I disagree with the new UK No Fly regs. What do you guys think?

[Lewberry6]

I don’t think this new restriction will make any difference to the reckless flyers and only impact the previous safe flying at POI’s around airports for us sensible flyers. This photo would no longer be possible for example. What do you guys think?

My petition:
Reconsider the change in restrictions of drone use around airports to 3 miles
It has recently been announced that due to the recent Gatwick drone incident it will be now illegal to fly drones within 3 miles of airports from March. I feel this will negatively impact responsible pilots and not stop reckless pilots impacting commercial airspace. This should be reconsidered.
I feel reckless use is what impacts airports and therefore the same people that have been flying into airports airspace will still do so with 3mile restrictions. I feel that increasing the restriction will not improve drone incidents and will only reduce sites near to local airports that responsible drone pilots would previously be fully safe to fly in. I also think the 1km limit should at least be retained for smaller airports and this limit should be discussed further.

 

[gnirtS]

A few things, firstly you don't understand the rules so should probably do that before writing a petition. Its not a blanket 3 miles around an airport.

Secondly, the new rules are extremely sensible and a good balance between freedom and safely - is there an opposite petition i can sign congratulating them on not imposing a knee-jerk reaction?

 

[Congoblue]

I suspect he has just read the incorrect BBC article I linked in the other thread...

 

[gnirtS]

Surely checking the actual source material not just browsing a 3rd party website would be the minimum effort required before a starting an incorrect ranty petition?

 

[Congoblue]

Well everyone knows the BBC is fully trustworthy in all regards. I have contacted them to say their story is factually incorrect so we will see if that has any effect.
Personally I agree with you that the new rule is quite sensible, although he is right that it makes no difference if you have decided to ignore the rules anyway.

Also, the rules make allowance for getting permission from the airport to fly in the ATZ, so he can ask for and gain permission. He doesn't say where it is, so it may or may not be affected by the changes.

 

[Lewberry6]

Sorry, I did read the BBC article first, however it is still correct the restriction is up to 5km at some points around the airport. I did check before posting on the map that this photo is in the zone. It’s not so much the new distance I wanted to make a point about. Just it seems the way that the government want to address drone issues is by increasing restrictions but the major incidents appear to be from people breaking restrictions and thus it is only going to impact responsible users. There is no doubt more restrictions are coming but it would be good to at least get this point across for future regulatory discussion.
I’m also not convinced airports will be too happy with constant requests for drone restrictions but it is good that the restrictions aren’t 100% no fly.

 

[Congoblue]

Unfortunately that is how politicians work, they just want to be seen to be taking action - even though all drone pilots know that the action will be mostly ineffective, they hope the majority of the uninformed public will be impressed and vote them in again. Not that I am cynical or anything.

As you say I am not sure how it will work out getting permission to fly in the ATZ. I guess it may be easier at the smaller airports. Where is your photo?

 

[Lewberry6]

Unfortunately that is how politicians work, they just want to be seen to be taking action - even though all drone pilots know that the action will be mostly ineffective, they hope the majority of the uninformed public will be impressed and vote them in again. Not that I am cynical or anything.

As you say I am not sure how it will work out getting permission to fly in the ATZ. I guess it may be easier at the smaller airports. Where is your photo?

It was near an RAF base, I’m sure they would probably prefer some target practice than letting a drone fly nearer to them haha.

 

[dirkclod]

Where is your photo?

In post

 

[Congoblue]

Many RAF bases are inactive most of the time, you probably would get permission to fly in the ATZ but outside the base, as long as they are not actually flying.

 

[Congoblue]

In post
View attachment 63517

I meant where was it taken... i.e. which airport was he near to

 

[dirkclod]

I meant where was it taken... i.e. which airport was he near to

Whoops

 

[Lewberry6]

I don’t think this new restriction will make any difference to the reckless flyers and only impact the previous safe flying at POI’s around airports for us sensible flyers. This photo would no longer be possible for example. What do you guys think?

