The rapid proliferation of uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) has introduced new and pressing safety concerns for commercial aviation. Recreational UAS users in particular may be unaware of airspace regulations, increasing the risk of an airborne collision and subsequent engine ingestion. Because UAS components, such as lithium-polymer batteries and electric motors, are significantly denser and stiffer than birds or ice, existing aviation certification standards cannot be directly applied. To address this, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) sponsored the Task A43 research programme, conducted by The Ohio State University (OSU) and the National Institute for Aviation Research (NIAR). The project’s primary goal was to execute a live UAS engine ingestion test to validate computational modelling approaches used in previous airborne collision studies.
The live ingestion experiment The physical test was conducted at the Naval Air Warfare Center (NAWC) facility in China Lake, California. The research team selected a flightworthy CFM56-7B high-bypass turbofan engine, which is exclusively used on the Boeing 737 next-generation airliner, making it highly representative of modern commercial fleets. The chosen projectile was a DJI Phantom 3 standard quadcopter, selected because its key rigid components (battery, camera, and motors) are similar to newer models and because a high-fidelity computational model of this specific UAS had already been experimentally validated. The drone had a mass of 1.216kg (2.68lb).
To simulate a severe takeoff collision, the engine was operated at a fan rotational speed of 5,175 RPM. The UAS was launched into the engine at a relative translational speed of 92.6 m/s (180 knots). The target aim point was roughly 75% of the radial span of the fan blades, a location known to cause maximum fan damage while reducing the probability of core ingestion.
Computational modelling and validation A core objective of Task A43 was to evaluate how well computational simulations, performed using LS-DYNA software, could predict the real-world damage sustained during a UAS ingestion. The researchers developed a specific finite element model of the CFM56-7B fan assembly and compared its simulated ingestion results against the live test data. Furthermore, they compared the physical test against an “open representative fan assembly model” developed during previous research, which mimics the structural features of typical high-bypass engines without relying on proprietary commercial designs.
Data collection during the live test relied heavily on high-speed cameras, digital image correlation (DIC), and strain gauges mounted on the fan blades. Although lighting issues limited some of the DIC resolution, the cameras successfully captured the UAS’s orientation, velocity, and trajectory immediately prior to impact.
Damage severity and findings The live experiment resulted in significant damage to multiple fan blades. The physical results and the computational simulations aligned remarkably well, both categorising the outcome as a severity level 3 event. A severity level 3 classification indicates significant damage—such as material loss on the leading edges and visible cracking above the mid-span of the blades—but implies that the imbalance remains within the engine certification envelope, akin to a single blade-out event.
In both the physical experiment and the CFM56-7B simulation, the UAS was entirely obliterated upon impact. While the physical test exhibited a fireball explosion that the LS-DYNA software cannot computationally replicate, the kinematics of the collision and the specific blades impacted matched almost exactly. Furthermore, the steady-state imbalances, evaluated by measuring the shift in the centre of mass of the blades post-impact, were highly consistent between the physical engine model and the generic representative model.
Conclusions and industry impact The Task A43 report successfully validated the computational modelling methodology used to simulate UAS engine ingestions. Crucially, the research proved that the open representative fan assembly model behaves similarly to an actual in-service CFM56-7B engine under collision conditions.
This conclusion provides the aviation and UAS industries with a vital, non-proprietary tool for future safety testing. By relying on this experimentally validated representative model, aircraft engine manufacturers and UAS developers can safely and efficiently study foreign object ingestions, improve computational parameters, and mitigate the risks posed by the growing number of drones in the sky.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
In 2012, the UK drone sector was still relatively small. Multirotors existed, commercial aerial work was growing, and the Civil Aviation Authority’s focus was broadly understandable: keep unmanned aircraft away from people, aircraft, congested areas and controlled airspace, and require permission for higher-risk or commercial activity.
