The operator is the people you possibly work for.
For instance if you are employed by a company that supplies aerial drone filming, or deliveries for example the BBC, Amazon or maybe the fire or police service aerial units.
You are the remote pilot, they are the operator.
Or you are both - if you are the one directly making money from commercial operations and flying the drone yourself.
1 Like
It is possible, in the case of an individual, to be the operator and the pilot if you are registered commercially. Same as an individual working for themselves can be boss, cleaner, delivery boy, messenger etc.
Yep Brianā¦ Thats pretty much how I thought Iād articulated it.
Think of the Operator as a business owner and RP as employees or contractors.
The Operator has overall responsibility of the RPs. If the RPs F up, then the Operator is accountable as well as the RP.
As a one man band business, you will be both the Operator and a RP.
1 Like
You put it so much better than I did tho. Regards. Brian
I suppose maybe they are trying to close some loophole, where the pilot is a hobbyist and āgiftsā the footage to the ācompanyā who then sell it on.
No, I donāt think that is the case at all. Itās more about ensuring that professional pilots are regulated to ensure they do their work safely. It prevents any amateur Tom Dick or Harry from acquiring a drone - flying it around like an ass hole (without any safety considerations) in order to make a quick buck from vids and pics.
1 Like
Yes thatās probably right. But Ibwas just looking from the point of the Tom, dick or Harry not making anything from the photos but the company that has asked him to film as a hobbyist, getting away with making money from his photos. The way theyāve structured the regulation is that if theyāve asked someone to do the flying, and are making money from it, they have to be registered as well.
I also did not see any mention of using a secondary āSpotterā person required.
Does that mean we donāt need a spotter person anymore ?
( useless as having a spotter person will be anyway )
.
"The company that has asked him to film as a hobbyist" - Illegal. Here we have specific requirements and there are processes, procedures, risk assessments hoops that the Operator must go through to ensure that the requirements can be met safely. Something a hobbyist would not do,
But if the assignment is out in the middle of nowhere then Iām not sure, But that would be very rare.
Agree. I canāt see anyone wanting to photo anything in the middle of nowhere.
I am getting a bit annoyed with the press or ignorant journalists with regards to drones.
I used to actually work for the newspaper industry and somehow this does not surprise me.
Have you read one of the latest articles on the near misss at Heathrow in the Metro newspaper?
The picture they have to depict the story is definitely made up showing a BA plane in the background and a DJI Inspire. I donāt think that that kind of drone (unless hacked into) can get close to any airport at all.
The problem is that readers with little or no knowledge at all of drones will believe this and get on the wrong side of judgment when they see us operate one.
The press donāt tend to go deep into drones with the way they are built (or can be built at home).
I Donāt even regard this as Fake News but rather āno news at allā. Just bad vibes
Moved your post over to a pre-existing āBad Pressā thread.
I didnāt notice the thread
1 Like
No probs. Iāve been doing a bit of merging ā¦ 
Without pictures it didnāt happen