Welcome Inspire Pilots!
Join our free DJI Inspire community today!
Sign up

Inspires don't have C class label (EASA) How fo you apply for permission to fly close to building?

Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
536
Reaction score
149
Location
Sofia
Website
goldenskybirds.com
Hey fellas,

I need to fly close to a building with my Inspire but according the EASA rules, all UAS between 2kg - 25kg that don't have C class label can be operated only in Open Category - A3 (keep 150m from buildings and people).

I have the permission from the building/property owner, so the property is not anymore Uninvolved and becomes part of the operation, right? In this scenario do you guys apply for Speciffic category or Open Category (A1-A2-A3)?

Unfortunatelly the place I'm gonna fly is within geo zone and because of that I have to apply for permission any way. So Open or Speciffic category?

Thanks!
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
536
Reaction score
149
Location
Sofia
Website
goldenskybirds.com
Just do it ! It's all so confusing - I've given up bothering !
There's no way in my case. I'll have to fly around historical sites for commercial production and authorities are involved. Also if accident happensthe liability will not cover it if I'm outlaw and not following the rules.

Also after some more reading it looks I'll have to apply in the Speciffic category for my case, and is better if have LUC for such scenarios. So now I'll look to obtain LUC (Light Aicraft License) so to operate without asking for authorizations (in most cases).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 11, 2020
Messages
4
Reaction score
3
Age
82
There's no way in my case. I'll have to fly around historical sites for commercial production and authorities are involved.
I fully understand. The whole things is a nightmare . I am also a Private Pilot Licence holder . There are less rules/regulations to fly a single or a twin engined aircraft around Europe than there are to fly a drone in the UK !
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
2,009
Reaction score
873
Age
59
Yeah, I guess this makes sense because there is a human on board which mitigates the risk for the others.
UAV crash/injury statistics vs. small private craft statistics doesn't flush that out. Not trying to argue. Just pointing out that, just because one is in the pilot seat doesn't make a manned vehicle safer. It seems that quite the opposite is true.


D
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2016
Messages
536
Reaction score
149
Location
Sofia
Website
goldenskybirds.com
Just pointing out that, just because one is in the pilot seat doesn't make a manned vehicle safer
Donnie, the idea is that the manned aircraft have to have airworthness, this is again a complex procedure for obtaining safety of the vehicle performance, and this is because there will be a man inside. Such a thing doesn't exist in UAS regulations open or speciffic category. And the pilot also have to have license on first place and to pass medical examine. This again is pretty high bar for safety on theory.

From statistic point you are right unfortunatelly, I'm interested in light craft accidents and I follow a few youtube channels that investigate such accidents.Learning that way from peoples mistakes. All in all the accidents are caused by incompetency of the pilot by neglecting weather conditions. Seems like the training and examine for obtaining light aircraft license is with low bar in usa as those type of accidents are happening mostly there. Of course in us there are more rich people who can afford owning small aircraft this is also a factor for the high number of accidents there.
 
Joined
Jun 28, 2016
Messages
2,009
Reaction score
873
Age
59
Donnie, the idea is that the manned aircraft have to have airworthness, this is again a complex procedure for obtaining safety of the vehicle performance, and this is because there will be a man inside. Such a thing doesn't exist in UAS regulations open or speciffic category. And the pilot also have to have license on first place and to pass medical examine. This again is pretty high bar for safety on theory.
"In theory" being the key words here. Despite stringent airworthiness regulations, manned aircraft still crash all the time. But this makes sense because we all know that manned aircraft have orders of magnitude more parts and, ergo, more points of failure. Not just 2x or 3x, but orders of magnitude! Relatively speaking, a UAV is a pretty simple device.

What really bothers me about all of this UAS safety stuff is that it completely and utterly ignores scale. I don't know why scale (weight, size, mass) are never a consideration. Should safety regulations be scaled accordingly? It's like applying semi truck CDL regulations to a tricycle.

But it gets worse...

All the rules and regulations are based on what-if arguments that have yet to reconcile anywhere in the world. And, yes, it really, really bothers me. It's like comparing a tricycle to a semi truck. The differences are that profound. Yet the semi truck regulators feel the need to regulate the tricycles (metaphorically speaking).

Q: How many tricycles have caused semi's to crash? A: The same amount of UAV's that have caused manned aviation vehicles to crash. No...literally...the same amount.

Q: How many deaths have tricycles caused? A: Literally the same amount as UAV's (probably more!!).

What is the "what if" potential of a tricycle causing a semi to swerve off the road? I could make up a boat-load of what-if scenarios that would be right on par with the UAV what-if scenarios.

And you know, it seems like it's a very small group calling this out. It's like one has to completely dispel all physics to reconcile these UAV regulations. I just can't do it.

The AMA nailed it. Stay away from airports (makes sense). Stay under 400' AGL (makes sense). Don't fly over people (makes sense), and enjoy your hobby. The AMA has been saying these things for DECADES....without incident! So why FAA didn't just continue down that path is beyond me. The FAA is just another bloated bureaucracy with bureaucrats chomping at the bit to regulate something. UAV's were like a gift from the heavens for these guys.

One might argue that the rules are made for the Best Buy idiots. But they are the demographic that don't obey the FAA rules anyway, because most of them don't even know those rules exist, let alone what the rules are. Not to get political here, but it follows the same logic as the new proposed gun regulations by regulating the honest citizens in order to stop criminals from using guns. Wait?! What?! (Disclaimer: I've never discharged a firearm in my life (so I don't "love guns"), but I do the math).

Sorry to get off on a tangent here. I don't mean to shoot the messenger. But only thing that chaps my hide more than these ridiculous rules, regulations and restrictions on drones are those who try to actually defend those policies. Sorry, man...the "what if" arguments just don't hold water. Just my 2 cents.




From statistic point you are right unfortunatelly,
I know you know this.


I'm interested in light craft accidents and I follow a few youtube channels that investigate such accidents.
Then I assume you follow Trent Palmer. Have you noticed his content is focused more on his bush plane than UAV's? Think about that. You know why? Despite UAV's being his livelihood (Read: arguably the largest part of his life), the UAV stuff is boring and passé. No crashes here. No death. No injury. No property damage. Boring, boring, boring.

Have you seen his recent "uncontrolled descent" video? He essentially threw a rod mid flight. This, from a vehicle that passed all airworthiness regulations. Yet, there it is.




Learning that way from peoples mistakes. All in all the accidents are caused by incompetency of the pilot by neglecting weather conditions.
I respectfully disagree. I will concede to at least half or even 75%. But much is caused by vehicle failure.




Seems like the training and examine for obtaining light aircraft license is with low bar in usa as those type of accidents are happening mostly there.
It's my understanding (based on the Trent Palmer videos), that it's simply easier to own a plane in the U.S. Despite being a highly regulated hobby/profession, it seems it's even worse in the U.K. and Europe and Australia. This, based solely on my observation. So I'm open to learning more about it.




Of course in us there are more rich people who can afford owning small aircraft this is also a factor for the high number of accidents there.
Touché. That sounds like a very reasonable assessment.

Again, sorry about the tangent. But it seems to me if drone companies would simply include a very simple, single page, bullet point instruction sheet with every drone, these new drone owners would read and obey these rules (at least most of them). Instead they're forced to navigate the labyrinth of cryptic FAA rules and regulations all penned in legalese.

If it were up to me, I would boil this AMA document down to a 4 or 5 point bullet list and include it with every drone sold in America:
1669485981142.png


Discuss.

D
 
Last edited:

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
21,922
Messages
208,711
Members
32,138
Latest member
alexanderandy