Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
@Tim, what I mean is that there's currently no means for UAV to operate BVLOS in the UK without mutual protection for the UAV and manned aircraft provided by an additional (to Class G) notified airspace construct of some sort - whether that is DA, TDA, Controlled Airspace, Prohibited Airspace etc.

I take your point about the issue of (T)DAs that do not have a legal instrument/byelaw associated with them.
Tim Dawson wrote:
Dave W wrote:The TDA would be there anyway since as yet there is no means by which UAVs of any airworthiness standard can operate BVLOS in the UK outside segregated airspace of some sort.

But danger areas are not segregated airspace.

If you go into one that is active, without getting cleared by a crossing service, you'll get reported as an infringer.
I feel segregated from those inside.
Stampe liked this
If you go into one that is active, without getting cleared by a crossing service, you'll get reported as an infringer

Unless the Danger Area has bye laws that is simply wrong.
We should be raising merry hell if drone TDA's are established without a DACS
johnm wrote:We should be raising merry hell if drone TDA's are established without a DACS

The Oban linked ones are all without a crossing service. If you call up Oban or Scottish Info they can tell you it's active.
Presumably as there is no radar in the area, and the geography of the area would mean you'd need multiple heads to cover to drone height, it wouldn't be possible to provide one.
As I see it without a crossing service when the TDA is active it will be virtually impossible to get to Oban VFR when coming from the south without going high and East of Lochgilphead which again is usually impossible due to the hills and usual low cloud base!
Could go very West I suppose and take a long route but similar problems can arise with hills and low cloud.
Without a crossing service it is going to makes things very difficult VFR!
They know this is a problem:

See - Appendix U: of the Targeted Aviation Stakeholder Engagement (29 January 2021) which provides additional points made by the CAA to Skyports: ... ea?pID=274

CAA said – “Every one of these proposed TDAs cut across routes around Mull, Glenforsa Airstrip and Oban Airport, and potentially extend a further 30nm south, down the west coast to Lochgilphead and the Crinan Canal. These are frequent low-level 'escape routes' avoiding high ground, for pretty much everything routing from the west coast to the Central Belt (Glasgow and Prestwick).”

Skysports replied – “Skyports acknowledges that aircraft being operated VFR will need to preserve maximum free movement, which will involve being able to enter an active TDA in an emergency and at short notice, as well as being able to fly below 500ft AMSL over the sea to avoid the surround high terrain.”
#1828288 ... t-56154503

Whilst there is much excitement about using drones with the focus on the technology I would like to see the business case for it.

Without question there will be applications for which it will be ideally suited and bring great benefit. And for those applications it has to be welcomed. However with a payload of 3kg and talk of transporting masks (I appreciate this could be simply for the purpose of trials) I do wonder what the longer term goal is.

What frequency of use will be required to make it viable for the operator?
What limits will be imposed on what can be transported?
What measures will be in place to prevent it becoming a quick fix and promote inefficiencies?
What will it cost the NHS and is it so poorly thought out and managed that they will be routinely flying numerous unnecessary daily flights simply to justify the service's existence?

The present daily delivery vans are not going to be replaced, so this is an additional, not insignificant, cost for the NHS.
By a quirk of fortune, I believe I indirectly know one of the sponsors of this trial (NHS GP practice) based up there who is involved in it. I might be entirely wrong, but I understand that the road network to this neck of the woods is often blocked off (think the BBC wrote an article on it late last year actually) and so drone delivery will significantly improve inbound/outbound prescription deliveries, ability to get test results off for testing and so forth.

I genuinely don't know much more, other than I very much trust the integrity of my friend, thus the friend of the friend involved in this, and as such can presume very good intentions on their part.
Ben K liked this
Sorry @flyingearly a friend of a friend having good intentions doesn't work for me. :wink: :D Although I'm sure they have great intentions. :thumright:

Routine prescriptions are not time critical.
With a 3kg payload the drone is not suitable for routine prescription distribution.

Samples for testing seem like the best fit to the use. With occasional ad hoc priority cases.

Maybe a GP (Frank) would have an insight?

EDIT: meant to say the Rest and be Thankful road closures are not on the flight route. :wink:
I don't know what needs to be dropped off at such short notice that normal road transport does not suffice.

With telemedicine there is indeed now less need for face to face consultations for some stuff but examining a patient is still an integral part of the assessment; much can be done via video link and clearly it is possible to set up facilities in remote areas, the RFDU down under demonstrate that amply.

A test of concept is no doubt useful but once that has been done surely some sensible regulation needs to be developed so that it can be deployed as required and appropriate. Not sure that a gazillion different trials just to test locations is necessary.

But maybe when we know more we may be able to better understand?