new UK law. 1 km from any airport !!

[kaz911]

BTw latest BMFA magazine says that the 400' rule might have exceptions for model flying organisation members.- at the time of print they had "exceptions" negotiated to be further updated.

Online Source: Update on changes to UK Regulations (and the 400ft height limit)

The latest meeting between the Department for Transport (DfT), Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and representatives from the UK Model Flying Associations took place this afternoon (Friday 15th June) at the DfT offices in London.

The most urgent matter to address was the recent change to the Air Navigation Order (ANO) which introduced (in Article 94A) a 400ft height limit on the operation of all Small Unmanned Aircraft (SUA) which will come into effect on the 30th July 2018. Whilst the changes to the ANO are primarily aimed at regulating 'drones', the 400ft restriction will also apply to model aircraft below 7Kg.

However, we are pleased to report that agreement was reached that the Model Flying Associations will collectively apply for an exemption from Article 94A to allow their members to continue operating model aircraft below 7Kg above 400ft as they do under the current ANO. The DfT and CAA were supportive of this course of action and did not foresee any reason why the exemption would not be in place in time for the 30th July.

Negotiations on the other changes introduced in the ANO (operator registration and online testing for pilots) remain ongoing, but for now it is business as usual for members of the BMFA, LMA, SAA & FPVUK. Happy flying!

 

[PaperCrane]

Will be interesting to see what exemptions get negotiated for what reasons over the next few weeks. It does feel like this is being done the wrong way round somewhat - set the date and then sort out the details afterwards. Some stronger regulation isn't a bad thing but I'm not sure this is the best way to go about it.

 

[Goosey]

Hi,
I will upload the new cap 1687 here for you to digest, some bigger changes in 2019,

martin

 

[PaperCrane]

Interesting reading. Thanks for posting.

It looks like the requirement re the 400ft limit, how that applies to cliff edges etc and FPV flying are pretty clearly explained on page 4.

 

[gnirtS]

All of these seem fairly sane to be honest in terms of regulation.
I still feel the 50m/150m distances could be relaxed slightly for lightweight drones but it is what it is.

 

[PaperCrane]

Agreed.

 

[gnirtS]

I've read through it and the 1km thing to me seems very close. I can see plenty of mensa candidates sticking the drone up to 400ft right on that boundary to get "nice airport photos". I can also see them flying too near the extended centre line to get nice "runway" shots and at 1km they're well within landing aircraft altitude.

They'll argue its "legal" because they're over a kilometre (though other clauses in ANO would ban it).

Assuming standard 3 degree approach, 1km is about 0.53 nautical miles and its roughly 300ft altitude per nautical mile on glideslope. So even allowing for displace thresholds past the fence line manned aircraft could easily be at 100-200ft at that distance.

Expecting people to fly responsibly has been proven not to work. I suspect this is going to cause a lot more airport chaos due to drone "sighted on the approach".

 

[colinfowler]

I've read through it and the 1km thing to me seems very close. I can see plenty of mensa candidates sticking the drone up to 400ft right on that boundary to get "nice airport photos". I can also see them flying too near the extended centre line to get nice "runway" shots and at 1km they're well within landing aircraft altitude.

They'll argue its "legal" because they're over a kilometre (though other clauses in ANO would ban it).

Assuming standard 3 degree approach, 1km is about 0.53 nautical miles and its roughly 300ft altitude per nautical mile on glideslope. So even allowing for displace thresholds past the fence line manned aircraft could easily be at 100-200ft at that distance.

Expecting people to fly responsibly has been proven not to work. I suspect this is going to cause a lot more airport chaos due to drone "sighted on the approach".

Yes totally agree, 400ft alt 1k from an approach perimeter is too low.
We (with geofenced NFZ drones) can't get that close anyway. So the people causing the problems at airports still will, and probably now think it's now ok.

 

[gnirtS]

Looking at DJI Geo for most airports its less. They're using a distance from airport centre which in lots of cases doesn't even come to the fence line.

Examples i just checked quickly:- Cardiff, Britstol and Birmingham the geofence zone terminuates before or on the airport fence.

For most UK airports you can get well within that 1km and fly (longer runways airports its even less).

I can't work out how they came to a number where its possible for a "legally" operated drone flight to be at or higher than a legally operated manned aircraft on final approach in the same area.
I can't see the knuckle draggers checking runway orientation or even worse, deliberately putting themselves exactly 1k from the fence in line with it.

 

[colinfowler]

Looking at DJI Geo for most airports its less. They're using a distance from airport centre which in lots of cases doesn't even come to the fence line.

Examples i just checked quickly:- Cardiff, Britstol and Birmingham the geofence zone terminuates before or on the airport fence.

For most UK airports you can get well within that 1km and fly (longer runways airports its even less).

I can't work out how they came to a number where its possible for a "legally" operated drone flight to be at or higher than a legally operated manned aircraft on final approach in the same area.
I can't see the knuckle draggers checking runway orientation or even worse, deliberately putting themselves exactly 1k from the fence in line with it.

Thanks you saved me looking at the same airports for that very reason. I live to the north of Heathrow so I know were the northern limit is. Interestingly the southern runway perimeter fence is only about 600mts from the geofence limit. It's not an area I would want to fly anyway, but it is an area heavily used by plane spotters.

 

[gnirtS]

Generally though the way DJI do a circler from the middle of airport you'll likely find the geofencing is further away from the airport off to the side of the runways (the safest bit!) and nearest to the runways in line with them (the dangerous bit!).
Not ideal by any means.

 

[Thwyllo]

Then again they don't give a monkeys do they. It's all part of their "look at us, we're the good guys!" marketing strategy.

 

[colinfowler]

Generally though the way DJI do a circler from the middle of airport you'll likely find the geofencing is further away from the airport off to the side of the runways (the safest bit!) and nearest to the runways in line with them (the dangerous bit!).
Not ideal by any means.

I tried some time ago to video and photograph a building built in 1426
It's .8 mile from the northern fence but inside the NFZ

 

[gnirtS]

Well Geo is fairly worthless anyway, most countries if there is any encoded geofence at all its a few hundred metres. I think its only really expanded in the US so far.
Plus they're all going to be circular as its way easier to implement in code and databases than polygon and other shapes to follow airfield boundaries.

 

[colinfowler]

Well Geo is fairly worthless anyway, most countries if there is any encoded geofence at all its a few hundred metres. I think its only really expanded in the US so far.
Plus they're all going to be circular as its way easier to implement in code and databases than polygon and other shapes to follow airfield boundaries.

Yes, circular is easy but not ideal. But it is what it is I guise.
I'm still quite happy fly were I do, away from airports.