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

UK Whats The Point Of PFAW

Quite agreed "valuable consideration" does not need to be monetary.

One company at our ground school had written clarification from the CAA that they did not need PFCO while operating on their own land and filming for the companies own use. They were however taking the course for safety reasons.

I've seen other references to farmers also not needing PFCO while working on their own land.
 
gazza95 said:
Quite agreed "valuable consideration" does not need to be monetary.

One company at our ground school had written clarification from the CAA that they did not need PFCO while operating on their own land and filming for the companies own use. They were however taking the course for safety reasons.

I've seen other references to farmers also not needing PFCO while working on their own land.
Click to expand...
Yes internal training videos are one thing using footage to advertise their business another
 
I'd always assumed that valuable consideration could mean any form of commercial use. I record video and take photos between client work using the SUAV to promote my own business, therefore there is clear commercial valuable consideration. I'm not generating direct income from the non-client video and photos as there is no sale/transaction made. The commercial value (valuable consideration) comes from the fact that they help me to promote my services. So I would have assumed that if the hotel owner was recording footage using SUAV's for promotional work then they would need a PfCO.

That's the way I understood the valuable consideration aspect. Could be wrong?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cornscot
I'm on the same wavelength as you @stuartpb but folk like the hotel owner probably don't have a clue of this. We know as it's part of our teaching, who on the otherhand is going to 'bust' folk doing things like this... it's a losing battle so I just work on being the best I can (and paying all the costs of doing it properly!).
 
  • Like
Reactions: NickU
stuartpb said:
I'd always assumed that valuable consideration could mean any form of commercial use. I record video and take photos between client work using the SUAV to promote my own business, therefore there is clear commercial valuable consideration. I'm not generating direct income from the non-client video and photos as there is no sale/transaction made. The commercial value (valuable consideration) comes from the fact that they help me to promote my services. So I would have assumed that if the hotel owner was recording footage using SUAV's for promotional work then they would need a PfCO.

That's the way I understood the valuable consideration aspect. Could be wrong?
Click to expand...
I don't think they 'need' a PfCO but they should. What they do need is Aviation PL insurance which they cannot get without a PfCO.

PfCO Holder
BNUC-S Qualified
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cornscot
I spoke to my close friend the other day, who has been a police man for a few years now, on this very matter.

He said he often sees notes left, informing officers of drone operations by PfCO operators, so that they know it's a legal flight. This is due to us, as responsible operators, calling in and arranging flights that may peak police interest.
But, he said the problem with unlicensed, illegal flights is that most police (him included) don't know the rules and most importantly don't know what they would say should they approach/arrest. Obviously they have to give a reason for detainment, and most police aren't aware of the ANO or CAP 722 etc so are kind of stuck.
It needs, as has been said in this thread, an official word and guidance for police issued by government


Sent from my iPhone using InspirePilots
 
  • Like
Reactions: BCF
  • Like
Reactions: Cornscot
gazza95 said:
The MOU uploaded by Cornscot clearly states CAA are responsible for investigating and prosecuting breaches of PFCO and commercial work without permission. So if someone is conducting commercial work without PFCO we should be reporting to the CAA.
Click to expand...

Whilst the report would be sent to the CAA the responsibility/decision to prosecute would lay with the police.

gazza95 said:
On the other side I believe the Hotel owner is not conducting commercial work. He is filming on his land for the benefit of his business.
Click to expand...

If he is filming to benefit his business it will fall under the ANO definition for commercial work: 'valuable consideration is given or promised'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cornscot
Crosscut, thanks for the Information notice link it clarifies the revised wording of "commercial operation, available to the public and Valuable consideration ( that I should have known ) nicely.

Gary
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cornscot
Blacksails said:
I spoke to my close friend the other day, who has been a police man for a few years now, on this very matter.

He said he often sees notes left, informing officers of drone operations by PfCO operators, so that they know it's a legal flight. This is due to us, as responsible operators, calling in and arranging flights that may peak police interest.
But, he said the problem with unlicensed, illegal flights is that most police (him included) don't know the rules and most importantly don't know what they would say should they approach/arrest. Obviously they have to give a reason for detainment, and most police aren't aware of the ANO or CAP 722 etc so are kind of stuck.
It needs, as has been said in this thread, an official word and guidance for police issued by government


Sent from my iPhone using InspirePilots
Click to expand...
I think Blacksails friend has hit the nail on the head. The vast majority of UK police officers, if not all of them, receive no update/refresher training once they are out of their top year probationary period. So basically unless an individual officer does his own research re UK law, say to pass promotion exams - and there are only two of those, the vast majority will very quickly forget/become outdated re current law. Police force command will argue that they do update their staff by way of updates on their individual force network - that assumes that their staff have both the time and the inclination to read the garbage that their equally law-ignorant senior command deem to release.

My qualifications to state the above? I'm a recently retired police officer with 30 years service with a number of years as a training officer and local and national level here in the UK, and many more years in a supervisory role on operational policing. My mantra has always been "knowledge brings confidence, confidence brings power". The lack of knowledge displayed by officers today is frightening and I'm not surprised at all by the increase in YouTube videos showing police incompetence arising from their lack of knowledge.

How would I deal with infringements by UAV pilots as a police officer? Firstly advice, second a warning, third report for an appropriate offence, lastly arrest for that offence if the PIC continues. What offence you may ask? The blanket offence contained in Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 would cover mosts instances where, effectively, doing an certain act in a public place (which can include private land in some circumstances) which causes harassment, alarm or distress to any residents or passers-by. Members of this forum I'm sure would adhere to the advice level - only the ignorant morons we all hear about would need to have the confrontational level increased to level 3 or 4.

