Felix le Chat
Well-Known Member
Article 241 is ambiguous as it does not clarify what constitutes 'reckless endangerment'. The rest of the EASA based A1 class regulations give slightly more clarification, but the pilots definition of 'safe' and the CAA's definition of the same word can be wildly different based on their individual interpretation of the same regulation package. For me: this is where the real problem lies: the Law is The Law and not open to interpretation. The regulations governing drone flight should be written into Aviation Law (a new amendment to ANO2016) and drones should be registered with the CAA as legitimate aerial vehicles and issued an appropriate ARN, that way the pilot gets the same legal status and protections afforded to manned aircraft pilots and also knows precisely what happens when they are dumb enough to get caught flying in a clearly illegal manner.Sub 250 grams can fly in the A1/A3 subcategories no problem. So as close to people/buildings/vehicles as you want, so long as you are also not infringing Article 241 , which states - "A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property." This is obviously, as already pointed out, subject to interpretation.
The only other consideration is being able to maintain VLOS. Ironically, this is often further at night than during the day due to the lights on the drone. Even further (1,000 metres and beyond) if it's fitted with a strobe light, but this would then put the drone into the A3 subcategory due to the weight unless they hold the A2 certificate.
I always keep the following saying in my head when out flying... "Just because I can, doesn't mean I should."