<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>UK Drone Law Archives - Blakistons</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blakistons.co.uk/tag/uk-drone-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blakistons.co.uk/tag/uk-drone-law/</link>
	<description>Drone Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:57:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-GB</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>What the UK Drone Industry Can Learn from EASA’s Adoption of SORA 2.5</title>
		<link>https://blakistons.co.uk/what-the-uk-drone-industry-can-learn-from-easas-adoption-of-sora-2-5/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin.richard]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:57:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Aviation Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aviation Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aviation Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BVLOS Operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAA guidelines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Aviation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Drone Operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Industry Concerns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Industry News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Law - As the article provides legal insights specific to drone operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Law - Covers legal aspects and compliance specific to drone operations and incidents.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drone operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Operators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU Regulations and Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Union Policy Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Conflicts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Frameworks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Insights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Insights for Drone Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory and Legal Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory Compliance - Focuses on the importance of adherence to regulatory guidelines and consequences of violations.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory Compliance - Includes insights on compliance with FAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Risk Assessment & Mitigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Risk Management and Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Safety and Risk Management - Emphasizes safety protocols]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Safety and Security in Aviation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tech Law and Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAS Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAV Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAVs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Aviation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Aviation Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Drone Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK drone policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Drone Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Government Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorised]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unmanned Aircraft Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UTM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UTM (Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bvlos uk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drone law barrister]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drone operators compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Regulations UK]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[easa drone rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[osc applications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sora 2.5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[specific operations risk assessment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uk caa drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Drone Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blakistons.co.uk/?p=2580</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Richard Ryan, Barrister &#038; Drone Lawyer • 30th September 2025 Introduction On 29 September 2025, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) published ED Decision 2025/018/R, updating the Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947. This update introduces the European version of the Specific Operations Risk Assessment [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk/what-the-uk-drone-industry-can-learn-from-easas-adoption-of-sora-2-5/">What the UK Drone Industry Can Learn from EASA’s Adoption of SORA 2.5</a> appeared first on <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk">Blakistons</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!-- Blakiston's Chambers | SORA 2.5 Article --></p>
<section id="bc-sora-article" lang="en-GB">
<style>
    #bc-sora-article {
      --content-width: min(900px, 92vw);
      --pad: max(16px, 6vw);
      --text: #222222;
    }
    #bc-sora-article, #bc-sora-article * {
      box-sizing: border-box;
      color: var(--text) !important;
      font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;
    }
    #bc-sora-article .bc-wrap {
      width: var(--content-width);
      margin: 0 auto;
      padding: 0 var(--pad);
    }
    #bc-sora-article .bc-meta {
      margin: .25rem auto 1.5rem;
      font-size: .95rem;
      opacity: .95;
    }
    #bc-sora-article article {
      line-height: 1.6;
      padding: 0 0 2.5rem;
    }
    #bc-sora-article h2 {
      margin-top: 2rem;
      font-size: 1.55rem;
      line-height: 1.35;
    }
    #bc-sora-article h3 {
      margin-top: 1.1rem;
      font-size: 1.2rem;
    }
    #bc-sora-article p { margin: .85rem 0; }
    #bc-sora-article ul,
    #bc-sora-article ol { margin: .6rem 0 1rem 1.25rem; }
    #bc-sora-article li { margin: .35rem 0; }
    #bc-sora-article .bc-callout {
      border-left: 4px solid var(--text);
      background: #f7f7f7;
      padding: .9rem 1rem;
      margin: 1.5rem 0;
    }
    #bc-sora-article .bc-foot {
      border-top: 1px solid #e6e6e6;
      padding: 1rem 0 2rem;