Just my thoughts.
 
BCF said:
I think Blacksails friend has hit the nail on the head. The vast majority of UK police officers, if not all of them, receive no update/refresher training once they are out of their top year probationary period. So basically unless an individual officer does his own research re UK law, say to pass promotion exams - and there are only two of those, the vast majority will very quickly forget/become outdated re current law. Police force command will argue that they do update their staff by way of updates on their individual force network - that assumes that their staff have both the time and the inclination to read the garbage that their equally law-ignorant senior command deem to release.

My qualifications to state the above? I'm a recently retired police officer with 30 years service with a number of years as a training officer and local and national level here in the UK, and many more years in a supervisory role on operational policing. My mantra has always been "knowledge brings confidence, confidence brings power". The lack of knowledge displayed by officers today is frightening and I'm not surprised at all by the increase in YouTube videos showing police incompetence arising from their lack of knowledge.

How would I deal with infringements by UAV pilots as a police officer? Firstly advice, second a warning, third report for an appropriate offence, lastly arrest for that offence if the PIC continues. What offence you may ask? The blanket offence contained in Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 would cover mosts instances where, effectively, doing an certain act in a public place (which can include private land in some circumstances) which causes harassment, alarm or distress to any residents or passers-by. Members of this forum I'm sure would adhere to the advice level - only the ignorant morons we all hear about would need to have the confrontational level increased to level 3 or 4.

Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...
BCF has hit the nail on the head. Police officers are trained to ENFORCE the law they do not KNOW the law. Big difference.
Thats why I am convinced if we all report non licensed users and organisations using them very quickly there will be an established line of reporting/whos responsible.
If we dont report this will take longer to be established.
Its in our interest to make sure the powers that be clamp down/are seen as a deterent by the abusers.
Report every time its the only way to hasten the above
 
Vicarious liability for those who use the services of unqualified operators. First few to get caught get to be made an example of, word will soon spread and the illegal flights will diminish. Simples.

Maybe chuck in a healthy dose of registration at point of sale too.

If that doesn't work then I promise that, come my glorious reign, I will have them all shot :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cornscot and tweaker
Update

Been bounced around between CAA and Police and back again. However hung in there and kept phoning back 101.

Told them there was two issues.

1. the suspected business using "cowboy" footage

2. There was no clarity in who is responsible for investigating breeches. Is it CAA or Police?

I initially got fobbed off at 1555 hrs by the Sgt initially investigating my case who became quite aggressive when I politely stated facts. I suspected he finished at 1600hrs ( turned out I was right!)

He told me he was terminating the investigation!! He would not give me the "CAA Police Liasion Officers"

Yours truly had the bit between teeth and kept phoning back to resolve my two issues.

Just been phoned tonight by the CAA Police Liaison Officer CAA PLO" Initially he was a bit stand offish as I suspect he was sussing me up after having been warned off by my Sgt "friend".

Once he realised I was not a troublemaker,someone with a grudge etc he was bang on and totally got it. My report WILL be investigated.

FYI- There will be a CAA PLO within your region. They are looking at a two pronged approach.

1. Prosecuting dangerous flights and non licensed operators conducting commercial operations.

2. Approaching users of footage( i.e. hotels/business etc) to ascertain where they got their footage being used on websites etc (when it is highlighted to their attention)

They seem to think( and I agree) when business are made to take down aerial footage,which they have paid for,and been given a caution this will quickly get the word out to business. The first thing a business will want to see is your PFAW,Insurance etc.

Really,really impressed by the CAA PLO he admitted it was all new and there was some ignorance within the Police but it was a process of education etc.

Pretty much came away with impression there is a professional joined up thinking to ho with police will investigate reports.

Now the ball is in the CAAs court to step up to the mark when the Police touch base!!

Anyway as i said guys Report,report report. Very quickly business will self police as there will be NO point in using cowboys as it will be a waste of cash

Report to Police 101 -nuff said.

Wait out for future updates.

Please let us know you experience regarding reporting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ATU, Blacksails, BCF and 2 others
I too have been following up with the CAA equivalent on interpretation of regulatory requirements and confirmed that any company commissioning any aerial services from a service provider are required to verify that the vendor service provider is a permit holder which then places the urgency on the CAA to publish the list of permit holders (this is currently not public information). Far too many companies and individuals have literally been flying under the radar for far too long. Lack of accountability creates an environment for dangerous activity by unqualified yahoos. Need to know how to push CAA buttons to get them to take action. Civil service tend to create some complacency.
 
ATU said:
I too have been following up with the CAA equivalent on interpretation of regulatory requirements and confirmed that any company commissioning any aerial services from a service provider are required to verify that the vendor service provider is a permit holder which then places the urgency on the CAA to publish the list of permit holders (this is currently not public information). Far too many companies and individuals have literally been flying under the radar for far too long. Lack of accountability creates an environment for dangerous activity by unqualified yahoos. Need to know how to push CAA buttons to get them to take action. Civil service tend to create some complacency.
Click to expand...

The CAA has a list of approved operators - CAP1361: Small Unmanned Aircraft (SUA) operators holding a valid CAA permission

...or have I misunderstood?
 

New Posts

Members online

Total: 391 (members: 2, guests: 389)

Forum statistics

Threads
22,293
Messages
210,741
Members
34,509
Latest member
KarolinODo