UK drone Code - definition of a "village"?

[Gobuchul]

In the UK Drone Code, it states that you must not fly closer than 50m to a building without permission.

It also clearly states that you must not fly over or within 150m of a built up area. Built up area's include "villages".

So what is a "village"? When does a number of individual buildings become a "village"?

Is it based on the population? Is 1000 the magic number, as it is with a crowd?


Any ideas?


I have asked the CAA the question but have not yet received a reply yet,

 

[sar104]

I doubt that the CAA will give you a definitive answer. I'd go with Wikipedia's definition:

Village - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[zocalo]

I don't think there is one, so I guess it's a bit like porn - you know it when you see it. Somewhere between a hamlet and a town seems to be the dictionary concensus, albeit without actually specifying what either of those are either. Some definitions also include a typical population range of 100-1000 though, which is a bit more helpful and would imply at least 20 homes (incl. multiple-domiciled structures like flats, etc.) plus other buildings.

Villages also usually have a church or other communal centre though, so maybe you could use that as a guide as well? If there's a church tower/steeple, railway station, etc., then it's almost certainly at least a village.

 

[Gobuchul]

From a look at that Wikipedia page. it would seem that a village without a church is a hamlet. So that could be a starting point.

 

[sar104]

From a look at that Wikipedia page. it would seem that a village without a church is a hamlet. So that could be a starting point.

I wonder how the CAA feels about flying over hamlets? No steeples to hit, I guess.

 

[Lastrexking]

It’s all very vague isn't it? Don’t hold your breath for an answer either. I’ve been chasing them since November.

 

[The Fat Controller]

It is a small settlement, at whose centre there is often a cricket pitch (village green) with a pub and a pond (on which there are ducks), and where there is a a high likelihood you'll find a poorly dressed slow-witted person leaning against the wall chewing a stalk of hay, known as the village idiot. If you come across such a person you can be pretty sure you're in a village.

 

[The Editor]

In the UK Drone Code, it states that you must not fly closer than 50m to a building without permission.

It also clearly states that you must not fly over or within 150m of a built up area. Built up area's include "villages".

So what is a "village"? When does a number of individual buildings become a "village"?

Is it based on the population? Is 1000 the magic number, as it is with a crowd?


Any ideas?


I have asked the CAA the question but have not yet received a reply yet,

I have held PFAW for a number of years before it even became PfCO. The law is quite specific regarding where an individual may (or may not) fly and where permission is required.

The definition isn’t “Village” it’s congested area as per CAP393 The Air Navigation Order.
A congested area is defined (by the CAA) as :

‘in relation to a city, town or settlement, any area which is substantially used for residential, commercial, industrial or recreational purposes’.

Since a village would Not fall under classification of a town or city, it would certainly fall within the definition of settlement.
Basically, if people live there you cannot fly within the CAA standoff distances without permission.

 

[Gobuchul]

‘in relation to a city, town or settlement, any area which is substantially used for residential, commercial, industrial or recreational purposes’.

Well this covers almost every single building in the UK, in a village or standing remotely in the middle of nowhere.

So why do they have a separate rule for individual buildings?

It seems badly thought out to me.

 

[The Editor]

Well this covers almost every single building in the UK, in a village or standing remotely in the middle of nowhere.

So why do they have a separate rule for individual buildings?

It seems badly thought out to me.

Welcome to the wonderful world of the CAA!

No, the pertinent word is 'substantially'.

If there is a lone farm house for instance, this would not be a congested area and the 50/30m rule would apply (or closer with permissions).
For other more habited areas the 150m standoff is required for recreational flyers.

 

[Gobuchul]

No, the pertinent word is 'substantially'.

It's completely subjective!

 

[The Editor]

It's completely subjective!

That's so they ALWAYS have a loophole to push for investigation/prosecution if they consider your flight(s) are breaching their rules.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Substantially is totally subjective, but If you crash into a building or a pedestrian on the ground, the CAA will definitely call that place a village.

 

[zocalo]

That's so they ALWAYS have a loophole to push for investigation/prosecution if they consider your flight(s) are breaching their rules.

Actually, it's deliberately subjective (like many laws) so that a judge/jury would have discretion to rule according to the available evidence, which could go either way. e.g. consider the following two hypothetical scenarios:

• A drone pilot overflies a small group of houses, loses control, crashes and causes harm to property and people. The prosecution successfully classes the group of houses as a "village", so the court is able to justify a stiffer penalty due to a breach of the Drone Code and ANO.
• A drone pilot overflies the a similar sized group of houses at a height in excess of 50m, but a local complains of a privacy violation and disturbance of the peace. Defence is able to successfully argue that the group of houses is a hamlet and show that the flight was thus in accordance with the Drone Code and ANO; images from the drone camera also negate the privacy violation argument. Pilot walks away from court without charge (although probably with a legal bill).

Even with cast iron evidence of guilt, the ultimate outcome in terms of any penalties applied is always going to be at the whim of the court. As the Drone Code states; every flight is *your* responsibility, even if the cause is a technical or mechanical failure that is 100% outside your control or ability to detect/prevent - although if you can show that it would hopefully be taken at least in part as a form of mitigation and a lesser penalty.

 

[Lastrexking]

If there's only one idiot, it's a village - anymore, it's a town.

 

[Ben B]

The Highway Code also mentions built up areas, and clarifies that it means areas with "a system of street lighting". So I'd be inclined to borrow that definition.

 

[Gobuchul]

Well they finally replied. Not that it was worth the wait. @The Editor You nailed it.

"Thank you for your email. The drone regulations are covered by Articles 94 and 95 of the Air Navigation Order 2016 (as amended) They provide the law in relation to how and where a drone can be flown. Any breaches of these articles can be prosecuted by the Police or the CAA and be heard in a court of law. The drone guide is a simplified version of the Air Navigation Order to try and make it more understandable to drone operators who may not be aviators that have an understanding of wider aviation issues.

As in all laws, they can be open to interpretation where some ambiguity may appear. Unfortunately, there is no clearer definition as to what constitutes a Village whether that be by number of persons or houses. The only way they can be defined further would be through a court of law where someone is prosecuted and contests the meaning of the terminology. A court of appeal can then make a decision which is called a stated case.

Unfortunately, I can’t assist you with any further guidance on the meaning of village, use your common sense and also work within the spirit of the act that the regulations were designed to ensure safety of persons and property. "

 

[zocalo]

Well they finally replied. Not that it was worth the wait. @The Editor You nailed it.

No surprise really, but still good to have some kind of quasi-official line, even if it's only "use your judgement" - that at least gives us some reasonable wiggle room. Basically, it's like most things - if you break a criminal law, then you can expect to be prosecuted under that law (e.g. if you crash into a building or individual, it's not going to matter how big the "village" is). If it's a civil matter (trespass, disturbing the peace, privacy violations, many by-laws, etc.) then it's a matter for the civil courts, which means that its up to the judge to consider the arguments and decide on a suitable penalty or to dismiss. I believe that precedent does carry some weight in civil courts, but not as much as it does in criminal cases, so you can't really rely on that if you find yourself being sued.

Not ideal, but it's better than nothing.

 

[4wd]

In any case examples mentioned above 'isolated farmhouse' might have livestock which could be spooked causing injury to themselves or workers, so far more risky than even a larger village where 90% of them are away at work or retired and sat inside.