A new restricted area with far-reaching consequences
The Danish Aviation Authority is planning a permanently active restricted area that will extend from the ground to a height of 1000 feet. At depth, it extends around 2.5 nautical miles (around 5 kilometres) inland. The aim is to secure police drone missions at the border.
What is explosive, however, is that according to official information, the police drone is only to be deployed in a 400 metre wide corridor along the border. The planned exclusion zone would therefore be over twelve times as wide as the actual deployment area - a disparity that is causing considerable head-scratching in the aviation community.
Threat to regional airports
The consequences would be particularly dramatic for the Tønder (EKTD) and Padborg (EKPB) airfields, which are located in the centre of the planned zone. As the restricted area would be permanently active as things stand at present, take-offs and landings could no longer be reliably planned. This would massively restrict the regular operation of the airfields, which have important functions for clubs, flight schools and the regional infrastructure.
In addition to directly jeopardising the existence of these airfields, the regulation would also have consequences for cross-border visual flights. At low cloud levels - i.e. below 1000 feet - it would be practically impossible to cross the border. This would make spontaneous or weather-related evasive manoeuvres considerably more difficult.
Unequal treatment vis-à-vis the German side
The comparison with the German side of the border is particularly controversial. There are no comparable restrictions there, although German airfields are even closer to the drone corridor. They can continue to operate without restriction.
This difference shows that the zone planned by Denmark is significantly larger than would actually be necessary for safety reasons. Experts point out that a smaller zone tailored to the actual area of use of the drones would be sufficient - and could ensure the continued existence of the airfields concerned.
Resistance from the aviation industry
The plans have met with strong opposition. AOPA Denmark and the Aeroclub of Tønder have already lodged a protest. The Aeroclub has also launched a petition that has collected numerous signatures. These were submitted to the Danish Transport Agency as part of the official statement.
The organisers expressly emphasise that their protest is not directed against the use of drones. Rather, they are criticising the disproportionate size of the planned protection zone. Drone deployments are generally acceptable if they are in line with the needs of aviation.
A conflict with a signalling effect
The dispute over the restricted border area has supra-regional significance. It raises fundamental questions: How can new technologies such as drones be integrated into existing airspace structures without disproportionately restricting general aviation?
While drone use is increasing worldwide, a balance must be found between security interests, state surveillance and the needs of aviation. The case on the German-Danish border shows that over-regulation can have fatal consequences for small airfields - which, however, make an important contribution to regional mobility, training and air sports culture.
Conclusion
The final decision on the planned restricted area is still pending. However, one thing is already clear: if the zone is implemented as planned, two traditional airfields are at risk of losing their operational safety. The aviation associations are therefore calling for improvements - not to prevent police work, but to create a fair balance.
The coming months will show whether Danish politicians will comply with the aviation community's demands and reduce the exclusion zone to a reasonable level. Otherwise, this case could become a precedent for further excessive restrictions in Europe.
Source references:
Flieger.News