2 Years: Replacement Time

Almost exactly two years ago, I finally bought myself a basic drone from DJI.

It's a bit odd that I took until 2023 to get one, because I've been a pilot of 'proper' aircraft for over 20 years and the motivation for that was aerial photography for archaeological purposes.

In any case, I opted for the DJI Mini 2SE - now known as the DJI Mini 4K - simply to assess the camera's image quality, which turned out to be very good indeed. 

But it's not just image quality that matters for somebody like me. Compactness of the Mini series is a significant factor when I spend most of my time in the mountains and any additional weight is very unwelcome.

And it's in the mountains my little Mini 2SE proved itself most. It's coped with winds gusting 40mph - way over its stated wind tolerance of 17mph. It's flown to the maximum 500m the software will let you go, which is a necessary element of following mountain terrain where the drone can still be no more than 120m from the nearest point of the earth's surface. And it's coped really well with the odd loss of signal due to an intervening rock or tree. 

But above all, I've really got my money's worth from the Mini 2SE. I've long ago stopped uploading flight logs to DJI, but before I did so, the drone had already clocked up in excess of 1000km. It must have done about 4000km by now. 

There was a small early problem, in that the image from the drone became blurred in some parts. This has been fairly widely reported with DJI drones and stems from the sensor not being fixed properly in its housing. DJI gave me a new drone under warranty very quickly after I sent them some test shots.

And all that distance is time and effort saved in getting to difficult and sometimes almost impossible to reach places where the archaeological stuff I'm capturing for the official historical environment record is so often found. Instead of taking maybe a whole day to get to a site on foot, I can often get there in a minute or two by drone, launched from the side of the road. This benefit just can't be overstated.

When the first drone was in good health: a multi-period stone structure near Porthmadog. It likely began life in the late Iron Age as a defended lookout. In later times, it was adapted into a 'buarth' - a multicellular sheepfold.

 

Last autumn, an occasional instability manifesting as a high-frequency jitter in the camera image, developed. For the most part, I didn't see any real sign of it through the next winter but, by early spring, it had come back to plague most of my footage and was degrading even the still images. It's difficult to pin-down exactly what is causing the instability, which mostly vanishes when the motors are under heavier load in flight. But it could be one of the motors beginning to wear out or the neoprene rubber gimbal cradle could be getting a bit worn. Or it could be a part of the gimbal mechanism itself.

The example below shows the worst example from a couple of months ago; you'll probably have to enlarge the video to see the shaking:

 

But with this many miles on the clock, I'm not complaining at having to replace it at the two year stage. I might even attempt a repair at some stage. I already have the bag, charger and three batteries, so I opted just to buy the drone and controller package. This adds one more battery to the calculation - itself worth £59 - and a spare set of propeller blades - worth £11. Take those two items off the £269 package price and I have a new drone for £199. That's not a bad annual outlay for the pleasure and benefit of a drone.

DJI got the new unit to me in 24 hours. Following the binding procedure published on their website, however, wouldn't work. I had first to uninstall the old DJI Fly software on my phone and download the latest version - something I had actively avoided doing for a very long time, in case it became more restrictive for my mountain flying; the CAA seems intent on a new limit of no more than 120m above launch point, rather than closest land surface, in the not-to-distant future - a real problem for mountain flyers like me, especially when coupled to the proposed remote ID system.

There was a potential problem on uninstalling the old software, because it reported an incomplete uninstall. It turned out fine, though, as the new software installed just fine and operates well. Binding the drone to the handset controller just needed a long-press of the on/off button on the drone until it beeped and flashed its little lights in sequence and following the on-screen prompts. 

The new drone may have a slower accumulation of miles on its clock, as I've captured thousands of structures in the north Wales uplands by now, leaving few left to add to the collection. That said, I have started doing some motorbike and hiking videos, so it will certainly be out on a weekly basis! The new software, by the way, doesn't (yet) seem to be more restrictive than the old version I was using until this week.

