does this mean...
...that I can't sail my model boats on Ruslip Lido any more
..?
Heathrow Airport's local council has effectively prohibited the flying of drones anywhere within the borough's public spaces – including parks near airfields. The London Borough of Hillingdon, over on the western edge of the capital, has – through a combination of local bylaws and a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) – made …
@ TechDrone
But what about a hovercraft?
The main body of the craft not touching the water surface (unless something goes wrong) like a "vessel" so arguably more akin to an aircraft.
How does the noise irritation of a drone compare to the sounds of being very near Heathrow flight path in terms of irritation?
Maybe people will get building person size drones, edict applies to unmanned drones...
Ok, so what if I get a drone, paint it yellow, write in big letters "duck" on the side of it and add quacking sounds. When approached by the council I can merely state that it is not a drone but it is in fact a duck. If it doesn't work and I get arrested I will go before the judge and say "mallard, as you can see it clearly is a duck".
"In the restricted areas a person commits an offence if without reasonable excuse he or she continues to carry out activities from which they are prohibited namely... using remote controlled model vehicles and aircraft that is[are?] likely to cause nuisance from noise or cause harassment, alarm or distress to another person without the express consent of the council."
The exact wording actually leaves a potential loophole, a redundancy, a rather serious omission and a rather odd implication.
The potential loophole is if without reasonable excuse - and also note the use of the word excuse instead of reason - Who decides what is reasonable excuse, or even reasonable reason?
The redundancy is in continues to carry out activities from which they are prohibited - because the offense is in carrying out the prohibited activity - continuing to carry out the prohibited activity is still just carrying out the prohibited activity.
Then there's likely to cause nuisance from noise or cause harassment, alarm or distress - note the omission of harm.
Finally, there's without the express consent of the council - which implies that the council can give you permission to cause nuisance from noise or cause harassment, alarm or distress to another person.
Although it's easy to see what was intended by this regulation, the precise wording actually describes something slightly different.
This may be one of the few areas where a blanket ban can be justified to avoid challenges with geo-fencing smaller areas. Line of sight, which is the normal range limiter, would be a risk so on balance I think sadly that they may have this one right.
Not that I think the wording is anything other than offensive, it would have been just as acceptable to say something like 'No unmanned powered aircraft', there is no need to have all the legalese waffle attached
I do not think it is really justified. Hillington borough covers very large area and both Heathrow airport and its approach are only a small part of it. Also, approach on the east side of the airport (which, judging by the noise outside my window is the most commonly used) is not over Hillington at all, it is Hounslow i.e. neighbouring borough.
I might be wrong here, but isn't only the police allowed to actually confiscate materials. All this person could do is prohibit you from continuing to fly and give you a fine.
Also, if these locations are indeed so close to airfields it would already be pretty much prohibited to fly anything there anyway.
Also, also, the wording covers all remote vehicles including those annoying nitro powered cars and boats (Which are usually much more annoying than planes to begin with), leading me to believe it might not be specifically targeted at drones
This is mostly just common sense. I wouldn't fly my drone within the 5 mile boundary of any major airport including approach/take off zones. I have on occasion called the ATC tower of local airports (Blackpool, Sheffield etc.) to let them know that I'm within 5 miles but not flying above 400 feet.
The 5 mile boundary of Heathrow airport overlaps most of the south of Hillingdon but the 5 mile boundary of RAF Northolt also overlaps most of the north of Hillingdon effectively making it one giant no fly zone anyway.
I guess this all comes down to experience and educating people without being condescending. NATS are doing a pretty great job engaging people on social media but they could be a bit better at offering starter courses to people instead of pushing training with a massive price tag attached.
DJI drone already have a no fly zone about 2.5km radio around LHR and 1km radio around Northolt (also Colnbrook Removal center - overlapped by LHR anyway) but it's far from covering whole Hillingdon.
I'm in Oxford AIAA and while I'm well outside Benson no fly or authorisation zone and outside enhanced warning area, there are high numbers of very low (well below 400ft - more like 150ft) helicopters, making flying drone an issue (basically, drop below 100 ft as soon as you hear helicopters coming, just in case). It would be great if MOD could do some notice system (website / automated txt) in place.
A quick look at the ICAO 500,000 scale aeronautical chart for Southern England and Wales shows that both Heathrow and Northolt are both well inside the London CTR, which is class D controlled airspace from the surface to 2500 ft. In short, nothing should be flying there without explicit permission and that includes drones and model aircraft.