By 2026, the picture has changed dramatically. The UK now has a layered system of registration, Flyer IDs, Operator IDs, Open/Specific/Certified categories, operational authorisations, SORA assessments, Operational Safety Objectives, containment evidence, Remote ID, UK class markings, SAIL markings, Recognised Assessment Entities for Flightworthiness, and a growing family of CAP 722 guidance documents.
The question is no longer whether drones should be regulated. They clearly should be. The real question is whether UK drone regulation has moved from proportionate safety management into a culture of compliance expansion, where each new risk produces another document, certificate, marking scheme, or approval pathway.
The early years: simple rules, clear principles
The CAA’s CAP 722 has existed since the early 2000s, but the period around 2012 was still comparatively simple. CAP 722’s revision history shows the fifth edition was published in August 2012, with updates to terms, definitions, procedures and human factors material. The major structural changes came later, particularly in 2015, when the document was completely restructured and the Operating Safety Case process became central to permissions for more complex unmanned aircraft operations. (Civil Aviation Authority)
That older approach had faults, but it had one major strength: it was relatively understandable. Operators generally knew the basics: remain visual line of sight, keep clear of people and property, stay away from airports, and seek CAA permission for commercial or higher-risk work. It was not perfect, but the compliance burden was still recognisable to small operators and manufacturers.
The 2015 introduction of the OSC process was arguably the first major paperwork escalation. It asked operators to explain their concept of operations, aircraft systems, safety mitigations and operational procedures. For serious commercial work, that made sense. But it also began the shift from “fly safely and demonstrate competence” towards “produce a large body of evidence to prove that you might fly safely.”
2018–2019: airport restrictions made sense
One of the more defensible changes was the strengthening of airport flight restriction zones. Following the increasing public concern around drones near airports, the UK introduced clearer height restrictions and restrictions around protected aerodromes. CAA guidance published in 2019 explained the 400 ft limit and the expanded Flight Restriction Zone system, including airport traffic zones and runway protection areas.
This was a sensible area for regulation. Airports are one of the few places where even a small drone can create a serious aviation hazard. The 2019 changes extended restriction zones to include runway protection extensions, commonly described as 5 km by 1 km zones from runway ends, which was aimed at protecting aircraft during take-off and landing. (GOV.UK)
Very few responsible drone operators would argue against clear airport restrictions. Flight Restriction Zones are a good example of regulation targeted at a real and obvious risk.
The problem is that this targeted logic has not always been maintained elsewhere.
2020 onwards: the European-style category system arrives
The next major shift came with the adoption of the European-style framework: Open, Specific and Certified categories. The idea was logical on paper. Low-risk operations sit in the Open Category. More complex or higher-risk operations sit in the Specific Category. Very high-risk operations fall into the Certified Category.
But the practical effect was another layer of complexity. Instead of a relatively direct permission process, operators now had to understand subcategories, registration requirements, competency requirements, operational authorisations, risk assessments, mitigations and supporting guidance.
CAP 722 itself has also become part of a much wider ecosystem. The current CAP 722 page describes it as CAA guidance and policy for unmanned aircraft system operations, but the CAA drone publications area now includes a large family of related documents, including CAP 722, CAP 722A, CAP 722D, CAP 722G, CAP 722H, CAP 722J, CAP 722K, CAP 722L and further supporting publications. (Civil Aviation Authority)
The CAA is careful to say CAP 722 is guidance rather than law. But for operators, manufacturers and consultants, guidance often becomes quasi-law. If a CAA document says something “should” be done, then in practice it can become very difficult to obtain an authorisation without doing it.
2025–2026: class marks, Remote ID, SORA and SAIL marking
By 2026, the regulatory stack becomes even heavier.
