information is located so they probably believe at that point that they've seen all the relevant information. For a person just online in a forum who is new to drones you can definitely give some leeway to but not someone from the CAA. They should know those rules back to front. The drone code is literally a piece of p##s (excuse the meaning of that last word! I'm sure most people will know what I'm getting at) and easy for even an 11 year old to understand.
If you can't pass the Flyer ID with 100% as an adult then you're definitely doing something wrong somewhere and probably shouldn't be flying a drone anyway.
That person from the CAA should at the very absolute least have their Flyer ID in order to hand out any advice here and preferably have more knowledge than that but at the very least they should know the drone code back to front. It's not exactly a taxing piece of information.
To be honest though I'm really making a large excuse for anyone reading the PDF version though as it does state that section 4 is continued on the next page so if they are using the PDF as a reference then there's still really no excuse.
To be honest I think that problems start to exist due to the drone code being fairly simple and thus it can unfortunately be interpreted in a number of ways.
Take that section 4 for example. At the very beginning it is mentioning people and buildings and vehicles which is very specific. If you then read on (flip the page on the PDF version of 😉) then for sub 250g drones it then just mentions you can fly closer than 50m to people.
It unfortunately doesn't mention all the other items such as buildings and vehicles and that unfortunately then opens a very grey area in terms of legality of which that is why I think in some ways the drone code is too simplified and therefore open to misinterpretation. I've also noted many mistakes on the CAA site with regards to the drone code too which I pointed out to them but never heard back from them on.
Any chance caa answer is a.i ??
U would not be able to use balloons festival and drones would be notam restricted
Guess the CAA has had a lot of staff changes recently.
I think the tea lady is answering emails now
Just as the newest drone code has been adopted by the vast majority of remote pilots, confusion is dissipating and we seem to be ‘dealing with it’! I can’t help thinking the CAA responder has realised they’ve made an error in terms of interpretation, but hasn’t held their hands up quickly enough (metaphor). Rather they have allowed themselves to be drawn into what is such a hot topic for our the drone community. I hope this is dealt with very soon and very clear and concisely by the CAA drone team. In my view they are very helpful and professional and seem to do their best on behalf of the drone community in my humble opinion. They’ve been pushed in front of the brexit red bus, a number of times, and have had an unenviable task on their hands. This is surely an error that can easily be resolved. Personally I’ll just continue to follow the latest version of drone code until Sean tells me otherwise😂. Thanks guys for addressing this topic. I’m sure you can have a day off tomorrow, enjoy. 🤝
That shit has to be ai.
Nope! If it was I reckon it would at least get the spelling and syntax correct! 😂
I think your videos are great, but it’s really inappropriate that you both laugh about the idea of people jumping from the bridge 😢
Many people have sadly lost their lives doing that over the years….
CAA renaming to the 3 Cs.... 😳😳😳
Not to play devils advocate here....was this class of flight a hobby or commercial flight?
There is no differential between the two in terms of regulations. Only insurance. This was an open category flight.
@@Geeksvana commercial I would understand the CAA response... I can only assume there was confusion regarding the flight purpose in some way. If that pilot was a GVC holder and registered uav business/operator then it is an easy assumption to make during email communications.
@PhantomandtheDrone sorry, you are presuming the general enquiries team when asked about a asub 250g drone flight, would presume it is commercial under a GVC? That simply does not stack. Why would anyone fly a sub 250g under an OA?
Your thoughts also do not track as the CAA advisor pointed the pilot towards the drone code and did not refer him to his OA.
Also, it was not the original question. The question was regarding if the landowner could restrict airspace without going through the proper channels. The simple answer is no.
@@Geeksvana All of my uav's, regardless of weight, are registered on my OA... 🤣
Look, the CAA person is probably on their first week of YTS ( showing my age ) and is also a hobby Bobby.
Facts matter to neither.
I had those YTS people working for me because I had taken a government TOPS course and was the Boff! How far back is that and I'm well capable still to fly a drone into a tree !. That's not a theory it was recently proven alas.
@michaelrichardson4884 from my diminishing memory it was 1985 / 1986