Night chimney inspection in a DID with a missing Remote ID module
A sole proprietor has a 1.8 kg multirotor registered to their business. They accept a last-minute job to inspect a 45 m chimney in a densely inhabited district (DID) at 21:00. The planned route is 6 m from a neighbour's balcony, crosses a public road used by pedestrians, and lasts 18 minutes. The aircraft has a registration sticker, but the Remote ID module was removed during maintenance and has not been refitted. The pilot plans to fly autonomously along waypoints with one visual observer. They have no prior approval for this site. The client asks whether the job can start tonight if they submit a flight plan through DIPS 2.0 at 20:30. The pilot also intends to change the route by 20 m on site to avoid a tree and to keep the observer in a car because of rain.
1. Can the job legally start tonight if the DIPS 2.0 flight plan is submitted at 20:30? Identify the approvals and registration issues.
Read the worked answer
No. A DIPS submission is a flight-plan/notification step, not an instant approval. Before flying, the operator must hold specific-flight approval for every triggered condition. Here the flight is at night, in a DID, and within 30 m of a person/balcony; if the route passes directly over pedestrians on the road, over-people approval is also engaged. Autonomous waypoint flight does not remove the VLOS requirement. The registration display must also be valid: removing the Remote ID module is not automatically fatal if the registration number is directly marked and legible, but the operator must confirm that the approved operation does not depend on Remote ID transmission. The observer sitting in a car in rain is unlikely to maintain adequate VLOS, which could add a BVLOS approval requirement. The correct sequence is to redesign the route, secure approvals, verify registration display and VLOS, then submit the flight plan with enough lead time.
2. Assume approval is granted for the stated route and time. What happens if the pilot moves the route 20 m on site and keeps the observer in the car?
Read the worked answer
Approval conditions are binding. A 20 m shift is not a trivial change: it may move the aircraft closer to the balcony, over more pedestrians, or outside the approved operating area. The pilot must stop and assess whether the change remains inside the approved conditions. If it does not, a revised application is needed before flight. Keeping the observer in a car during rain also undermines the visibility condition; windows, reflections and rain can prevent continuous observation of the aircraft and the surrounding airspace. The pilot cannot treat the observer as a formality. The safe and lawful response is to hold the flight, reposition the observer with clear sight, or resubmit the plan if the route must change. Proceeding on the original approval after changing the route would make the flight unapproved even if the aircraft remains registered and the DIPS plan exists.
3. If the pilot flies tonight without the required approvals, what are the legal and operational consequences?
Read the worked answer
The flight would be an unapproved specific flight under the Civil Aeronautics Act, exposing the pilot and operator to criminal penalties and administrative consequences. Insurance cover can also be affected: a third-party liability policy may exclude or reduce cover for unlawful operations, leaving the operator personally exposed for injury or property damage. Operationally, night flight near a balcony and road increases the risk of collision and loss of VLOS, and the missing Remote ID transmission may complicate identification and post-incident investigation. The DIPS receipt would not cure the defect. The operator should not rely on the client's urgency. The defensible path is to decline the night launch, restore compliant registration display, obtain the needed approvals, and fly in daylight with a clear route and observer position.