The CAA has confirmed UK class marking requirements for drones, with UK0 to UK6 classes setting product requirements such as reliability, geo-awareness, Remote ID, flashing lights, labelling and conformity assessment. The CAA says this is intended to support clearer and simpler rules, but it also introduces another product compliance layer for manufacturers and importers. (Civil Aviation Authority)
Remote ID is another example. The CAA describes Remote ID as a system that transmits identification and location information from a drone, usually by Wi-Fi or Bluetooth, to support police and enforcement activity. From 2026 and 2028, different categories of aircraft and operations become subject to Remote ID requirements, including requirements linked to UK class-marked aircraft. (Civil Aviation Authority)
Again, the purpose is understandable. Enforcement agencies need tools to identify irresponsible operators. But the practical burden falls on everyone, including responsible operators who are already registered, insured, trained and operating under permissions. RID also has technical flaws which would need addressing as currently it is to easy to Fake RID for a drone.
Then there is UK SORA. The CAA’s SORA process requires operators to assess ground risk, air risk, operational volume, contingency volume, ground risk buffer, adjacent areas, Specific Assurance and Integrity Level, Operational Safety Objectives, containment requirements and supporting evidence. (Civil Aviation Authority)
For complex operations, risk assessment is necessary. But SORA risks becoming a paperwork machine. Instead of one coherent safety case, an operator can end up managing a web of documents, evidence references, OSO compliance statements, containment arguments, aircraft evidence, operational evidence, training evidence and maintenance evidence.
The introduction of SAIL Mark certificates and Recognised Assessment Entities for Flightworthiness adds another layer again. The CAA says RAE(F)s assess technical features and flightworthiness, while SAIL Mark certificates demonstrate that a UAS meets requirements linked to UK SORA SAIL levels. (Civil Aviation Authority) CAP 722K, first issued in March 2025, sets out policy and administrative guidance for UAS designers and RAE(F)s seeking SAIL Mark certification. (Civil Aviation Authority)
This is where many manufacturers and operators start to ask whether regulation has crossed a line. If a drone already uses standard components, radio modules, electronics and systems that have their own conformity evidence, how many times should the same basic compliance be rechecked? At what point does a safety process become a market barrier?
The safety record question
The most uncomfortable question for regulators is this: where is the fatality record that justifies the scale of expansion?
The CAA’s 2024 Annual Safety Review says there were around 720,000 registered RPAS users, made up of approximately 450,000 Flyer IDs and 270,000 Operator IDs. It should be noted people that stop flying drones still have Flyer IDs for years after they have stopped flying so the answer to how many are actually operating or flying drones will be closer to 270,000 operator ID number overall.
It also reports around 2,500 operational authorisations and 21,000 remote pilots with competency qualifications. In 2024, the CAA recorded 55 RPAS accidents and serious incidents, a 31% decrease from 2023. (Civil Aviation Authority)
The same review states that fatal injury reports in 2024 represented 0.02% of all occurrence reports and that all of those fatal injury reports involved general aviation aircraft. (Civil Aviation Authority)
That does not mean drones are risk-free. A falling aircraft can injure someone. A drone near an airport can create serious consequences. The AAIB and CAA rightly require reporting of accidents and serious incidents, and the CAA says occurrence reporting is intended to support safety learning rather than blame. (Civil Aviation Authority)
But if the UK civilian multirotor sector has not produced the kind of fatality record that was once feared, then the regulatory response should be tested against real evidence. Rules should be proportionate to actual harm, not hypothetical worst-case scenarios layered on top of one another indefinitely.
Has regulation gone too far?
In some areas, no. Airport Flight Restriction Zones make sense. Basic registration makes sense. Competency tests make sense for heavier or higher-risk drones. Operational authorisations make sense for operations near people, infrastructure, controlled airspace or complex environments.
But the broader direction is harder to defend.
The UK has moved from a relatively simple safety model to a compliance stack. A responsible operator or manufacturer now faces not just operational rules, but class markings, Remote ID, SORA, SAIL, RAE(F) assessments, evidence matrices, OSO mapping, containment arguments, competency levels and a growing CAP 722 document family.
This is regulatory bloat.
The danger is that the system starts to reward paperwork more than safety. A small manufacturer can spend months producing evidence packs, paying consultants, chasing assessments and cross-referencing guidance documents, while an irresponsible operator can still buy a cheap drone and ignore the rules entirely.
