The whole purpose of this new CAP is to provide clearer guidance to:
Individuals or organisations that wish to restrict unmanned aircraft (UA) in close proximity to their infrastructure, activity or location
(Or to facilitate UAS ops by restricting other aviation, but that’s not an issue for most of us).
There is no limit to which individuals or organisations can “sponsor” a new restriction, which may be temporary or permanent.
The CAA do not control flights in airspace, they just set the rules. It’s quite clear in the document that it will be the sponsor for a restricted zone who decides whether anyone can get permission to fly within it (essentially similar to how FRZs currently work: you contact the ATC, not the CAA).
I took the Flyer ID online theory test on Friday, and the questions are all in line with the new Code about to come into play. Also the Drone and Model Aircraft Code online guide on the CAA website has been updated. It gives clarity to Flyer ID and Operator ID requirements for drone categories and classes.
Doesn’t change my point in the slightest: there is reason to be concerned about who may want to put in place UAS restriction zones and about whether the CAA’s process will weed out unreasonable requests. If you were genuinely arguing that everything’s fine because the National Trust won’t be able to control “airspace” but they can still apply to create a permanent restriction on UAS flights, that’s just splitting hairs.
Thanks for the heads up.
Great to see the Drone Code updated (I was worried it might not be changed in time and we’d end up arguing about the new rules).
Interestingly, the new site doesn’t even mention the 31st Dec date (unless I’ve missed it) so it presents the new rules as if they currently apply.
I have just read the Drone Code and I assume, as there is no ‘valid from’ date it is current.
(I am in work so skimmed it so don’t take my word for it!)
I can see these more lax rules for <250g drones getting rewritten fairly soon once idiots start abusing them. I fly myself but I don’t really want to see anyone hovering over my garden. Can imagine neighbourhood disputes over them and all sorts happening.
Not splitting hairs but trying to stop the doom and gloom.
CAP 1616 is not new - issued in Jan 2018 and to my knowledge no NT site has applied for restricted status. The NT can still stop take-off and landing on their property but not overflying (within the Drone and Model Aircraft Code).
CAA statement “In most circumstances, the operation of UAS falls within the remit of non-aviation national legislation, and local byelaws, limits on recreational activities in public parks etc.”
Japan runs <200g hence the original Mavic Mini 1 using smaller and lighter LiPo batteries while the rest of the world got the heavier Li-Ion batteries in their Minis - so the Mini was ever lighter over there!
The updated drone code would suggest that these can be flown now.
I agree many will find them invasive - of course we are assuming that people will know that they can fly them in the gardens etc. Unless they read the drone code and work it out, then I would suggest many will not.
Many assume that because it is below 250g you do not need to register it - maybe they will be decided on where they can fly if they have a camera or not - perhaps that will ultimately be the difference and not the weight.
Points 20-25 of the new Drone Code are fairly clear that nobody should be going around hovering over anyone’s gardens. There will always be some idiot who doesn’t read it, or who wants to argue that the rules are not clear, but it’s not a license to do whatever you want.
Views of @GADC_Committee welcomed, but I’d suggest putting most fresh discussion in the new Drone Code thread as newcomers to the forum are unlikely to know what “EASA” is.