This isn't a new regulation either: London CTR has been in effect and about the same size for at least a decade and has been class D airspace since July 2014.
But Martin. Martin, Martin, Martin. You don't expect little Johnny down the street to be doing the right thing to look this up on an ICAO 500K scale map? He just wants to fly his new DJI Spark anywhere he likes, despite it being part of the London CTR!
*slow eyeroll here* (I agree with you, obviously)
I'm sorry but this is wrong.
Anyone stupid enough to fly a drone near an airport is already breaking the law and will get arrested.
This is just an over reach of powers the council shouldn't have in the first place. PCPO's have been used to criminalise all sorts of things they shouldn't and impose fines on people that can't pay them. Homeless sleepers, not walking dogs on a lead etc...
Most of the borough may be unsuitable for drone use, but an outright ban is an misapplication of authority. Perhaps an organisation representing drone users should submit a request to the council with a list of specific areas they consider safe to fly that should be excepted? If left unchallenged, an outright ban like this could set a bad precedent.
Its a bit broad brush as there are areas to the left and right of the approach path that will never see traffic, due to the way the flight paths have to line up to the runway, but I can understand why its been put in place. Unfortunately its worded as all model vehicles and aircraft, so impacts everything from a kids toy to a RAF Watchkeeper.
IANAL but would you be OK to take off, land and fly from your back garden, overflying the parks and public areas, as not using the land in question.
As usual law abiding fliers will try to follow it, the people out to cause malicious intent will not care and continue regardless.
Drones make irritating noises, but so do many other things - vehicles, aircraft, gardening equipment (especially leaf blowers), construction equipment, kids, animals etc. If you start banning things which make obnoxious sounds then there won't be much left and you'll end up living in a giant public library.
However if your source of irritating noise is 500 feet up in the air then its going to be audible to a whole load more people than a leaf blower at ground level.
But reading the whole document its pretty clear that the order is about a whole raft of what they consider antisocial behaviour, and not intended to target drones specifically. My reading is that noisy motorised toy cars are deliberately targeted.
And honestly folks, the bit about noisy toys is maybe 1% of the document. There's a lot of other stuff in there that s equally dubious.
RAF Northolt, close to Heathrow International Airport, is a very special airport with very special customers. It is home to the Queen's Flight (aka No. 32 Royal Squadron) - used by the Royal Family. The Prime Minister and other UK Government poo-bahs also can be seen there.
The US Embassy staff use it, as did the CIA for rendition flights.
Another client is the Metropolitan Police who keep part of their fleet of fixed-wing aircraft and AgustaWestland AW109 lightweight, twin-engine, eight-seat multi-purpose helicopters, fitted with StingRay IMSI-catcher receivers, there. Netjets is based there - they carry movie stars and others with money to burn.
Tucked away on the northern border, on the western end, are the RAF classified surveillance, communications intelligence electromagnetic~electronic Intelligence aircraft. The Mail on Sunday said the RAF aircraft were Britten-Norman Islander - popular as they are great for use over London - day and night - with their very low stall speeds. The London Plod Islanders have very distinctive camera
surveillance turrets located under the main spar (attaches the wings) which is used for ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition),
If any readers go to Northolt, be aware that Link Integrated Security Systems of Chesterfield have supplied a high-tech perimeter security system manufactured by ObjectVideo of Reston, Virginia, USA.
Metro Plod also has facilities at Farnborough where they go by the name "Aero Lease UK" as well as "Nor Leasing" operating out of a Mail Boxes Etc store. The aircraft that overfly the motorways are based here - and cover motorways as far as way as Scotland.
Must be nice to have a limitless budget . . . funded by UK taxpayers.
Just use a private driveway or field, job done.
Also "remote controlled model vehicles and aircraft that is likely to cause nuisance from noise or cause harassment," so I suspect autonomous pre-programmed flypath with GPS coordinate should be fine, as long as it's not remotely controlled
Also "remote controlled model vehicles and aircraft that is likely to cause nuisance from noise or cause harassment," so I suspect autonomous pre-programmed flypath with GPS coordinate should be fine, as long as it's not remotely controlled
That's the gem of totally unnecessary and overly specific laws. Totally unnecessary because there are already laws in place to deal with the issue therefore making more is just lawyer time for the sake of it - how about enforcing the existing laws? The stupidity of overly specific laws is that the more specific they are, the more loopholes there will be - in this case, you've rightly noticed that "remote controlled" is a relatively easy loop hole if you wanted to have programmed or flight controlled aircraft you are welcome to do so.