That is the core failure of over-complex regulation: it burdens the compliant while doing little to stop the reckless.
Are policymakers just justifying their jobs?
It is probably too simplistic to say CAA policymakers are merely trying to justify their jobs. The CAA has statutory duties. It has to respond to government, public concern, airport disruption, international rulemaking, police enforcement needs and rapid technology change.
But it is fair to ask whether the policy culture has become self-expanding. Every new framework creates new guidance. Every guidance document creates new interpretation. Every interpretation creates a need for consultants, assessors, templates, evidence packs and further CAA review.
At some point, the process becomes its own industry.
The CAA should be challenged to answer a simple question for every new requirement: what specific risk does this reduce, and what evidence shows that the reduction is worth the cost?
If the answer is clear, the rule should stay. If the answer is vague, the rule should be simplified or removed.
A better way forward
The UK does not need deregulation. It needs proportional regulation.
Keep airport restrictions. Keep sensible height limits. Keep registration and competency where the aircraft or operation presents a real risk. Keep operational authorisations for complex work.
But reduce duplication. Stop turning every safety concern into another certificate or marking scheme. Make SORA usable by normal operators, not just consultants. Ensure SAIL marking does not become an innovation tax. Review guidance regularly and remove obsolete layers. Most importantly, measure regulatory burden against actual accident and injury data.
The drone industry has matured. The rules should mature too.
From 2012 to 2026, UK drone regulation has gone from broad safety principles to a dense compliance ecosystem. Some of that evolution was necessary. Much of it now looks excessive.
If the goal is safer skies, regulation must remain clear, targeted and evidence-led. If the result is simply more forms, more marks, more certificates and more cost, then the system is no longer just managing risk. It is manufacturing bureaucracy.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
AVSS – Aerial Vehicle Safety Solutions Inc. (AVSS) is proud to share results from its Precision Avalanche Management System (PAMS) testing in collaboration with Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada, Department of National Defence, Parks Canada, Transport Canada and Natural Resources Canada through the Innovative Solutions Canada program. The testing of the PAMS occurred in February and March 2026 in Jasper, Alberta, Canada.
The testing results from using a drone to support avalanche control work with dropping explosives not only demonstrated the operational benefits and potential use cases for avalanche professionals, but also the collaborative opportunities for Canadian-owned companies to commercialize their new intellectual property and technology with end users from the Government of Canada.
In February and March, AVSS traveled to Jasper National Park to conduct avalanche control with live explosives. The first set of tests demonstrated AVSS’s system and operational abilities of safely operating drones for avalanche control work. The second set of tests gathered key system and operational data to demonstrate the potential operational use cases of the technology. This avalanche control testing program also seems to be the first documented regulatory-approved use of drones for avalanche control work that involved dropping live explosives in Canada.
Testing from this program has demonstrated the potential value of drone technology and how it can be incorporated into existing avalanche control programs as a new tool to their existing safe operations. Findings from this testing included ideal drop heights, best practices for safe drone operations for avalanche control, regulatory approvals for drone avalanche control work, and validation in varying operational environments. Furthermore, use cases were explored where a drone can augment the existing operations. AVSS will be highlighting some of the lessons learned and features of the technology at the upcoming Canadian Avalanche Association (CAA) conference in May in Penticton, B.C. As well, the findings from this initial testing program have provided AVSS with the ability to demonstrate a remotely controlled drop system and an automatic safe arming system, which does not arm the initiation system until the drone has reached a safe altitude from take-off, and reached a position within the drop radius of the target avalanche path.
The genesis of this technology is derived from AVSS’s guided delivery product line. However, unlike the guided parachute system, this does not include parachutes. The PAMS technology includes an aerial drop system integrated with a drone, a pull wire initiation system, and a sled housing that holds a traditional cast booster, which can be remotely dropped through the remote controller.
