You’d think (and hope) that there was some science to the regulations, and they calculated the potential damage a <19mps <250g drone could do and based the regulations on that.
Having just bought a Mini 2, I wouldn’t want it falling on my head from a height, but it definitely wouldn’t kill you.
I bet it could
The government likes following the science apparently… 
Given a choice, I’d rather the mini 2 landed on my head than my M2Zoom 
See graph here (no idea if it’s correct, just linking):
https://miniuavsafety.wordpress.com/2013/01/16/kinetic-energy-vs-probability-of-fatality/
Kinetic energy for a 250g object at 19m/s is 45J, unless I’ve cocked up my calculation. Which is very possible.
But that is if you fly it into someone’s face at full flight speed. I suspect it would be much higher falling at terminal velocity from 120m 
On that same ilk I’d id rather have the M2Z fall on me than an A380
For A16OA flights, what do you interpret the distance required from R/C/I areas to be?
It states that you can fly in “Any other suitable area, which is not a built-up area”, but say you’re at the edge of a town … let’s say on the coast … how far away from a building would you need to be to launch (and then fly in a direction away from the R/C/I area). Or how close could you fly towards a R/C/I area if you launched from an open space?
The image you’ve created seems to suggest the answer to that is 30m, but I’m not sure that’s the case?
For example, below the area highlighted in yellow is clearly a ‘built-up area’, but the area above it clearly isn’t. How far away from the yellow would you need to be to launch, and how close to the yellow could you reasonably fly?
There’s no distance to these areas required in the OA. So you can fly right up to the edge: 0m. But there is still the 30m from uninvolved people. This was confirmed in a separate thread by FPVUK themselves.
Do I have to do anything else before I fly again I have a mavic pro it is registered so I have numbers on drone and controller any help would be greatfully appreciated
I’ve moved your post to this thread @swfc1867 where you’ll find all the info you need.
Search up a few posts and watch @ianinlondon excellent video explaining the new rules.
Having watched the video showing the new rules for flying drones it seems like people who own mavic pro or similar will not be able to fly as we could before making the drones a waste of time owning not happy 
A2 CofC should see you flying pretty much as you were
How do I get the A2 cofc
Have a Google for training courses, loads recommended in the thread.
It’s not like it’s just been dropped on us 
Thanks @kvetner
I’m trying to expand on A1.4.1 Operating Area: No flights within 150m horizontally of residential, commercial, industrial or recreational areas
Now I know their definitions of this are clear as mud, but I’m trying to explain how despite the drone & model aircraft site stating ‘beaches’ are an example of a recreational area, that doesn’t necessarily mean the entire coastline of the UK is now out of bounds.
My take is that all rules refer to risk of uninvolved 3rd parties, so where there few people and you can confidentally expect to be able to maintain the horizontal distance of 50m from uninvolved people, then I would be good to fly. But as ever, you could arguie that I’m trying to redeifne what a recreational area is, which of course I’m not. I’m just trying to give advice on where you can actually fly, as many people are now thinking they can barely fly anywhere.
I am referencing section 2.1.3.3 - Congested areas where they expand with: (i.e. areas that are densely
populated or likely to be occupied by large numbers of persons). So this is the key element to consider when choosing a site to fly. What’s your take?
Doing my A2 CofC I was told that a congested area could just be a couple of houses!
Also I guess beaches would include any that people might access for a walk or whatever.
A3 is pretty much just the countryside far from people as far as I know.
The legal test is UAS.OPEN.040 in the regulations:
- be conducted in an area where the remote pilot reasonably expects that no uninvolved person will be endangered within the range where the unmanned aircraft is flown during the entire time of the UAS operation;
- be conducted at a safe horizontal distance of at least 150 metres from residential, commercial, industrial or recreational areas
CAP722 offers the words (emphasis added):
As part of the aim to protect uninvolved persons, flights within areas that are used for residential, commercial, industrial or recreational purposes (i.e. areas that are densely populated or likely to be occupied by large numbers of persons) have additional operational limitations placed on them.
I’ve not got a strong view on what a court would decide. And since I’ll have my A2 CofC any day now and can already operate under the FPV(UK) it’s totally academic - I can fly in a recreational area anyway.
I don’t think you could argue that it’s ok to fly over a beach in A3 if you just stay 50m away from uninvolved persons, because that’s pretty much just the definition of A2 anyway. One way people could think about this is - is the area being used for recreation at the time of flight? To me, a beach where there are people sunbathing, flying kites, playing games and swimming is quite clearly different to one where there is just one or two isolated dog walkers. You could be up in the remote Scottish highlands and still encounter walkers - and if that’s not A3, definitely nowhere is!
If I was ever taken to court (and let’s face it, has this ever actually happened to anyone? - we’re talking about a pretty unlikely outcome here), I would definitely be waving around the CAP722 wording about “densely populated” and “large numbers of people”. The aim of the A3 restrictions is not to keep you away from (for example) a factory or a tennis court, it’s to keep you away from places where there are likely to be more people.
People really need to fall back on their own judgement - “some bloke on the internet said I could” is really no basis to make this kind of decision.
I’ve had a few correspondences with the CAA in the past year and it almost always involves an email or 2 explaining to them that the initial answer they send back has little if anything to do with my question.
I can only imagine that they are employing Politicians to answer the emails
To be fair to the CAA on this - it’s not for them to decide. The legislation says what it says - only a court can decide what it means.