"We Don't Allow Drones Here"

A couple of weeks ago, I was out enjoying on my motorbike, visiting some peaceful places on Anglesey. 

Having done some quiet photography at a local church, I turned off to stop at a small car park - more a roundabout really - which serves part of a national nature reserve.

I wanted to get some photos from a very low altitude of a nice sculpture celebrating the marram grass weavers of Newborough, so I set up the drone. 

A 2009 photo of the marram weavers' sculpture. It was meant to be a peaceful day...

 

It was somewhat windy and, in launching, a backdraught of wind caught the drone and, for the first time in hundreds of flights, I smacked it into the front wheel of my bike - luckily at no forward speed of note. No damage, but the gimbal's 'rubber bands' had dislocated a bit.

After minor surgery to free the gimbal, I was back in action and took a short flight to check out all was OK. For this, I took it a couple of hundred metres into wind, at around 390 feet (i.e. near-maximum lawful height) for almost all the 4 minute-long flight.

As I was beginning to bring in the drone, two men approached me in a breathless and irritated manner. One of them said "we don't allow drones here!" I said to him that I believed I was on public land and that, in any case, there were no signs prohibiting drones anywhere around the car park; I had already checked this was so.

The man had a very condescending manner and, over time, it became clear he was associated with the battered Natural Resources Wales van parked a few places away. He admitted there were no signs and that they could put some up. 

He then claimed NRW "has a policy" against flying drones. No trace of this policy can be found on any NRW web site and no mention of it is made on-site. I've made a EIR request for a copy of it and when it was adopted. I've left the question as to how they make their internal policy - if they have one at all, lawfully relevant to aviation law and airspace management unasked for now. 

The NRW policy was eventually provided, which you can read about here.

I was now holding the drone over the car park, waiting for the men to move aside for a safe landing. My adversary, however, wouldn't move and actually tried to tell me to land at a place of his choosing! I refused, telling him he was interfering with the lawful conduct of a flight. With members of the public fairly close by and their safety potentially at risk, I had to raise my voice, demanding he move aside. Reluctantly, he did so and the drone was recovered.

But then he decided he couldn't let go.

He began to say that there were "data protection concerns" over the drone. I ignored this ridiculous and unfounded clutching at straws for something to blame me about. He then, falteringly, moved on to the Wildlife and Countryside Act. I told him there was no need to tell me about that (I first reported a pollution incident when I was about 7 years old). 

By now irritated by his persistence and lack of focus on what he was trying to say, I asked him to take a deep breath. I told him that, although I didn't legally have to pay any attention to him, I had already landed the drone as he wanted. What else did he want?  He wasn't really sure. He kept looking at my drone and I began to get the feeling he wanted to try and take hold of it. Or maybe stamp on it. I asked him if he was intent on the latter. He kept mumbling about "the law", all the while looking at me as though he wanted to throw a good punch. Well, he could try...

He puffed-out his chest about the land being "Crown land", then claiming it was "owned by Lord Newborough". Which is a bit odd, because it can't be both! His idea was clearly to use officious terms to, well, I'm not sure what, really. Make me feel guilty, maybe?

If the land is Crown owned, which seems likely, then their stance on drones is very confused. It grants consent for drone flights "on" their land (actually, just the foreshore), which is not the same as over (any of) their land. They seem to be as clueless about aviation law as NRW. Either that or, as so many authorities, they are just trying their luck to intimidate people into not flying over their land. This is something I will be raising with them, in fact.

I then did what most people flying drone lawfully but being approached by angry 'officials' would do: told the man to call the police. "I don't want to do that", came the immediate reply, to which I suggested there was therefore no more to be said and that he should go away. By now, I was very irritated and he was very rude bordering on threatening, but with no firm point to make other than he was right there should be no drone here.

He enquired whether I was a policeman (I'm not), obviously rather easily thrown by my comment about not having to be told about the law. 