About ISC: Innovative Solutions Canada is an initiative designed to stimulate technology research, development, and commercialization of Canadian innovations. The program’s Challenge Stream and Testing Stream help startups and small/medium-sized businesses (SMEs) overcome technology testing and development hurdles so that they can produce globally-demanded products and services, while also improving government operations.
About AVSS: Founded in 2017, AVSS, a Canadian-owned company, started developing compliant safety products for commercial drones. These safety products are used worldwide and can be purchased from more than 70 partners. In 2020, AVSS expanded its product offerings with guided and unguided delivery systems. The delivery systems enable critical resupply when landing a drone, helicopter, or small airplane is not an option. In 2025, AVSS announced their newest innovation, the Precision Avalanche Management System (PAMS), for the proactive management and mitigation of avalanches. In 2026, AVSS introduced the Flying Beehive product line, which allows for air-launched FPV.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
On Friday 29 August, No.1 Flying Training School and RAF Shawbury Flight Safety teams held their first Drone Safety Awareness Day. The aim of the day was to gain a better understanding of how different organisations employ drones commercially and professionally across Shropshire and the Low Flying Area we use to deliver helicopter flying training for UK Defence.
We were pleased to host some forty operators representing organisations who provide drone services for farming, construction, search & rescue and media businesses; as well as operators from the Prison, Fire and Police Services and Harper Adams University.
Using our flying simulators, the visitors got the opportunity to appreciate the cockpit view from our helicopters and there was plenty of opportunity for discussion about how we can mutually share our county’s airspace in the safest way and in best interest of all. With drones set to become ever more popular for recreational and professional use, the importance of the theme ‘Shared Skies, Shared Responsibility’ was well understood by everyone by the end of the event. Thank you to all those organisations who attended and contributed to the day.
As per our previous monthly Drone Safety posts, operators are kindly requested to inform RAF Shawbury Station Operations of any intent to fly, either by telephone on 01939 250351 Ext 7163, or by emailing a completed Drone Form (link below) to [email protected]
https://www.raf.mod.uk/…/20250722-drone-notification-form
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
BEFORE FURTHER FLIGHT
Urgent Bootloader Update needed on Here4. If your Here4 doesn’t breath blue on boot, then you MUST do this bootloader update
All Here4 users need to update the bootloader on their Here4 units BEFORE FURTHER FLIGHT.
For units NOT showing blue breathing at boot
The process for doing this update is as follows:
For units already showing solid White LED (NOT breathing)
If you have appropriate SWD connector (6pin JST SUR) to Here4 available, and are capable of doing a bootloader update. Follow the following steps:
For STLink:
For JLink:
Important: For users that are not capable of opening Here4 unit and updating using JST SUR and Debug probe to fix solid white LED, please contact your Reseller for further support. For units that are still healthy make sure to follow primary bootloader update method.
Additional Resources:
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Unmanned aircraft operating near active incident scenes pose a growing risk to aerial operations and responder safety. A U.S. fire department based in the Hawaiian Islands encountered repeated drone intrusions during emergency deployments, raising serious concerns for helicopter coordination and overall scene management.
To address this challenge, the department field-tested Dronetag RIDER, a compact, mission-ready Remote ID receiver that provides real-time situational awareness of drone activity. The battery powered device mounts directly to tactical gear or vehicle dashboards and begins scanning immediately, requiring no setup, or external infrastructure.
Case Study Overview:
Key outcomes from the field test include:
- Detection of a DJI M30T drone at a distance of over 2 miles.
- Real-time tracking of multiple drones and pilot takeoff positions while in motion.
- Zero-setup deployment, fully operational out of the box.
- Enhanced airspace control during helicopter-supported emergency operations.
- Positive field evaluation from operational personnel with intent to procure.
“The results have been highly accurate in terms of using the RIDER for detection purposes. I am thoroughly impressed with this technology.” – Field Test Lead, U.S. Fire Department.
The department is now planning to integrate multiple RIDER units into its response operations, citing the device’s ease of use, reliability in the field, and its value in enhancing airspace visibility during critical missions.
