They are running a business and so have their profits and indeed their staff costs to pay for.
So that comes before our us.
Dont really have a problem if its added as an optional extra layer, isnt shown by default, isnt red and doesnt say “no drone zone” to confuse people.
Cant see the harm of an option TOAL authorisation page provided its not forced on people or designed to confuse.
I find his shows are 99% waffle and 1% of interest.
so are they legally no fly zones ?
No they are not. They’re zones where you cannot takeoff/land or operate a drone from without permission.
1 Like
Any legal FRZ will be listed on Drone Scene
1 Like
4 Likes
Hmmmmm so why do they also say “It was released earlier than planned on our system “?
Seems to me this is going to be implemented at some point in the future ( as it is planned to be introduced ) I’m sure AA wouldn’t be developing something just as an exercise 
It’ll be their UTM based TOAL permission system. Data is being entered now, not due to be rolled out yet but someone hit the wrong button.
This is going on now, if anyone didn’t notice…
Interview with live AA person on the Drone and Sundry channel !
But surely that doesn’t give landowners free reign to designate an area a “no drone zone” ? Still cannot legally stop TOAL outside that area.
These No-Drone Zones were not a mistake but an error by AA
they will be implemented as pay-as-you-fly sites
On the 2nd of September Historic Environment Scotland will announce they are opening 70 locations for drone flyers
and on the 16th of September another 157 locations will be added
And i still wont pay a penny, cause they cant stop me, end of!
2 Likes
All they can do (in Engerlund) is stop toal from their land. In Scotland? Different story. Pretty much all land is accessible for recreation, leisure, fitness etc. They can fuck right off!
1 Like
They can call it what they want - it has no legal standing.
They can make the land a no drone zone.
Suspect here AA simple applied the wrong label to a work in progress system and back-end data
And from tomorrow i’ll be flying over a fair few of those free-of-charge completely legally.
If this becomes a “thing”, is anyone going to go down the legal route ? ( and possibly claim discrimination against drone operators )/
Its not discrimination. They can do whatever they want from their land. Access rights in Scotland still dont allow operation of drones or anything as such.
Ultimately, if the thing you want to see is outside VLOS (ie 500m or so) the only legal flight is pay or not fly. As opposed to now where you just cant fly legally.
Its not HS but assuming NTS and others get onboard, Glenfinnan viaduct etc come to mind - the attraction is far enough on land to be way beyond VLOS operation.
Depending on your eyesight or size of the drone of course
I bet the National Trust and English Heritage will soon be following suit. Extra income for NT too . If you’re not a member the charge to get into some places can be extortionate enough.