My petition:
Reconsider the change in restrictions of drone use around airports to 3 miles
It has recently been announced that due to the recent Gatwick drone incident it will be now illegal to fly drones within 3 miles of airports from March. I feel this will negatively impact responsible pilots and not stop reckless pilots impacting commercial airspace. This should be reconsidered.
I feel reckless use is what impacts airports and therefore the same people that have been flying into airports airspace will still do so with 3mile restrictions. I feel that increasing the restriction will not improve drone incidents and will only reduce sites near to local airports that responsible drone pilots would previously be fully safe to fly in. I also think the 1km limit should at least be retained for smaller airports and this limit should be discussed further.

I have removed the link to the petition as previously stated it was posted with slightly inaccurate information however I’m still happy to here you opinions...

 

[Lewberry6]

I meant where was it taken... i.e. which airport was he near to

Sorry, Benson.

Yes you are correct actually, remember reading about military air space restrictions a few years ago when shooting near a bomb testing site of the coast, turns out restrictions were only on very limited days and times..

 

[Congoblue]

Hmmm I know some folks at RAF Benson, I'll put in a good word for you!

Anyway, I agree with you that it is annoying for the government to put in restrictions which will only affect law abiding drone pilots and will have no effect on the troublemakers. However I would argue that using the ATZ is actually a good move and is better/safer than the previous round blob approach. If this and the forthcoming drone registration make our hobby less of a bogeyman to the general public then I am all for it.

 

[macfawlty]

3 miles seems perfectly reasonable to me given the fact that we have 15 mile radius around Reagan National Airport in DC, which encompasses nearly all of the most beautiful places to fly along the Potomac River. It ends right before the Trump National CC golf course where they use temporary NFZ restrictions and are attempting to even restrict river paddlers in the area. So, 3 miles is nothing. Jets are often flying pretty low at 3 miles out. I know because I’m in the flight corridor into Reagan National at 9 miles out and the majority fly directly over my house all day and night long. They used to approach at higher altitudes, but now much lower since enacting NextGen.

 

[zocalo]

Since you're now canvassing for opinions, here's mine:

I agree that where there's a will there's a way, and anyone actively looking to disrupt an airfield, or worse, using a drone is going to do so regardless of what the law says. Likewise, people who are entirely ignorant of the law, or just mistaken over where the NFZ boundary lies, will also fly within the NFZs regardless of their size and shape if it suits them to do so (unless their drone prohibits them), none of which will be a valid defense if they are caught doing so.

That said, I think the new NFZs are an improvement as they reduce the chances of conflict on approach/departure, and if we're being responsible we have to accept this as a good thing (aircraft can be - and often are - below 400ft in this zone). It's also vastly preferrable to the alternative of a simple circle that includes the take-off and landing paths based on the centre of the airfield. That the new NFZs have also been limited to major airfields only is also good, although I'd definitely be opposed to it if they start suggesting a similar level of restriction for smaller, "occassional use", airfields. NFZs do not trump the requirement that a pilot be responsible for the safety of their flight, and regardless of where we fly we still should be aware that users of the UK's airspace which can include manned aircraft such as military (in some areas) and emergency services (anywhere) operating below 400ft AGL.

If you have a legitimate justification for flying within an NFZ you *can* still request an exemption, and this is good. Within reason, DJI will probably continue to allow you to override the NFZs in DJI Go as well to cover such circumstances, which is also good. However, and especially for busier airfields, I would not expect these to be handed out without good cause - e.g. you're probably going to need to hold a PfCO and have a commercial reason for the flight with flight plan, window of operation, etc. all known up front. Casual flights for pretty trees (or whatever) not so much, which is irritating but not the end of the world. I do feel there is room for improvement in the processess and requirements necessary for gaining such an exemption though, particularly for impromptu photographic flights, perhaps as a function of an App or other semi-automated web-based system rather than having to contact the tower (limitations of the UK's cellular network not withstanding).

Like others here, I think we've been collectively and very unfairly demonized by the media because of a few incidents (proven or otherwise) of late, and while reasoned debate and criticism is fine (if you're in the UK you *did* respond to last year's consultation that led to the new regulations, right?), we absolutely should not be opposing sensible changes "just because". If we think a given regulation is overreaching, or just plain wrong, we need to be able to explain why we think that is the case. Equally, if we find a "Drone did Good" story then if we can help draw attention to it to provide some balance, that's probably more likely to swing public opinion than anything else. Teen gets injured dog back because of drone, that kind of thing.

