Flying a Drone in Japan 2026: The New 1,000m No-Fly Rings

Two months ago the restricted ring around Japan’s designated key facilities grew from roughly 300 metres to roughly 1,000 metres. The radius tripled, the covered area grew more than tenfold, and 485 facilities were re-designated under the new law on a single day. The consequence that matters most to a visitor: the Imperial Palace is on that list, and its ring takes in the Marunouchi side of Tokyo Station, Kitanomaru and the entire Chidorigafuchi moat. What follows is not a map of where you can fly — no such map exists, and publishing one would get somebody fined. It is four tests instead: can you register the aircraft, which statute governs the place you want to photograph, is your transmitter legal, and how far ahead do you have to file. The conclusion first: a foreign visitor clears every one of those gates, and no official document says otherwise. What defeats people is treating four separate procedures as one.

What changed on 14 July 2026

The restricted ring went from roughly 300 metres to roughly 1,000 metres.

The instrument is Act No. 47 of 2026, passed by the 221st Diet on 17 June 2026, promulgated on 24 June and in force from 14 July. It amends the Small Unmanned Aircraft Flight Prohibition Act so that the area to be designated around a covered facility runs to the site or zone of that facility plus roughly 1,000 metres around it, where the figure had been roughly 300 metres.

Two notices landed with it. One handled the existing stock: all 485 facilities already covered at promulgation were re-designated under the amended Act, published 3 July. The other handled airports — New Chitose, Narita, Haneda, Chubu, Itami, Kansai, Fukuoka and Naha — with the same 300-to-1,000 substitution, as MLIT Notice No. 813 of 2026, repealing the previous airport designation.

The categories of covered facility are worth reading once: the National Diet Building, the Prime Minister’s Office, the Supreme Court and the Imperial Palace; crisis-management agency buildings; political party offices; foreign diplomatic missions; Self-Defense Force and US Forces Japan installations; nuclear facilities; and those eight airports. The 2026 amendment added two further categories — facilities where designated VIPs are present, and conference facilities being prepared or operated for international conferences.

In trip-planning terms: every “stay 300 metres clear” written before July 2026 is now wrong. The radius roughly tripled, the area more than tenfold, and the ring is measured outward from the facility’s site boundary rather than from a building.

Keep one older event separate. In September 2019 there was also an expansion around those same eight airports, but it concerned prohibited airspace under the Civil Aeronautics Act — approach and transitional surfaces, and airport land. Different statute, different thing. Merging the two produces the wrong conclusion that this rule has existed for seven years.

How many permits, and who issues them

Four, from four different authorities, and none of them substitutes for another.

Most people arrive at this subject expecting a yes/no question about whether an application is needed. The actual structure is four independent layers, each with its own statute and its own regulator, and you have to clear all four.

What these four layers do not do for each other matters more than what they do, and it is not an inference — MLIT writes it out. On the page explaining the airport designations the ministry states that even where permission or approval under the Civil Aeronautics Act has been obtained, consent and prior notification under the Prohibition Act remain separately necessary. Four doors, and each ticket opens exactly one.

The Radio Act layer is more disconnected still: it governs whether your equipment may emit at all in Japan, irrespective of where or how high you fly. And the Civil Code layer is the one people forget entirely. Fully legal airspace does not give you anywhere to take off from. Article 207 provides that ownership of land extends above and below it, which is precisely why shrines, temples, ropeway stations, observation decks and private attractions can prohibit drones without any ordinance behind them.

Can a visitor register an aircraft

Yes, and it is a duty rather than an option.

Three consecutive entries in the official FAQ answer this, all of them positive. Can the registration system be used from outside Japan — yes. Can a foreigner who has come to Japan use it — yes. And the entry closest to a traveller’s situation: someone resident abroad, entering Japan temporarily, planning to fly a machine brought in from overseas is told that where the machine qualifies as an unmanned aircraft under the Act, registration and Remote ID are required.

The ordinance backs it up. Article 236-3, paragraph 2, item 2 of the Civil Aeronautics Act enforcement regulation is written specifically for an owner who is a foreign national with no residence in Japan: a copy of a passport or equivalent showing name and date of birth, together with a copy of a further document issued by a government recognised by Japan or a competent international organisation. Paragraph 1 asks for the owner’s name and address and never requires that address to be in Japan. “My Number” does not appear anywhere in the registration rules, and MLIT’s English page tells you outright to verify identity online using your passport.

