I don't believe that any of the photos could have been taken in UK unless
by a qualified UAV operator, if keeping within the CAA regulations. As I
read them (a while ago but I doubt they have been relaxed) the regulations
apply onerous conditions as soon as one puts a camera onto what would
otherwise just be a radio controlled model aircraft (honest guv, I made it
myself from balsa wood). My curiosity had been piqued (DIY photo survey of
archaeological sites is a darn sight easier than Lidar)!
Not to say that you can sleep easy, Chris, but someone is not asleep at
this particular wheel. Was ULAS exempt from Air Nav. Order, or is it deemed
civil?
Piers
On 13 Jul 2014 17:53, "Chris Barker" <ftog@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thanks for that, Chris.
>
> They worry me quite a bit, these remotely piloted machines: for instance,
> that church shot was taken from very close to the spire and the machine
> would have been flying quite a distance from the controller. It is very
> difficult to control aircraft from that distance and at different attitudes
> so it could easily have hit the spire and fallen out of control.
>
> Private pilots used to be my worst concern, but now it’s RPVs . . .
>
> Chris
> On 13 Jul 2014, at 17:12, Chris Trask <christrask@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Came across this on the BBC News website:
> >
> > http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-28262942
> >
>
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|