Download the full case study here (PDF)
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
uAvionix, committed to radically innovating to keep the skies safe for all airspace users, today announced the release of skyAlert, a portable, wearable ADS-B receiver specifically designed for professional Uncrewed Aircraft Systems (UAS) operators and their supporting visual observers. By audibly alerting users whenever an ADS-B equipped aircraft enters a user-configurable proximity zone, skyAlert significantly increases situational awareness and safety, allowing operators to maintain uninterrupted visual contact with their drones.
“skyAlert exemplifies uAvionix’s unwavering dedication to innovation in aviation safety,” said Christian Ramsey, Chief Commercial Officer at uAvionix. “By providing immediate audible warnings of nearby ADS-B equipped aircraft, SkyAlert empowers UAS operators and visual observers to remain focused and proactive in maintaining flight safety and compliance.”
Enhancing Operational Safety
Geared toward professional UAS operators in the field, skyAlert addresses the critical need to remain heads-up and alert during flight operations, especially when hand flying near structures and powerlines. The device’s configurable audible alerts immediately inform users of potential intruder conflicts such as low flying helicopters without requiring visual distractions, enhancing both safety and regulatory compliance while keeping eyes on the drone.
Configurable Alert Zone
A key feature of skyAlert is its configurable alert zone, which allows users to set customized altitude and range parameters. Operators can define the distance and vertical separation at which they wish to be alerted, ensuring timely notification tailored specifically to their operational environment and safety needs, allowing the UAS operator to take timely evasive action. This flexibility empowers operators to proactively manage potential airspace conflicts before they become critical during utility inspections, or agricultural and civil engineering operations at low altitude.
Optional EFB Connectivity
For enhanced situational awareness, skyAlert offers integrated connectivity to most common Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) applications, allowing users or their visual observer to electronically monitor nearby aircraft traffic on a mobile device. This capability uses the industry-standard GDL-90 protocol, providing real-time aircraft position data directly to the operator’s preferred EFB software in addition to providing audible alerts directly to the RPIC. skyAlert is compatible with ForeFlight Mobile, SkyDemon, EasyVFR, FlyQ, Stratus Insight, WingX, AirMate, OzRunways, AvPlan, SkyMap, and others.
Key Features of skyAlert
- Rugged, wearable, portable ADS-B receiver designed specifically for field operations
- Customizable alert parameters for both range and altitude
- Loud audible alerts for immediate aircraft proximity notification in the field
- Dual-band ADS-B reception (1090MHz and 978MHz) for commercial, GA and helicopter traffic
- Compatibility with Electronic Flight Bag (EFB) applications via the GDL-90 protocol
- 12-hour battery life with convenient USB-C recharging
- Self-contained device, can be used in the field without cellular connections or internet
- Compact (57x82x30mm) and lightweight (200 grams) design
- RAM
belt or shoulder clip-on mount included for hands-free portability
Diverse Applications and Usage Scenarios
SkyAlert is ideally suited for a variety of operational contexts:
- Shielded drone operations near utility lines, bridge inspections, construction and roof inspections with possible helicopter and GA aircraft encounters, providing a safety net to avoid accidental encounters for UAS pilots who need to focus on their drone or payload during mission-critical commercial drone operations
- Uncrewed Aerial Applicator Systems (UAAS) used in agricultural spraying operations, particularly when operating near manned crop-dusting aircraft
- Drone as a First Responder (DFR) / Emergency Response operators and wildfire fighting operations with mixed crewed and uncrewed aircraft involved in the mission
Availability
SkyAlert will be available for pre-order immediately and will begin shipping in July 2025. For further details, demonstrations, or purchasing information, visit uAvionix at AUVSI Xponential in Houston, booth #3033 or contact uAvionix directly.
About uAvionix
uAvionix is dedicated to advancing aviation safety and efficiency through groundbreaking ADS-B and electronic conspicuity solutions. Recognized globally, uAvionix technologies are trusted by pilots, UAS operators, and aviation authorities worldwide to maintain safe and efficient airspace.
