Welcome Inspire Pilots!
Join our free DJI Inspire community today!
Sign up

UK The dreaded "congested area"

If you were told that an isolated farm track constitutes a congested area then you were misinformed. If that statement came from a training provider then you should not train with them.

It seems that most people don't bother reading all the relevant materials in CAP 393 (LAW); here is a list of the article numbers that should be read & understood: 2, 91, 94, 95, 239, 240, 241, 257.
You should also have a very close look at the document CAP 722 (GUIDANCE)
Documents such as these should always be read with your thumb in the interpretation section for quick reference.

Whilst its important to understand what a congested area is, you also need to realise that standard permissions allow use of a sub7kg UAV within a congested area as long as you observe ALL the relevant rules... it's rare that you would need to define whether an area is congested or not unless you are flying heavy kit.
Once you have had an opportunity to form a defendable understanding of the terms & principles involved you will understand how to apply them.

Back to the definition of a congested area; as a general rule of thumb, I would say that is useful to consider a congested area to include its separation distance of at least 150m away from areas occupied by many people (see ANO, Sched 1, Art 2). A village, however small, would accommodate several families and so should be considered to be a congested area, a farm however could cover the same amount of ground but may not be a congested area because it is occupied by very few people. (so a remote farmers field could be a congested area if there is a car-boot sale in progress but uncongested when there isn't... and it's a whole different matter if there are 1000+ people there)
The pilot must ALWAYS properly identify the risks that his operation presents to PVVS and must ALWAYS mitigate those risks responsibly. It doesn't matter whether the subject of the risk is a road or a school or anything else that could suffer as a result of a failed drone. Risk identification & mitigation are the key to safe operations.
Railway lines and major roads such as ring-roads & motorways are not necessarily congested areas, it depends where they are in relation to occupied land, in that a road travelling alongside a village or town may effectively extend that congested area to include a section of that road. Think about mitigation.... think about how to minimise/mitigate the risk to PVVS below your aircraft, think about a strategy that will reduce the likelihood of harm being caused if your aircraft were to fail (prevailing wind direction & flight path, direction of flight, use a longer lens etc.)

It is exceptionally rare to find an uncongested area within a city centre, in order to call a space uncongested, there needs to be a buffer of at least 150m between the congested area and the uncongested area. It is remarkable just how many operators choose to redefine the rules to suit themselves.

The congested area in the sketch below is the interior of the yellow line, the blue line represents the separation distance of 150m and the red line identifies a farm.
It is most practical to consider the blue line to be the extents of the congested area which means that 7-22kg aircraft flown by a PfCO with standard permissions and hobbyists are not permitted to fly within the blue line, a standard permission holder with a sub7kg is permitted to fly anywhere on this sketch (give the usual caveats), the road is only subject to congested area rules as it passes through the blue and yellow areas. The farm buildings are not in a congested area, and in themselves do not constitute an extension of the main congested area but the majority of the farm buildings are subject to congested area rules.

I hope this helps.

upload_2018-2-13_10-18-39.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Editor
Hi Nick

Thanks for this. Very informative. Ill put this thought process into the area im surveying . I have a ring road going around my work place/site and so buildings are sitiuated within the road circumference. Although not congested as such, there are many staff located within the buildings so will treat this as a village I think (although still overkill). My investigation or decision is regarding the ring road around the site. We get the occasional car but far from congested in my opinion. So as regards to this will catagorise it as the 50m distance (vehicles/people) rather than 150m congested (non PFCO currently). So my distances will be 150m from the site buildings rather then the road around it although the boundary from buildings to road is only 5-10m on average so basically makes the 50m boundary void (currently). Someone also said that because the site is private then law is more lax? End of the day safety is safety so mitigation of risk is the same wherever in my opinion. Im sure once ive got the standard permission it will be a lot clearerer. And yes I have a copy of the ANO which I do refer to but ambiguous in places which I do find frustrating. Cheers
 
...Someone also said that because the site is private then law is more lax? ...
That is nonsense!
The ANO governs airspace only and doesn't differentiate based on land ownership.
There are other rules that govern people's right to privacy, trespass etc. but you would have to be a proper muppet to fall foul of them, common sense & common decency should be enough to keep you safe from those rules but its always worth reading the appropriate materials. The ICO would be a good place to start.


Post an image of the location with a basic description of the task.
 
Last edited:

Hi Nick. Here you go. The white line is the ring road. The fields outside of it are part of the site, then public main roads. cheers
 
We are talking about surveying a location . The rules and interpretation . It’s not a secret but I do have a level of privacy with everything. It’s irrelevant isn’t it?
 
Understood thank you . So unless a busy road (motorway or A road) is adjacent to a village or town or sudden car boot then it simply sits under the 50M rule of structure then ?
 
Understood thank you . So unless a busy road (motorway or A road) is adjacent to a village or town or sudden car boot then it simply sits under the 50M rule of structure then ?
Everything @NickOfLeeds mentioned above is excellent and factual advice.
Additionally, don't forget that the stand off distances of 50/30m can also be reduced with altitude as long as no direct flyover is undertaken (and assuming sub 7kg MTOM).
So in other words you would be legally allowed to fly perpendicularly to say 5 meters of a building/structure/vessel etc not in your control providing you maintained an agl of say 49m.
This would ensure your stand off distances were maintained but weighted in a vertical direction rather than horizontal.
There is always more than one way to 'skin a cat' but the important thing is that you have undertaken your site surveys and risk assessment both of which are documented and as a belt a braces it never hurts to have a (documented) ditch area in the event of unexpected problems.
 