Four routes, one of them usable

Eligibility is not the problem. The fee table is. The official registration procedure manual lists five combinations of application method and identity check:

The bottom two are closed for a very concrete reason. The manual explicitly excludes credit-card payment where identity is verified by post, leaving Pay-easy — a Japanese bank ATM or Japanese internet banking. Worse, verification only completes once the fee payment slip has been posted to the address shown on your identity document and you have received it and paid. From overseas that does not work. GbizID is limited by the manual to corporate owners, including national and local government bodies.

So one route remains: passport plus facial matching, ¥1,450 for the first aircraft and ¥1,050 for each one after. It has to be shot live through the registration system — the manual states that a photograph taken in advance is not acceptable.

Four practical details before you start. Registration lasts three years. No personal seal is needed. You can apply without a phone number capable of receiving SMS, because SMS only supplements email — and the FAQ itself lists overseas numbers among the usual reasons SMS does not arrive. On timing, allow one to five open office days for the fee notification and another one to five after payment for the registration number, so up to about ten business days in the worst case. The system runs in Japanese and English only.

One more thing, because the government has not aligned its own documents. MLIT’s English PDF on postal applications never mentions the passport clause written for foreigners without a Japanese address. It lists seal registration certificates, residence records, Japanese driving licences, residence cards and health insurance cards — all of them things only a resident holds. A visitor following that English file will reasonably conclude they are ineligible. Apply online instead.

Remote ID: an overseas purchase does not pass automatically

Registration produces a registration number that must be displayed on the airframe, and the aircraft must carry Remote ID. Both sit in Article 132-5 of the Act; flying without either is punishable by a fine of up to ¥500,000.

One FAQ entry deals with a machine ordered online from the United States with Remote ID built in, and the answer is that even for an aircraft purchased overseas, flying it in Japan requires conformity with the domestic Remote ID technical specification. MLIT maintains a conforming-equipment list, last updated 8 July 2026, with 132 entries: DJI, Autel, Skydio, Sony Airpeak, Holy Stone, Potensic, HOVERAir, and several standalone bolt-on modules.

That list is organised by type name and many registrants are Japanese subsidiaries. Finding your model on it does not establish that the overseas variant you own conforms. The ministry has never addressed that question, so this guide will not answer it for them — ask the manufacturer.

Exemptions from Remote ID number exactly three: a pre-notified designated area, tethered flight on a line of 30 metres or less, and covert police work. Photographing scenery is none of them.

Does a sub-100g drone escape all this

It escapes registration under the Civil Aeronautics Act. It does not escape the other two statutes.

Article 2(22) of the Act, read with Article 5-2 of the enforcement regulation, excludes machines weighing under 100 grams from the definition of an unmanned aircraft. The ministry states how that weight is calculated: airframe plus battery. The threshold has stood at 100 grams since 20 June 2022, having previously been 200 grams.

Treating it as immunity will get you in trouble on three independent counts:

• The Act keeps a hook. The same official page adds that flying a sub-100g machine near an airport or at high altitude still counts as conduct liable to affect aircraft operations under Article 134-3, and may require permission.
• The Prohibition Act does not look at weight at all. The police wording is “regardless of weight or size,” and the statutory definition genuinely contains no weight threshold. The 1,000-metre rings catch a toy exactly as they catch a professional rig.
• Ordinances do not look at weight either. In MLIT’s compiled list the prohibitions are framed as “drones” or as conduct endangering or inconveniencing other users — no gram figure anywhere.

Buying small saves paperwork, not exposure — and what it saves you from happens to be the most lightly punished of the four layers.

The places you actually want to photograph

In most of them you cannot fly — which is a different sentence from “you cannot fly in Japan.”

Japan issues permissions, certifies pilots and maintains a 132-entry conformity list. Flying is plainly contemplated. The problem is how heavily the restricted areas overlap with the famous ones.

Central Tokyo: three layers at once

On its page about the new regime the National Police Agency publishes a map of central Tokyo and adds a sentence of its own: in Tokyo, flight of small unmanned aircraft is prohibited in many places. That is the regulator’s assessment, not an outside opinion.

The layers stack like this. The Imperial Palace is a designated facility, and its 1,000-metre ring covers the Marunouchi side of Tokyo Station, Kitanomaru and the Chidorigafuchi moat — the most photographed cherry-blossom water in the country. Most of the 23 wards is a Densely Inhabited District under the Civil Aeronautics Act, requiring prior permission. And ordinances close the rest: MLIT lists the Tokyo Metropolitan Park Ordinance as prohibiting flight in principle, the Metropolitan Seaside Park Ordinance as requiring the Governor’s permission across the Odaiba waterfront including its water areas, and Tokyo’s port facilities and water areas as requiring approval or confirmation from the Bureau of Port and Harbor.