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A Wirral man has been found guilty after flying his drone in breach of height and distance restrictions whilst filming the new Bramley Moore stadium.
Nicholas Durbin, 45, of Merlin Avenue, Upton, flew the drone in excess of the 400ft height limit on 9 May 2024, potentially endangering any other airspace users in that area.
The flight took place from the Wirral, crossing the River Mersey to the new Everton FC stadium at Bramley Moore Dock. During this flight he also travelled up to 1.3km away from his take off point, meaning he could not maintain visual line of sight.
On a previous occasion, on 20 March 2024, he also flew a drone at nearly 300ft above the legal height limit in Anglesey. During this flight he also travelled up to 2.39km away from his take off point, meaning he could not maintain visual line of sight.
He was found guilty at Sefton Magistrates Court yesterday, Thursday 13 March, on four offences – two offences of being the remote pilot of an unmanned aircraft failing to comply with operating height and two offences of being the remote pilot of an unmanned aircraft failing to keep unmanned aircraft in sight.
He was given a combined fine of £1600, victim surcharge of £640 and costs of £650 totalling £2890.
Sergeant Kyle Sayers said: “Over the coming months Merseyside Police will be proactively targeting illegal drone use and during the Aintree Festival next month a temporary restricted airspace will be in place.
“Merseyside Police is responsible for keeping the public safe and airspace restrictions form part of those measures just like road closures or river patrols.
“We have used drone restrictions to great effect during past large public events including Eurovision, Aintree Festival and the visit of HMS Prince of Wales to ensure people are not in any danger, however our proactive approach will not only target restricted airspace, as this prosecution shows.
“Drone users who fly inside a Restricted Airspace that have not been granted permission will be guilty of committing an offence and could be prosecuted as well as having their equipment seized and confiscated.”
For more information about the rules on drone flying go to: Introduction to drone flying and the UK rules | UK Civil Aviation Authority
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
AVSS – Aerial Vehicle Safety Solutions Inc. (AVSS) is pleased to announce the launch of the PRS-M4DT, a Parachute Recovery System for the new DJI Dock 3. The PRS-M4DT, along with the PRS-M4DTEX and FTS-M4DTEX, provides Dock 3 users with the necessary compliance for flight over people and enhanced containment.
Leveraging the engineering work of PRS-M3DT to build the PRS-M4DT for DJI Dock 3, AVSS is quickly bringing this compliant parachute recovery system and flight termination system to market. The company is expecting delivery to authorized resellers commencing in Q2, 2025.
About the PRS-M4DT:
The PRS-M4DT is an integrated Parachute Recovery System (PRS) that enables key regulatory compliance for enterprise drone pilots. The PRS-M4DT safely and legally enables Dock 3 users to fly over people legally. It will comply with Federal Aviation Administration Operations Over People as a Category drone, Transport Canada – Transports Canada Over People rules, EASA – European Union Aviation Safety Agency MOC 2512, Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority Over People, and, in general, countries that use JARUS official M2 mitigation requirements for SORA.
About the PRS-M4DTEX:
The PRS-M4DTEX is a PRS + Flight Termination System (FTS) version to comply with EASA – European Union Aviation Safety Agency MOC 2511 and MOC 2512 requirements. This system uses an independent FTS to terminate flight through a geofence breach. This kit is specific to Europe to enable the C5 and C6 designation.
About the FTS-M4DTEX:
The FTS-M4DTEX is an FTS version to comply with EASA – European Union Aviation Safety Agency MOC 2511. This is a standalone FTS to comply with C6 and/or Enhanced Containment requirements. This lighter-weight, non-parachute system is designed to mitigate air risks.
