But at the same potentially breaking CAA guidance and policy.
What’s politics got to do with something that is very easy to understand, which clearly others including them don’t?
The establishment of an airspace restriction means that the sponsor is responsible for managing it, and not that the sponsor ‘owns’ it; airspace is a State asset. There should be no reason for a Sponsor to charge for access to airspace for UAS. Whilst some burden of work may exist in processing applications for UAS access to airspace, it is envisaged that this will not require an undue burden…
I think the problem you have, just as with many drone related rules and regs, is there is no clear pathway to report things. Just as police won’t be putting a recordable crime report on for drone infringements (they will either deal if come across direct or refer to CAA), how do you then deal with an authority unduly charging for an admin relate function that goes against the section posted above in the CAA regs… how do you “report” or effectively communicate with the CAA and what kind of appetite, resources and investigation follows?
As has been said, it will just mean that people fly without the relevant permissions, as most do anyway. My feeds over Xmas were filled with hobbyists posting aerial footage taken over crowds, in FRZ’s both locally and in London, and videos that show prolonged manoeuvres well outside of VLOS. Its happening all the time and will continue to do so. Are any of these being looked at and dealt with - I very much doubt it.