A sourcing note. Article 16, item 10 of the Tokyo Metropolitan Park Ordinance is the provision MLIT cites, and MLIT’s summary says flight is prohibited in principle. This guide did not obtain the text of that provision — the Metropolitan regulations database was unreachable on the verification date — so only the article number and the ministry’s summary appear here, without quoting the provision itself. What can be quoted is the park side: the Tokyo Metropolitan Government’s own Ueno Park page states that use of drones and radio-controlled models in the park is prohibited, given the need to consider visitor safety.

Kyoto: even Nijo Castle is on the list

Article 6, paragraphs 1 and 2 of Kyoto City’s Nijo Castle ordinance appear in MLIT’s compilation, summarised as prohibited in principle — but permitted where the Mayor grants permission. Hold on to that “but”; the next section returns to it.

Festivals and events: this one is not the organiser’s own rule

Article 132-86, paragraph 2, item 4 of the Act requires flight in airspace other than above a place where a festival, fair, exhibition or other gathering of many people is taking place. Flying over an event requires prior approval.

Which explains something you will notice on the ground. The Chichibu Night Festival notice that lists drones among prohibited acts, Hakata Gion Yamakasa’s promise to report offenders to the prefectural police, the Hakone Ekiden restrictions, the Chion-in bell ringing — these are not house rules invented separately. They restate one statute. The sign in front of you usually has an article number behind it.

National parks and protected areas: out of scope here

Somewhere like Kikuchi Gorge, inside a Class 1 Special Zone of Aso-Kuju National Park, the operator lists drones among prohibited activities — that is the site’s and the protected area’s own rule. Whether the Natural Parks Act imposes a further layer of its own was not verified for this guide, so not a word is written about it. To fly in a national park, ask that park’s management office directly.

Inside a site: sometimes you cannot even carry one in

There is a stricter category again. Shuri Castle’s main hall, where drones are listed as prohibited items to bring in, is regulating entry rather than flight. That layer has nothing to do with legislation — it is the operator’s authority, and it is the least negotiable of them all.

Is your transmitter legal in Japan

It depends on the band, and this gate has nothing to do with flying.

The rule reads as follows: the low-power radio stations a drone uses need neither a station licence nor an operator qualification, but they must be certified equipment bearing Japanese type certification — the giteki mark. Breaching the Radio Act carries up to one year’s confinement or a ¥1,000,000 fine, and interfering with a radio station of high public importance carries up to five years or ¥2,500,000.

Equipment without the mark can use a narrow exemption: a device a visitor brings in themselves may be used in Japan where it meets standards equivalent to Japan’s technical requirements, for 90 days from entry. That exemption is not open to all drones.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications leaflet for inbound travellers splits usable from unusable equipment in two columns, and drones appear in both:

Read that plainly: an uncertified drone qualifies for the 90-day exemption only if it is 2.4 GHz-only. Aircraft using a 5.7 or 5.8 GHz video link sit in the right-hand column.

Two related points from the same source. Wireless LAN routers are in the right-hand column, and the official Q&A says a router may be used only if it carries the giteki mark — so a pocket Wi-Fi device you brought from home is itself a problem if uncertified. And the 90 days are hard: past that, the government tells you to switch to certified equipment.

The ministry publishes the condition but never a model list. It states the criterion abstractly and tells you to check your own device’s settings screen or manual for the bands it actually uses. So no model names appear here — you have to look up the transmit bands of the machine in your bag.

If you are going to apply anyway

You can get permission, but file two weeks out, and you need ten logged hours before you may apply.

First, the scope, because this is the most misdescribed part of the whole subject. The Civil Aeronautics Act does not require national permission to fly a drone as such. Permission attaches to two things only:

• Specified airspace (Article 132-85): around airports, above approach and transitional surfaces, emergency-use airspace, airspace 150 metres or more above ground or water, and Densely Inhabited Districts.
• Specified flight methods (Article 132-86, paragraph 2): at night, beyond visual line of sight, closer than 30 metres to people or property, above a gathering of many people, carrying dangerous goods, or dropping objects.

Inverted: daylight, within visual line of sight, 30 metres or more from people and structures, outside a Densely Inhabited District, away from airports, below 150 metres — that flight needs no permission at all under the Act. Registration and Remote ID still apply; they are a separate obligation.

