I’ve got a mini 2
As per above, if the landing legs take you above 250g, and assuming you don’t hold any additional qualifications, you can then only fly in A3: >150m away from residential, industrial, commercial and recreational areas. Ditch the legs, and if you’re flying from rough ground and not confident to hand-launch, use a portable landing pad.
Adding the legs adds weight, if that takes it over 250gm then there’s a change to the rules, you can’t intentionaly fly over anyone. Under 250gm, you can fly over them. The Mini 1 is 249gm, the Mini 2 is actually lighter than 249gm (despite the labelling) with battery so you need to add the legs and put it on a scale.
4 Likes
Not necessarily, see above.
I will remove the legs if not out in the countryside thanks 
1 Like
Am I right that there is no mention of any restriction to the time of day/night you can now fly (provided you can maintain VLOS)?
Thanks
1 Like
I doubt any bobby would could be even arsed with the rules. As long as you’re not a nuisance or near an airport
Yes, that’s right.
Ok, here is an attempt to visually clarify and compare where you can now fly a legacy drone, assuming that your drone meets the requirements for each of these diagrams. To check that, see this previous post first:
The aim in particular is to try and understand some of the merits (or otherwise) of using the UK Model Aircraft Associations Operational Authorisation, if you are a member of one. You can read more about that here:
https://greyarro.ws/t/fpvuk-uas-implementing-regulation-article-16-operational-authorisation/22789
I haven’t done a diagram for the A1 sub-category as that’s fairly straightforward. And hopefully it goes without saying that all other requirements of the ANO and Drone Code still apply (don’t endanger property, use VLOS etc).
If anyone finds any errors, please let me know!
6 Likes
As a member of the BMFA with both a M2Z and (now) a Mini 2, I’ll be planning to use the Article 16 OA to continue flying my M2Z where I do today with the potential for reduced clearances around people, and the ability to fly at night (maintaining VLOS). There’s no end-date to the A16OA, so I’ll be able to continue doing that indefinitely unless rules change. With the only real extra requirment being a risk-assesment when flown in a public area within a R/C/I zone (such as in a park/playing field).
It’s better to fly the Mini 2 under the legacy A1 provisions as they are less prescriptive than the Article 16 OA which makes no real concession to a sub-250g drone. That’ll allow me to fly that pretty much anywhere I want provided it’s legal and safe, at any time.
Missed the end date - thanks
1 Like
I can imagine it changing in the following year, depending what feedback the CAA gets this year, or what the flying associations realise they need to change.
1 Like
Hi again @kvetner
Re your diagrams above; what’s your take on the 50m distance from buildings or vehicles unless unoccupied or operator is certain persons are protected? Unless you’re driving a convertible or standing in a greenhouse, I think most people would be protected…
Ian
1 Like
Well, it’s obviously worth pointing out that the ANO makes it an offence (Article 241) to “recklessly or negligently … endanger any person or property”, so the first point is that even if the building or vehicle is unoccupied, if the pilot damages it they will have to justify why they thought their distance was safe.
CAP722 (2.1.3.2) advises:
The prescribed separation distances from uninvolved persons still apply to persons that are occupants of any vehicle, vessel or structure. Therefore, the relevant limitations for separating from persons must still be applied, unless the remote pilot can be certain that they are either:
- unoccupied, or;
- in the case of structures, the remote pilot can be certain that the occupants will still be protected.
That’s just CAA advice: there is nothing in the regulations themselves about buildings or vehicles. The regs are a bit shit, to be honest. For example, the wording for the 50m distance for transitional UAS in A2 (IR Article 22) is:
unmanned aircraft with a take-off mass of less than 2 kg is operated by keeping a minimum horizontal distance of 50 meters from people
That doesn’t even say “uninvolved people”, just “people”, nor does it say anything about danger or injury. Read very strictly, it’s an offense to get within 50m, full stop. And that’s just for A2: under A3, the regulations don’t actually offer any safe distances - the CAA advice is 50m, but that’s just advice.
On my A2 CofC course, the example was given of someone standing behind the window of a building. If the drone lost control, could it smash the window and cause an injury? If so, you should keep a safe distance, using the same distance as for any uninvolved persons.
I’d think with a vehicle, the risk must relate to how fast it is travelling and the traffic conditions - there must be more chance of causing a serious incident if a drone hits a car travelling at speed on a busy motorway than a car parked on a side street; and the risk to a train must be less than a car because the train driver can’t swerve into the path of other traffic.
For me personally, the only way to resolve the shoddiness of the regulations and associated guidance is to fall back on pilot judgement. Accountability for whether the flight is safe remains with the pilot regardless of exact distances. If that pilot judgement is supported by the CAA guidance in CAP722, that obviously helps.
In practice, I think I will be “certain” that occupants will be protected on more occasions than some others will be. If I was doing commercial work, I’d probably adjust my view, given that I work in the construction and transport industries and know how they deal with safety risk (and love paperwork).
I also think that the risk of being injured by a sensibly-flown drone is vanishingly small compared to the risk of being hit by a car, a cyclist, or a football, or injured by a dog. Especially if you are inside a vehicle or a building! But sadly I doubt that argument would get you very far in court.
4 Likes
Surely at the end of the day we will only really know when an accident happens and a judge makes their decision based upon the rules.
I would perhaps consider houses to possibly contain uninvolved people who might step out at any time.
I am in property and planning and quite often we only really know what the legislation really means when the inspectorate makes a decision.
That said I do question as to how different the damage from a Mini 2 and an Air 2 would be in reality.
2 Likes
Twice the weight = twice the impact energy (assuming equal speed)
2 Likes
They had to draw a line somewhere between the toy and ‘proper’ drone.
Just those sneakys at DJI had a stroke of marketing genius, with the Mini and M2
Am I alone in thinking the 250g thing will change (for the worse) at some point ?
2 Likes
I will be surprised if they don’t find a way to exclude the Mini 1/2 once thousands of newbies with no knowledge or training start taking off from their gardens and flying through high streets reeking havoc on the general public 
2 Likes
I know they have different rules but in Japan they have reduced the lower limit down to 100g, I think.
Not sure how often the rules can change or the procedure required to alter the categories / weights.
The EASA regulations apply in the UK because they are “retained EU law” under the EU Withdrawal Act. Such law can be amended at any time via fresh UK legislation, unless it puts the UK in breach of treaty obligations. I think in this case they’d be reluctant to make much change because there are obvious advantages to harmonising the product standards for new drones, and the flying regs are built around the product standards.
They could create geographical restrictions to keep Open category drones out of urban areas entirely, but that would be complex to define and in practice unenforceable. Or they could keep the product standards but amend UK law so that C0 (and equivalent sub-250g) drones can only be flown in A2. Or they could amend the 250g figure, but as that’s tied to the product standards, I’d think they’d only do that if all of Europe wanted to make the change.
1 Like