      font-size: .9rem;
      text-align: center;
      opacity: .9;
    }
  </style>
<p>  <!-- Meta line only --></p>
<div class="bc-wrap bc-meta">
    <span>By Richard Ryan, Barrister &#038; Drone Lawyer</span> •<br />
    <time datetime="2025-09-30">30th September 2025</time>
  </div>
<p>  <!-- Article body --></p>
<article class="bc-wrap" role="article">
<section id="intro">
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>On 29 September 2025, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) published <strong>ED Decision 2025/018/R</strong>, updating the Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947. This update introduces the European version of the <strong>Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA) 2.5</strong>, developed by the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS).</p>
<p>Although the UK has left the EU regulatory framework, these developments are highly relevant. UK operators, manufacturers, and regulators can learn much from how EASA is simplifying compliance, clarifying roles, and promoting harmonisation across Member States.</p>
</section>
<section id="changes">
<h2>What Changed under SORA 2.5?</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Simplification of procedures:</strong> Ambiguities from earlier SORA versions have been removed, making it easier for operators and authorities to understand their obligations.</li>
<li><strong>Clarity of roles:</strong> Responsibilities are now more clearly divided between operators, designers, and manufacturers. For example, design verification reports (DVRs) from EASA are required at SAIL IV, and type certification is required at SAIL V and VI.</li>
<li><strong>Terminology alignment:</strong> EU-specific terms replace JARUS wording. For instance, “EVLOS” has been dropped in favour of “BVLOS with airspace observer”.</li>
<li><strong>Containment requirements:</strong> Refined criteria for ground risk buffers and adjacent ground areas, particularly relevant for BVLOS and urban operations.</li>
<li><strong>Flexibility for competent authorities:</strong> NAAs can use direct assessment, recognised entities, or qualified entities to review compliance.</li>
<li><strong>Removal of weak cybersecurity rules:</strong> EASA stripped out JARUS’s cybersecurity provisions, deeming them disproportionate, but stressed that vulnerability assessments remain best practice.</li>
</ul>
</section>
<section id="lessons">
<h2>Lessons for the UK CAA</h2>
<ol>
<li><strong>Consistency and clarity –</strong> EASA has responded to industry feedback by clarifying operator versus manufacturer responsibilities. The UK’s guidance could benefit from similar precision, particularly in BVLOS authorisations.</li>
<li><strong>Streamlining approvals –</strong> The two-phase SORA process (Phase 1 for risk identification, Phase 2 for compliance evidence) allows operators to obtain early regulatory feedback. This approach could make the UK’s OSC process faster and more predictable.</li>
<li><strong>Population density mapping –</strong> EASA now recommends more accurate, dynamic maps to avoid over- or under-estimating risk in commercial and recreational areas. The UK could adopt a similar model, especially for urban drone delivery corridors.</li>
<li><strong>Terminology alignment –</strong> Dropping “EVLOS” in favour of “BVLOS with AO” reflects operational reality and removes confusion. The UK should consider whether maintaining unique terminology helps or hinders international harmonisation.</li>
<li><strong>Cybersecurity gap –</strong> By removing JARUS’s rules but encouraging vulnerability assessments, EASA has left space for proportionate, risk-based security. The CAA could similarly mandate cybersecurity risk assessments in line with wider aviation resilience standards.</li>
</ol>
</section>
<section id="best-practice">
<h2>Best Practice for UK Drone Pilots and Operators</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Adopt SORA 2.5 methodology voluntarily –</strong> Even though the UK hasn’t formally adopted it, operators preparing risk assessments will benefit from aligning with European standards, especially if seeking approvals abroad.</li>
<li><strong>Keep clear records –</strong> Maintain compliance matrices and comprehensive safety portfolios (CSPs) as outlined in SORA 2.5. This not only supports OSC applications but also protects operators in audits and insurance claims.</li>
<li><strong>Use accurate population data –</strong> Don’t rely solely on outdated maps; supplement with local knowledge, real-time data, or site surveys to avoid underestimating risk.</li>
<li><strong>Plan robust contingency procedures –</strong> Ensure abnormal and emergency procedures are well defined, tested, and rehearsed with crew. The new focus on containment means that “fly-away” risks must be demonstrably controlled.</li>
<li><strong>Stay ahead on cybersecurity –</strong> Even though not mandated, conduct vulnerability assessments for command-and-control links and data storage. Cyber weaknesses could undermine insurance and liability cover.</li>
</ul>
</section>
<section id="conclusion">
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>EASA’s adoption of SORA 2.5 is a significant step towards regulatory clarity and harmonisation across Europe. The UK CAA should take note: simplifying authorisations, clarifying roles, and embracing proportionate risk-based approaches would strengthen the UK’s position as a leader in drone regulation.</p>
<p>For operators and pilots, the message is clear: best practice means anticipating international standards, not just meeting the minimum domestic requirement.</p>
<div class="bc-callout">
<p>At <strong>Blakiston’s Chambers</strong> we advise drone operators, manufacturers, and service providers on all aspects of UK drone law, including airspace rights, regulatory compliance, and litigation risk. If your business is concerned about trespass or overflight liability, our team can help.</p>
</p></div>
</section>
</article>
<div class="bc-wrap bc-foot">&copy; 2025 Blakiston’s Chambers. All rights reserved.</div>
</section>
<p>The post <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk/what-the-uk-drone-industry-can-learn-from-easas-adoption-of-sora-2-5/">What the UK Drone Industry Can Learn from EASA’s Adoption of SORA 2.5</a> appeared first on <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk">Blakistons</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Airprox 2024294 – What Actually Happened at RAF Lakenheath?</title>