Learn more about the AVSS parachute here: https://www.avss.co/drone-parachutes/drone-parachute-recovery-system-for-dji-m4td-and-dji-m4d-for-dji-dock-3/
About AVSS: Founded in 2017, AVSS – Aerial Vehicle Safety Solutions Inc. (AVSS) is a Canadian aerospace company commercializing drone technology for Urban Air Mobility. AVSS’s current products are ASTM F3322 parachute recovery systems for commercial drones, independent flight termination systems, and precision-guided delivery systems for last-mile delivery.
AVSS’s retrofit products (DJI M3D and M3TD for Dock 2, DJI M200, DJI MAVIC 3 ENTERPRISE, DJI M300 RTK, DJI M350 RTK) are distributed worldwide through their more than 50 authorized dealer network and sold directly to drone manufacturers across the world. AVSS also provides direct support to drone manufacturers and pilots who integrate the PRS product line for flight over people and BVLOS compliance
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This section provides details of accidents and incidents which were not subject to a Field or full Correspondence Investigation. They are wholly, or largely, based on information provided by the aircraft commander at the time of reporting and in some cases additional information from other sources. The accuracy of the information provided cannot be assured.
| Event date | Aircraft Type | Location Name | Record Only Occurrence Text |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 Jun 2024 | DJI Mavic 3 Cine | Newton-on-the-Moor, Northumberland | The UA was being used for filming inside a building. The UA began to wander off track, due to loss of GPS position, and struck a wall and then fell onto one of the film extras causing minor injury. The film company’s Health and Safety team have reviewed the accident and put more robust controls in place for filming in similar environments. |
| 1 Sep 2024 | DJI Mini 4 Pro | Portsmouth, Hampshire | The UAS was conducting a flight adjacent to Portsmouth Historic Dockyard to obtain imagery of HMS Warrior. As the UA flew along HMS Warrior’s starboard side, the rotors made contact with the ship’s rigging. The UA fell onto the deck, and the gimbal and two of the rotor arms were damaged. |
| 4 Oct 2024 | Holybro X500 V2 | Near Lode, Cambridgeshire | The UA, after 13 minutes of flight, commenced its critical low voltage emergency landing procedure at the moment that the remote pilot landed the aircraft; this procedure begins with a climb to 15 m. The remote pilot, saw the unexpected climb (which was uncommanded by him) and so cut all power to the motors; the UA fell to the ground from a height of about 6 m. |
| 10 Oct 2024 | DJI Mavic 3 | Diana’s Peak National Park, St Helena | During a survey flight the UA lost signal at a height of about 100 m and did not respond to a return to home command. The UA was not recovered. |
| 10 Oct 2024 | Skydio X10D | Near Stanton St Bernard, Wiltshire | The link was lost during a training flight and the UA did not execute the programmed return to home function. The UA was damaged and subsequently recovered in a field approximately 1,600 m from the launch point. |
| 11 Oct 2024 | DJI M30T | Dunscroft, South Yorkshire | Shortly after taking off at night the UA became entangled in telephone wires, before falling to the ground. |
| 14 Oct 2024 | Custom Puffin PC2 | Aston Down Airfield, Gloucestershire | This was the UA’s maiden flight. During a hop test the UA took off and pitched up, possibly due to a centre of gravity issue. The remote pilot tried to regain control but the UA stalled, and then struck the ground between the two runways. |
| 17 Oct 2024 | DJI Inspire 2 | Edinburgh | The UA, at the maximum operating distance within visual line of sight, was reported to have descended to the ground in a spin. |
| 17 Oct 2024 | DJI M300 | Rotherhithe Pier, London | The UA was performing a survey at about 1 m above the River Thames. The remote pilot paused the mission to avoid a pier but unexpectedly the UA lost height and dropped into the water. The cause of the problem was not determined. |
| 5 Nov 2024 | DJI Phantom 4 Pro | Near Lymington, Hampshire | During a training flight the remote pilot reported that the aircraft dropped out of the sky and struck the ground. The flight log showed that a drop in voltage had occurred. Following the accident the battery was found dislodged, but at the time of reporting it was not known if this occurred in-flight or as a result of striking the ground. |
Related
Discover more from sUAS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.