As with most things, there are always going to be a few bad apples, and most rational members of the public ought to realise this and accept that they are in the minority. The CAA genuinely seems like they are trying to strike a reasonable balance between our hobby and people's safety and reasonable expectations of a right to privacy, here - the real problem we have is correcting the fallacies in their perception of SUAVs the general public is getting from the media.

 

[Lewberry6]

3 miles seems perfectly reasonable to me given the fact that we have 15 mile radius around Reagan National Airport in DC, which encompasses nearly all of the most beautiful places to fly along the Potomac River. It ends right before the Trump National CC golf course where they use temporary NFZ restrictions and are attempting to even restrict river paddlers in the area. So, 3 miles is nothing. Jets are often flying pretty low at 3 miles out. I know because I’m in the flight corridor into Reagan National at 9 miles out and the majority fly directly over my house all day and night long. They used to approach at higher altitudes, but now much lower since enacting NextGen.

Interesting, that certainly seems an excessive exclusion though. Do you have a altitude limit? We are only allowed to fly 120m 400ft high anywhere.

 

[old man mavic]

Since you're now canvassing for opinions, here's mine:

I agree that where there's a will there's a way, and anyone actively looking to disrupt an airfield, or worse, using a drone is going to do so regardless of what the law says. Likewise, people who are entirely ignorant of the law, or just mistaken over where the NFZ boundary lies, will also fly within the NFZs regardless of their size and shape if it suits them to do so (unless their drone prohibits them), none of which will be a valid defense if they are caught doing so.

That said, I think the new NFZs are an improvement as they reduce the chances of conflict on approach/departure, and if we're being responsible we have to accept this as a good thing (aircraft can be - and often are - below 400ft in this zone). It's also vastly preferrable to the alternative of a simple circle that includes the take-off and landing paths based on the centre of the airfield. That the new NFZs have also been limited to major airfields only is also good, although I'd definitely be opposed to it if they start suggesting a similar level of restriction for smaller, "occassional use", airfields. NFZs do not trump the requirement that a pilot be responsible for the safety of their flight, and regardless of where we fly we still should be aware that users of the UK's airspace which can include manned aircraft such as military (in some areas) and emergency services (anywhere) operating below 400ft AGL.

If you have a legitimate justification for flying within an NFZ you *can* still request an exemption, and this is good. Within reason, DJI will probably continue to allow you to override the NFZs in DJI Go as well to cover such circumstances, which is also good. However, and especially for busier airfields, I would not expect these to be handed out without good cause - e.g. you're probably going to need to hold a PfCO and have a commercial reason for the flight with flight plan, window of operation, etc. all known up front. Casual flights for pretty trees (or whatever) not so much, which is irritating but not the end of the world. I do feel there is room for improvement in the processess and requirements necessary for gaining such an exemption though, particularly for impromptu photographic flights, perhaps as a function of an App or other semi-automated web-based system rather than having to contact the tower (limitations of the UK's cellular network not withstanding).

Like others here, I think we've been collectively and very unfairly demonized by the media because of a few incidents (proven or otherwise) of late, and while reasoned debate and criticism is fine (if you're in the UK you *did* respond to last year's consultation that led to the new regulations, right?), we absolutely should not be opposing sensible changes "just because". If we think a given regulation is overreaching, or just plain wrong, we need to be able to explain why we think that is the case. Equally, if we find a "Drone did Good" story then if we can help draw attention to it to provide some balance, that's probably more likely to swing public opinion than anything else. Teen gets injured dog back because of drone, that kind of thing.

As with most things, there are always going to be a few bad apples, and most rational members of the public ought to realise this and accept that they are in the minority. The CAA genuinely seems like they are trying to strike a reasonable balance between our hobby and people's safety and reasonable expectations of a right to privacy, here - the real problem we have is correcting the fallacies in their perception of SUAVs the general public is getting from the media.

nothing to add to your post, very well written and completely correct