		<link>https://blakistons.co.uk/airprox-2024294-ec135-mistakes-f-15-for-drone-in-uk-night-operation/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin.richard]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2025 13:41:37 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Airprox Reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aviation Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aviation Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aviation Safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aviation Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Accidents & Case Studies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drone operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Operators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulations and Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Risk Assessment & Mitigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Safety and Security in Aviation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAS Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Aviation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Aviation Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Drone Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unmanned Aircraft Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Airprox 2024294]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[airspace coordination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Class G airspace]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drone misidentification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drone regulation UK]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EC135]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[F-15]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NPAS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public perception of drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[RAF Lakenheath]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TCAS limitations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Drone Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[USAFE]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blakistons.co.uk/?p=2561</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Airprox 2024294 – What Actually Happened? On the night of 22 November 2024 at 21:51 UTC, a National Police Air Service (NPAS) EC135 helicopter operating near RAF Lakenheath reported multiple “drones” manoeuvring around it. In reality, the objects were USAF F15 fighters engaged in authorised night training in Class G airspace (surface–FL150), coordinated by Lakenheath [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk/airprox-2024294-ec135-mistakes-f-15-for-drone-in-uk-night-operation/">Airprox 2024294 – What Actually Happened at RAF Lakenheath?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk">Blakistons</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" src="https://blakistons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/250627_airpox-blog-300x200.png" alt="" width="300" height="200" class="size-medium wp-image-2562" srcset="https://blakistons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/250627_airpox-blog-300x200.png 300w, https://blakistons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/250627_airpox-blog-1024x683.png 1024w, https://blakistons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/250627_airpox-blog-768x512.png 768w, https://blakistons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/250627_airpox-blog-600x400.png 600w, https://blakistons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/250627_airpox-blog.png 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /> </p>
<h2>Airprox 2024294 – What Actually Happened?</h2>
<p>On the night of <strong>22 November 2024 at 21:51 UTC</strong>, a National Police Air Service (NPAS) <strong>EC135 helicopter</strong> operating near RAF Lakenheath reported multiple “drones” manoeuvring around it. In reality, the objects were <strong>USAF F15 fighters</strong> engaged in authorised night training in Class G airspace (surface–FL150), coordinated by Lakenheath Approach (&#8220;Overlord&#8221;).</p>
<h3>Summary of Key Facts:</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Closest Point of Approach (CPA):</strong> 1 NM horizontal / 1900 ft vertical separation (recorded).</li>
<li><strong>ATC Services:</strong>
<ul>
<li>EC135 – Basic Service (no traffic information guaranteed).</li>
<li>F-15s – Traffic Service (received information about the EC135).</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Misidentification Factors:</strong>
<ul>
<li>EC135’s TCAS did <strong>not display the F-15s</strong>.</li>
<li>F-15 lighting did <strong>not resemble standard civil aircraft lighting</strong>.</li>
<li>The crew believed the lights were drones due to their apparent behaviour and lack of TCAS confirmation.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<p>The <strong>UK Airprox Board (UKAB)</strong> concluded that there was <strong>no risk of collision</strong> (Risk Category E) and attributed the report to <strong>misidentification and situational awareness breakdown</strong> rather than unsafe flying.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Why This Matters to Drone Operators</h2>
<h3>1. Misidentification Risk</h3>
<p>Even experienced police aircrew using EO/IR cameras mistook military jets for drones. This shows how easily drone operators can be blamed for aerial events they weren’t involved in.</p>
<h3>2. Electronic Conspicuity Limitations</h3>
<p>The EC135’s TCAS did not detect the F-15s despite them squawking Modes A and C. This highlights the ongoing limitations of EC systems in complex or mixed-use airspace, particularly at night.</p>
<h3>3. ATC Service Levels – Know the Difference</h3>
<p>Under a <strong>Basic Service</strong>, ATC is <strong>not required</strong> to provide traffic information. Drone operators should consider requesting a <strong>Traffic Service</strong> or <strong>Deconfliction Service</strong> for BVLOS, urban, or sensitive operations.</p>
<hr>
<h2>Public Perception: A Persistent Challenge</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>“Drone blame” is the default:</strong> Unidentified lights in the sky are often assumed to be drones, fuelling public concern and regulatory overreaction.</li>