Intent by now on a complaint against the man, who just wouldn't go away, I took a photo of both him and the van's number plate. He decided to retaliate and tried to take a photo of my bike's numberplate. I  stood between him and the bike, which prompted him to question why I'd want to do that. I replied it was because he had no right, given I was doing nothing wrong and he couldn't tell me what he was really saying I was doing wrong. That, and I didn't want someone passing such an image around, only to find it had been used to clone a numberplate. I've as yet no idea whether his phone was a NRW or personal unit.

He eventually left, laughing as he went. I'm not sure why, because he was an ignorant thug, working for the most incompetent and untrusted public authority in Wales (all 22 local authorities wrote to the Welsh Government about this a couple of years ago). In October 2024, NRW (i.e. the Welsh Government, using our hard-won tax money) had to pay a £19 million bill to HMRC, having failed to gets its tax affairs in order. The list of failures at NRW is endless, including what many would call corrupt contracting processes, but that its boss said was merely "incompetence". Well that's all OK, then!

As I'm a private pilot of over 20 years' standing, flying from an airfield nearby, I know very well, without having to check, that there is no airspace restriction in place in its favour over the nature reserve. Indeed, part of Caernarfon airport's ATZ - which extends all the way to the surface in law - encompasses a part of the nature reserve. A bit further west, RAF CMATZ also extend into the nature reserve's boundaries.

Let's look at where the nature reserve is, together with its boundaries, in pink. 

If you make a note of the long bar that extends into the Menai Strait, then look at the map of airport-related airspaces to begin with. The ATZ of EGCK is clearly seen to extend over the Abermenai Bar and thus into the boundary of the reserve:

The above map is from the NATS drone information site. So it's what most people, including the police, would look at if there is a live dispute that needs resolution. There is further information arising from the military AIP that is highly-relevant to the NRW accusations, such as they were, and that is the presence of a combined or 'clutch' MATZ around both RAF ATZs. The clearest way to show this is direct, from my personal official CAA physical map:

 

A now outdated physical map, but the airspaces remain the same.

 

Again, we can see EGCK's ATZ extending, in less detail at this scale, into the nature reserve itself. The CMATZ boundary clearly extends into the estuary part of the reserve. The purpose of the MATZ, which extends from 3000' above aerodrome level to the surface, is to protect military aircraft during circuit, arrival and departure activity. Incidentally, in law, civilian aviation does not recognise military airspace, though compliance with it is usually standard, to ensure the safety of all.

Now, we can lawfully fly any 'proper' aircraft over the reserve as low as 500' above the ground. For safety, drones fly no higher than 400' above local ground. Within the ATZ areas, flight to ground level is, in principle, lawful.

Disposing of the Wildlife and Countryside Act first: there was no intentional nor reckless disturbance being caused to any protected wildlife - principally birds at this site. I was flying at nearly 400 feet for all the flight except a steep climb and descent near the car park at takeoff and landing. The flight lasted only 4 minutes, a full 50 seconds of that being due to the NRW man's refusal to move out of the way for the landing as I asked, then told him to do.

Is there, though, some obscure nature reserve airspace restriction here?  At some places, quite a few in eastern England, there is. But they are not obscure and are clearly marked. The closest to Newborough, though, is Hilbre Islands and then Martin Mere - both a very long way away and marked in green on this simplified CAA map:

No green restriction zone over Newborough nature reserve.

These are all maps that need knowledge to understand. I took a course and was examined, like all pilots, in aviation law. This is not a trivial effort, being by far the longest coursework of all CAA private pilot exams and the qualification you achieve - it needs a 75% or higher correct answers rate - is the exact-same as an airline pilot gets; that's why the CAA private pilot's licence is termed officially as a 'Part Crew Licence', inasmuch as it is the 'first step' in crew licensing, containing the underlying requirements for all pilots, but not yet, if you wanted to get them, the qualifications to fly commercially.

None of this information, of course, was of any significance to the NRW staff.

