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
580
Reaction score
160
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!
 
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:
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 !
 
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
 
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.
 
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:
  • Like
Reactions: JHull67
"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.





I know you know this.



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.





I respectfully disagree. I will concede to at least half or even 75%. But much is caused by vehicle failure.





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.





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:
View attachment 33299


Discuss.

D
Donnie, you are missing the point. The drones as they are now can be and are used very successfully for killing people, and I'm talking about consumer drones, phantoms and mavics have killed a lot of people in the reccent wars. While drone can be built and used incognito, literrally anyone can kill somebody without a trace back to the killer and it's an easy kill. Thats why all those UAS regulations are comming and will become even more tight.

This is something that also happens in manned aviation but very very rare because of the currently established system for control. And as we see it works relativelly well as it is extremelly rare some one to steal a plane and crash it killig himself and other people on purpose for some cause. Or fly his own plane, registered at faa and drop hand grenades over people. The idea is those unpleasant events to be traceable. Remote id, geo fencing, licensing and many more will come in the future, some even will be on manufacture level or it will be illegal to sell and own this tech.
 
Donnie, you are missing the point. The drones as they are now can be and are used very successfully for killing people, and I'm talking about consumer drones, phantoms and mavics have killed a lot of people in the reccent wars.
Well...to my discredit I have not heard of this. I Googled it and found a couple of articles. All seem to cite Ukraine. Here's one:


I narrowed my search down to the U.S.A. I can find nothing to show drones have been weaponized on our soil. Of course I'm not obtuse enough to dismiss that one COULD weaponize consumer drones on our soil, but let's read on.



While drone can be built and used incognito, literrally anyone can kill somebody without a trace back to the killer and it's an easy kill.
This seems like a bit of an exaggeration to me. Do you have any source material to support this assertion? Not to doubt your veracity. I simply can't find anything to support this. I concede to the Ukraine thing, but I think your use of the words "easy" and "without a trace" are a bit of an exaggeration. But I'm open to a change of heart.




Thats why all those UAS regulations are comming and will become even more tight.
I assume anybody with the wherewithal to hack a drone into becoming a weapon can hack around any rules, regulations and/or hardware/software that reports location and other metadata. I have all NFZ restrictions and height restrictions hacked out of all my drones. I didn't do this so I could use my drone for nefarious purposes, but because DJI's NFZ and height restriction policies are highly flawed; stopping drones from flying in areas that are perfectly safe under the guise of being a "restricted area." These hacks saved me thousands of dollars. But I digress... The point is that if I were going to use a drone for nefarious purposes, the first thing I would do is hack out the RFID.




This is something that also happens in manned aviation but very very rare because of the currently established system for control.
Rare, indeed. But 9/11 is a great example of how to get around the expense of purchasing a manned aviation vehicle, and a great example of scale.

One of the YouTubers I follow is a guy who repossesses aircraft. He literally steals them. Dare I say that it is easier and FAR more effective to steal an aircraft and use THAT for nefarious purposes than to set up a drone to do the same; and on a much smaller scale.




And as we see it works relativelly well as it is extremelly rare some one to steal a plane and crash it killig himself and other people on purpose for some cause.
I would cite that "using full scale aircraft as a weapon" has happened more in the U.S. than retrofitting a drone with ordinance and using that as a weapon. As far as I know, the drone thing hasn't happened once in the U.S. But I defer to you if you can cite an example.




Or fly his own plane, registered at faa and drop hand grenades over people. The idea is those unpleasant events to be traceable. Remote id, geo fencing, licensing and many more will come in the future, some even will be on manufacture level or it will be illegal to sell and own this tech.
Copy that. But it's all hackable, my friend. And when DJI drones are no longer hackable, people will start building their own. Again I'll point out that anybody with the wherewithal to retrofit a drone with ordinance will probably have "hack out RFID" as the FIRST order of business.

Thoughts?

D
 
All seem to cite Ukraine
Afghanistan, Syria are full of such "events", google is not your friend here as this is censurshiped for the public because the drones where used by the enemy of US. I've had a collection of such movies, most downloaded from private links like google drive and etc. Those were published in some of the millitary forums as well some where from tweeter before the post was deleted. Ive had this because I work in film industdy, making millitary movies, great visual references for visual effects. Ukraine, now this is a trend, they are "friends" to US and the war propaganda is showing how smart and creative are the ukrainians, still most of the ukrainian videos are censorshipped too.

I narrowed my search down to the U.S.A. I can find nothing to show drones have been weaponized on our soil.
This is because the implemented rules are doing their job, at some extend there could be such an accidents but the public may not be aware of it again by censorshipping it from the government.

This seems like a bit of an exaggeration to me. Do you have any source material to support this assertion? Not to doubt your veracity. I simply can't find anything to support this. I concede to the Ukraine thing, but I think your use of the words "easy" and "without a trace" are a bit of an exaggeration. But I'm open to a change of heart.
Anyone have access to buy flight controller, motors, to cut his own frame and etc. Then use this for terror. No one asks you about your id when buying flight controller. But after some years this will not be possible because all flight controller will have built in remote id or similar registration of ownership. And yes they could be hackable but this narrows the circle to a small group of people who can do this.

Rare, indeed. But 9/11 is a great example of how to get around the expense of purchasing a manned aviation vehicle, and a great example of scale
There are a few other cases of hijacket planes that crash on purpose, first in my memory is the accident in Netherlands, another one with airliner crashing in the Alps and I bet there are some we didn't heard about.

And when DJI drones are no longer hackable, people will start building their own.
With flight controllers that are registered to a person at the time of buying. This changesba lot.

Look how I see it, if I buy tomorrow a whole truck with fertilizer the government will put a track on me. But it's still possible a truck with fertilizer to appear from nowhere and make hell in almost any country, we all saw what happened on Crimea Bridge recently, just the current system prevent it on a larger scale. So in my opinion all of the UAS regulations make sense for public safety.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Donnie Frank

New Posts

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
22,313
Messages
210,822
Members
34,662
Latest member
Markus_Walker77