If you do need permission, two lines in MLIT’s examination guidance will dictate your itinerary:

• The application must be filed by ten open office days before the planned first flight date. Open office days are business days, so weekends and public holidays push it further back.
• An applicant without a national pilot skill certificate needs at least ten hours of flight experience per aircraft category, confirmed item by item on the official form.

Permission itself is free (¥0) and normally runs three months, extendable to a year at most where the content is unchanged and flights will continue.

Run those two lines against a real trip: for a ten-day holiday you are filing about two weeks before departure, from home, having already logged ten hours. That is why the honest verdict is not “Japan bans drones” but “you cannot decide to fly on the day.”

A note on rank: the ten hours and the ten days come from administrative guidance, not from the Act, and are not described here as statutory.

Three attached duties get forgotten. Specified flights require a flight plan filed in advance (breach: up to ¥300,000) and a maintained flight log (up to ¥100,000). And emergency-use airspace changes day to day — the regulation requires the operator to check, before beginning a flight, whether the airspace they intend to use is emergency-use airspace, and the ministry is explicit that permission for airport surroundings, 150 metres or above, or a Densely Inhabited District does not let you fly in it. No specific areas are listed here, because it is different every day; check on the morning.

And once more, the expensive one: consent and prior notification for the 1,000-metre rings are also free of charge (¥0) but they are an entirely separate procedure, due 48 hours before the flight begins, filed in Tokyo through the local police station to the Metropolitan Public Safety Commission. MLIT permission does not cover it, and the ministry says so in two places. For defence-related sites and the covered airports, the red-zone exception narrows further to consent from the facility administrator; the landowner-consent route does not apply there.

Ordinances: not finding a ban means nothing

Searching an ordinance for the word “drone” will find nothing, because the prohibition lives inside a general clause.

MLIT compiles a list of ordinances restricting unmanned aircraft flight: 30 pages, 260 rows. Open it and one structural fact jumps out. Most of these ordinances never say “drone.” They prohibit something else, and the administrator reads drones into it.

So the working test is: ask the site administrator, not a legal database. Failing to find a prohibition usually means it does not look the way you expected, not that it is absent.

It also overturns a natural assumption — that local restrictions are the ones you cannot apply your way out of. The list shows the opposite. The overwhelming majority read “prohibited in principle, but permitted where the administrator grants permission”: they are precisely the applicable kind. It is the 1,000-metre ring under the Prohibition Act that MLIT permission cannot solve.

A small number of ordinances really are written about drones by name, which makes them a useful contrast. Taiji Town in Wakayama has an ordinance prohibiting small unmanned aircraft above a designated area during the dolphin-drive fishery period set by the mayor. Wakayama Prefecture’s Urban Park Ordinance, Article 6, prohibits unmanned aircraft in prefectural urban parks and park facilities outright, while noting that paid park facilities may permit use and telling you to confirm with each management office.

Two limits on that list must be stated. It was last modified on 29 November 2024 — 22 months before this guide’s verification date. And it cannot be read as a whitelist: across 260 rows, “Osaka” appears once, for Suita City, and Kyoto City’s entries are gymnasiums, a martial arts centre, a sports park, a training hall and Nijo Castle, with no general municipal parks at all. Absence from the list means that authority did not report, not that flying there is fine.

What this guide could not verify

The following are things the government has not written down, or that this guide did not obtain. None of them gets an invented answer.

One thing about this article itself: there are no booking links here, because there is nothing to book. Four different keyword searches on GetYourGuide returned zero Japan-related aerial-photography products — “drone tour japan” returns a Kyoto taiko drumming workshop, a drone/drum keyword collision. Japanese drone liability insurance is a domestic financial product a short-term visitor cannot buy. And since the conclusion here is that you mostly cannot fly where you want to, any drone-related purchase link would contradict the article it sits in.

Three sentences

One: measure the distance first, think about everything else second. Since 14 July 2026 the ring is a thousand metres and it ignores weight. The Imperial Palace, the Diet, embassies, Self-Defense Force sites and eight airports are all on the list, which is how most of central Tokyo disappears. This is the gate MLIT permission cannot open, and the penalties start at six months’ confinement.

Two: run the four procedures separately. Register the aircraft through the online route with facial matching (¥1,450), the only workable one. Check the Civil Aeronautics Act for whether your airspace and flight method need permission. Check your transmitter for the giteki mark and for 2.4 GHz-only operation. Ask the landowner and site operator about your take-off point. Four tickets, one door each.