The crucial bit for all angry nature reserve staff and their organisations is this: in all likelihood, you are not a pilot and have never looked at aviation law or an aviation map. You are not qualified to comment as though you are the authority on these things and, if you do, you are likely, as this unfortunate chap did, to look a complete and powerless lemon, thrashing wildly around to think of something that makes the situation appear oh-so serious.

The questions for NRW are many:

(1) As a controller of the land, NRW can entirely legitimately prohibit the launching and recovery of drones from that land. The usual and necessary way to try and ensure this is adhered to is to put up signs. No signs exist at Newborough warren car park. Why not? There are signs for practically everything else (and I took photos to prove it, following the incident).

(2) Others in the UK operating nature reserves have been granted airspace restrictions, usually very limited in extent. Why hasn't NRW applied for such at Newborough?  Would it anyway get such a restriction, given that existing airspace controls lie close by and indeed within the reserve's boundaries?

(3) If drones are such a problem that NRW staff become borderline abusive in approaching members of the public, why does none of the NRW website, including extensive information directly related to Newborough, include any prohibition on drones, nor even the word 'drone' at all? 

(4) Why did the NRW staff refuse to call the police, given all the throwing around of the word 'law'? The police are the enforcing authority for breaches of aviation and wildlife law, though NRW likely have prosecuting powers as well. This latter element is troubling, because, as we saw with the Post Office, public authorities with prosecuting powers can and do abuse that power.

(5) Given the ubiquity of drones, why are NRW staff completely unaware of the rules and laws governing drones such that they end up having distressing confrontations with members of the public doing nothing wrong? In other words, why aren't they trained in basic air and land law?

(6) NRW staff shouldn't claim or suggest wildlife laws are being broken when there is clearly no evidence that this was happening. Simply seeing or hearing a drone doesn't mean a wildlife offence must be taking place. Proving beyond reasonable doubt that wildlife is being disturbed is not trivial and requires robust evidence. You can lawfully walk a dog in very close proximity to wildlife here without causing a wildlife offence. But if you let it off the leash, you could then be intent on or, more likely, reckless of causing such. Flying a drone is not, in and of itself, an intentional or reckless act in relation to wildlife, any more than walking your dog responsibly is. 

(7) There are public highways immediately next to this site. There is a public footpath running through it. Launching a drone from a footpath, provided there are no local restrictions applied to it (which will be rare) is not unlawful and thus permitted. So whilst NRW can prohibit drone launches from the land they own or control, they can't prohibit flights being launched from arbitrarily close to it from land they don't control and then flown over the reserve.

(8) RAF and civilian aircraft are passing over this site at low height continuously. Most are very noisy, especially the jets into and out of RAF Valley and Mona. NRW isn't repeatedly bringing legal claims against those flights and they have no legal basis on which to do so, anyway. So what is it, they think, is different about a drone at nearly 400' up?  The answer is, simply: a pub-talk prejudice about drones based on no facts at all.

(9) The NRW staff told me that he "had a better idea" than calling the police. When I asked what that was, he refused to say, commenting "that's for me to know, isn't it?" - hardly a professional or grown-up way to behave oneself in public. That idea seems to have been - as a few days later I discovered - to close and lock the access gate to the car park for a couple of days. Quite how this response meets the NRW policy of "proportionate enforcement", which punished everyone for no good reason, is anyone's guess. And in any case, the public footpath through the site remained - as it had to by law - fully accessible!

(10) Confrontations with public authority staff, regardless of who is right and who is wrong, is often very distressing and causes extended worry about what will happen next. This shouldn't happen, especially with the authorities not only ignorant of aviation law, but have a completely incorrect belief about their control of airspace. Their ignorance put them in more danger of breaking the law than I was: refusing to allow the drone to land at my safe selected point and putting public safety at risk, being threatening and misrepresenting the law are just a few examples from this, highly-regrettable incident.

If the approach had been simply to ask, in a civil manner, whether I would mind not flying the drone owing to the nature reserve, then I would be perfectly happy to oblige as, I'm sure, all other drone users would. And therein is the most important lesson of all.