<li><strong>Poor understanding of airspace rules:</strong> The public often assumes ATC sees and controls everything — which is untrue in Class G.</li>
<li><strong>Coordination gaps:</strong> The police helicopter tasking was not pre-notified to the USAF. This shows the need for better operational coordination.</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Risk Assessment for UK Drone Operations</h2>
<h3>Potential Scenarios and Risk Levels:</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Misidentification by other aircraft:</strong>
<ul>
<li>Likelihood: Medium</li>
<li>Severity: Low to Medium</li>
<li>Risk Level: Moderate overall, but High reputationally</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>No traffic info under Basic Service:</strong>
<ul>
<li>Likelihood: Medium</li>
<li>Severity: Medium</li>
<li>Risk Level: Moderate</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><strong>Public/media backlash from perceived near-miss:</strong>
<ul>
<li>Likelihood: High</li>
<li>Severity: High</li>
<li>Risk Level: High (especially for commercial operators)</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h3>Key Mitigations for Drone Operators:</h3>
<ul>
<li>Use <strong>dual EC systems</strong> (ADS-B OUT and ground-based detect-and-avoid).</li>
<li>Maintain a <strong>telemetry and flight log archive</strong> for every operation.</li>
<li><strong>Pre-notify military ATC</strong> when operating near MOD airspace.</li>
<li>File <strong>CANPs, NOTAMs, or Temporary Danger Areas</strong> when applicable.</li>
<li>Train pilots to request an <strong>upgrade to Traffic Service</strong> where required.</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Legal and Regulatory Observations</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>SERA.3205</strong> and <strong>ANO Article 239</strong> set the standard for proximity liability. Keep compliance well-documented.</li>
<li>Expect growing pressure for <strong>mandatory electronic conspicuity</strong>, with incidents like this cited in policy.</li>
<li>If blamed in media or police statements without evidence, drone operators may have grounds for <strong>defamation or economic loss claims</strong>. Get legal advice promptly.</li>
</ul>
<hr>
<h2>Final Thoughts</h2>
<blockquote><p><strong>This wasn’t a drone incident — but it could have been perceived as one.</strong></p></blockquote>
<p>The lesson? <strong>Control the narrative by controlling the data.</strong><br />
Record everything. Secure it. Share it when necessary. With the right evidence, drone operators can protect themselves from false blame and help improve UK airspace safety.</p>
<hr>
<h3>About the Author</h3>
<p><strong>Richard Ryan</strong> is a UK barrister and aviation lawyer specialising in drone regulation, UAS integration, and counter-drone law. A Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, he advises police forces, government bodies, and commercial operators on airspace compliance and emerging UTM frameworks. He is also completing a PhD on airspace integration and unmanned traffic management at Cranfield University.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk/airprox-2024294-ec135-mistakes-f-15-for-drone-in-uk-night-operation/">Airprox 2024294 – What Actually Happened at RAF Lakenheath?</a> appeared first on <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk">Blakistons</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Letter to my MP regarding the #Drone Bill</title>
		<link>https://blakistons.co.uk/drone-bill-threatens-uk-drone-industry-pfco-holders-urge-revisions-to-police-powers/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[zeroabove]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jan 2020 09:11:29 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Air Traffic Management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Industry Concerns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Issues in Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unmanned Aircraft Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill 2019]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Aviation Authority]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Bill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Industry Impact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Law Advocacy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Pilot Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Regulation Challenges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Industry Development Threats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Concerns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Letter to MP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PfCO Holders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Police Powers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Richard Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Drone Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unmanned aerial systems]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blakistons.co.uk/?p=173</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL] 2019 (“the Drone Bill”) Download the letter here.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk/drone-bill-threatens-uk-drone-industry-pfco-holders-urge-revisions-to-police-powers/">Letter to my MP regarding the #Drone Bill</a> appeared first on <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk">Blakistons</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><iframe title="Embedded post" src="https://www.linkedin.com/embed/feed/update/urn:li:ugcPost:6627172675057930240" width="100%" height="751" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe></p>
<h3 class="p1"><span class="s1"><b>Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill [HL] 2019 (“the Drone Bill”)</b></span></h3>
<p style="text-align: left;"><strong><a href="https://blakistons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/200126_Letter-to-MP-to-change-the-Drone-Bill_Richard-Ryan.docx" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer"><i class="fas fa-download"></i> Download the letter here.</a></strong></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk/drone-bill-threatens-uk-drone-industry-pfco-holders-urge-revisions-to-police-powers/">Letter to my MP regarding the #Drone Bill</a> appeared first on <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk">Blakistons</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