Everything @NickOfLeeds mentioned above is excellent and factual advice.
Additionally, don't forget that the stand off distances of 50/30m can also be reduced with altitude as long as no direct flyover is undertaken (and assuming sub 7kg MTOM).
So in other words you would be legally allowed to fly perpendicularly to say 5 meters of a building/structure/vessel etc not in your control providing you maintained an angle of say 49m.
This would ensure your stand off distances were maintained but weighted in a vertical direction rather than horizontal.
There is always more than one way to 'skin a cat' but the important thing is that you have undertaken your site surveys and risk assessment both of which are documented and as a belt a braces it never hurts to have a (documented) ditch area in the event of unexpected problems.
Thanks. Yes I use Pythagoras and have made myself a laminate card I can keep on my person for reference. Next question , would a company site be classed as a congested area ? Ie settlement . I would assume if a team of colleagues went outside to play cricket on one of the fields then one would still class it the risk within the 50m , being less than 1000 people ? What if the site has 1000 people or more but never outside at any one time ? I’m assuming building protection mitigates risk further so still classed under the 50m rule ? Thanks.
 
The bottom line here rich146 is that without a PfCO you are not permitted to fly your aircraft within 150m of any built-up area and you are not permitted to fly within 50m of any structures or persons that are not fully complicit with the flight.

Would a company site ... Yes, the buildings within your google map make up a congested area, with the exception of a couple of isolated structures.

.. if a team of colleagues went outside to play cricket...
The field to the right of the warehousing is marked up for football and there is evidence of a cricket pitch too, so that field is also part of the congested area, this field also conjoins with the small complex of buildings to the right again to further extend the dreaded congested area. So No, the 50m rule does not apply, the 150m rule remains.

What if the site has 1000 people... There are additional rules that govern flight near gatherings of 1000+ people. Basically everyone including PfCOs have to remain at least 150m away from such gatherings unless they have an OSC like me ;) ...and NEVER fly over such events. This rule is really aimed at open air events such as galas, concerts & parades etc. but the LAW isn't that specific which means it effectively applies to all organised gatherings of 1000+ people. And I'm pretty sure that a fire drill would be considered to be an organised gathering. (think: marked assembly points, fire-marshals, drills, written notices etc. ...all very organised!)

Your assumption about a building mitigating risk is reasonably valid but even then could easily become invalid without first finding out where the emergency assembly points are which are used in case of bomb-scare/fire/ fire-drill etc.
As a non-PfCO you have to ask yourself how many buildings you can find that may have 1000+ people inside and are not within a congested area? Even an out-of-town high school would be classed as a congested area.

“Congested area” in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes;
(ANO 2016 Schedule 1 Article 2)
 
Hi Nick , thanks for this. Don’t worry I may not have my PFCO yet but I have read the regulations. The problem I’m having is putting it into real life scenarios . The plot thickens it seems. You clearly know your stuff ! One of the UAVs I have is an S900 and it has a simple fixed camera facing forward. It can’t record or move. It’s simply for creating a forward facing image along with telemetry onto the controller monitor. Now cap 722 states ...

“The provision of images or other data solely for the use of controlling or monitoring the aircraft is not considered to be applicable to the meaning of 'Surveillance or Data Acquisition' covered at ANO 2009 Article 167 for SUSA”

So does this mean this particular aircraft is exempt from distance regulations completely ? In other words exempt from surveillance distance rules ( stated in 167 ) as we’ve been discussing or am still not getting to grips with this what seems a very ambiguous set of rules

I find it particularly confusing regarding the emphasis on surveillance to have strict distance rules yet surely it’s more about mitigating risk of a UAV hitting someone or something with or without a camera , as we keep referring safety mostly based on !?

P.s It’s reference to ANO 2009 is correct however 2009 has been replaced with ANO 2016 . Looks like 722 still needs updating !
 
Last edited:
CAP722 is just a guidance document... but you would be well advised to consider it to be a 'minimum operating standard'. It's important to read & understand it but you should always consider above all else, that visible safety is the most important guide through any ambiguity.
When reading the up-to-date CAP 393 (ANO 2016) you will notice the absence of the word surveillance from article 94 but you have to assume that you may have to prove in a court of law that you observed every single clause!... May I direct you to pay particular attention to clause 2.

(2) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fly the aircraft if reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made.
 
CAP722 is just a guidance document... but you would be well advised to consider it to be a 'minimum operating standard'. It's important to read & understand it but you should always consider above all else, that visible safety is the most important guide through any ambiguity.
When reading the up-to-date CAP 393 (ANO 2016) you will notice the absence of the word surveillance from article 94 but you have to assume that you may have to prove in a court of law that you observed every single clause!... May I direct you to pay particular attention to clause 2.

(2) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fly the aircraft if reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made.
Putting aside common sense , I am correct with my previous post right ? I can make the assumption that I can disregard 167 as a rule against my S900 setup I described ? In other words my setup could be classed as exempt ? Thanks
 
167 is no longer applicable; however, If you were to fall foul of the police (they prosecute, not the caa) then I would expect that you would be prosecuted under 167 section 5
In this article ‘a small unmanned surveillance aircraft’ means a small unmanned aircraft which is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition.
...the words 'any form of surveillance or data acquisition' may very easily be interpreted to include your camera as it is not necessary to aid with the proper use of your aircraft.
So to answer your question... I do not believe you should consider your S900 exempt from the ANO 2016 Art' 95(5) [formerly ANO 2009 Art' 167(5)]. However; if you were to remove the camera that would be another matter.
Remember CAP722 is just guidance, if you were accused of any kind of privacy infringement and your aircraft has a camera - you will lose! - if it has no camera then you don't. A camera doesn't have to have any recording capability to be considered to be surveillance capable. You should read the ICO papers regarding CCTV which has a section about cameras on drones.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
22,277
Messages
210,655
Members
34,317
Latest member
AlberthaLo