The Roof Inspection That Grew a Second Aircraft
Priya holds a remote pilot licence and is flying a 6.8 kg multirotor for a roof condition survey at a suburban shopping strip. Her visual observer calls in sick, so she flies alone with the aircraft kept within 90 m and below 60 m AGL, clear of the 120 m limit. Midway through, the centre's property manager asks her to also capture thermal images of an adjacent three-storey building whose roof sits 14 m above her launch point. To save time she plans to fly the second building from the same standing position, which is 210 m from its nearest corner, relying on the aircraft's streamed video instead of direct sight. Two workers are on that roof. Wind is 9 m/s gusting to 13 m/s; the aircraft is rated to 10 m/s.
1. Identify every safety-rule breach in Priya's plan for the second building and state what she must change before flying it.
Read the worked answer
The plan breaches several general operating requirements at once, and each one independently blocks the flight:
- Visual line of sight. At 210 m from the nearest corner, with the aircraft behind a building edge and only streamed video, Priya cannot maintain direct unaided sight. Video feed is not a substitute for VLOS. She must reposition so the aircraft stays in sight, or use a trained observer positioned to keep it in view.
- Operating over people. Two workers are on the roof. Flying over them is not permitted under her standard operating conditions, and the roof gives them no cover. She should exclude that roof area from the flight path or arrange for the workers to leave before flight.
- Wind limits. Gusts to 13 m/s exceed the aircraft's 10 m/s rating even though the steady wind of 9 m/s does not. Gust margin, not average wind, governs the go/no-go call. She should wait for conditions within the aircraft's limits.
- Single-pilot workload. Without the observer she is already managing see-and-avoid alone; adding a second structure and a new client request mid-flight increases task saturation.
The correct decision is to land, re-plan with an observer or a closer launch point, confirm the roof is clear, and fly only when gusts are inside the aircraft's rating. Accepting a mid-flight scope change without re-planning is itself the root error.
2. The property manager offers to pay Priya directly for the thermal images. Explain the record-keeping and accreditation implications of accepting the job as described.
Read the worked answer
Accepting the work does not fix the airspace and safety problems, and it adds administrative obligations:
- Accreditation scope. If Priya is operating under her own accreditation rather than as an employee of an accredited operator, she must be clear which entity is providing the service. Taking a separate cash job for a new client mid-flight blurs that line and may put the flight outside the operator's documented procedures.
- Records. A commercial flight requires records of the flight, the aircraft used, the pilot, the location, and the client or purpose. A verbal side arrangement with no paperwork fails that requirement.
- Client duties. The property manager is now a client. Priya should confirm the site owner's permission for the adjacent building, since she was originally engaged for the shopping strip only.
- Insurance and liability. Her cover is tied to declared commercial operations; an undeclared side job may not be covered if something goes wrong.
The professional response is to decline the in-flight addition, finish the original survey safely, and quote the second building as a properly planned, documented job.