Three: do the paperwork at home. Permission needs ten business days’ notice and ten logged hours before that; the 1,000-metre notification needs 48 hours; registration can take ten business days end to end. The verdict is not “Japan bans drones” — it is “you cannot decide to fly on the day.” If your trip does not have those two weeks in it, plan a trip without the drone. Japan’s rules for riding a bicycle and smoking on the street change the same way from one block to the next, and the general pre-departure list lives in what to prepare for a first trip to Japan.

On currency: this guide was verified on 7 September 2026. The 1,000-metre regime was two months old at that point and facilities can be added to the designation notices at any time, so a re-check is scheduled in six months. The conforming-equipment list (last updated 8 July 2026) and the ordinance list (last modified 29 November 2024) each move on their own schedule — open the originals before relying on either.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1：Can a foreign visitor register a drone in Japan?

Yes — and it is not optional, it is required. Japan’s Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism answers this in three separate FAQ entries: the registration system can be used from outside Japan, it can be used by foreigners who have come to Japan, and — the one that matters most — a person entering Japan temporarily with a drone brought in from abroad must complete aircraft registration and fit Remote ID, provided the machine counts as an unmanned aircraft under the Civil Aeronautics Act. At ministerial-ordinance level there is even a clause written specifically for a foreigner with no residence in Japan: a copy of the passport plus one further government-issued document. The word “My Number” appears nowhere in the registration rules. The obstacle is not eligibility, it is the paperwork. Of the four identity-verification routes, the My Number card is something you do not have, GbizID is restricted to corporate applicants, and both postal routes exclude credit-card payment — leaving one workable path: passport plus a live selfie for facial matching, ¥1,450. Note the honest limit: nothing official says that route is restricted to Japanese passports, and the ministry’s own English page tells foreigners to use a passport, but this guide has not put an application through the system.

Q2：What exactly changed in July 2026?

The restricted ring around designated key facilities grew from roughly 300 metres to roughly 1,000 metres, in force from 14 July 2026. The amending statute is Act No. 47 of 2026, promulgated on 24 June 2026. Two notices took effect the same day. The first re-designated all 485 facilities that were already covered when the amendment was promulgated; it was published on 3 July. The second covers eight airports — New Chitose, Narita, Haneda, Chubu, Itami, Kansai, Fukuoka and Naha — replacing the earlier 300-metre designation, and is MLIT Notice No. 813 of 2026. The radius roughly tripled, so the covered area grew more than tenfold. Anything written before July 2026 that says “stay 300 metres clear” is now wrong. One thing to keep separate: there was also an expansion covering those same eight airports back in September 2019, but that one amended the Civil Aeronautics Act’s prohibited airspace. Two different statutes, two different events — do not merge them.

Q3：My drone weighs under 100g. Am I exempt?

You skip Civil Aeronautics Act registration. You do not skip the other two statutes. The Act excludes machines weighing under 100 grams from the definition of an unmanned aircraft, and the ministry spells out how the weight is measured: airframe plus battery. Three things survive that exemption. First, the same official page adds that a sub-100g machine flown near an airport or at high altitude still falls under Article 134-3 as an act that may affect aircraft operations, and may need permission. Second, and this is the big one — the Small Unmanned Aircraft Flight Prohibition Act does not look at weight at all. The police wording is explicit: “regardless of weight or size.” So the 1,000-metre rings around the Imperial Palace, the Diet, embassies, Self-Defense Force sites and those eight airports catch a palm-sized toy exactly as they catch a professional rig, with a yellow-zone penalty of up to six months’ confinement or a ¥500,000 fine. Third, local ordinances name “drones” or “conduct that endangers or inconveniences other users” — no gram threshold anywhere. Buying small saves you paperwork, not exposure.

Q4：Where in Tokyo can I actually fly?

Almost nowhere in the 23 wards on your own authority — and that is the National Police Agency’s own assessment. On the page explaining the new 1,000-metre regime the NPA publishes a map of central Tokyo and states plainly that in Tokyo, flight of small unmanned aircraft is prohibited in many places. Three layers stack. First, the Imperial Palace is a designated facility, and its 1,000-metre ring swallows the Marunouchi side of Tokyo Station, Kitanomaru and the whole Chidorigafuchi moat — the exact stretch people photograph in cherry-blossom season. Second, most of the 23 wards is a Densely Inhabited District under the Civil Aeronautics Act, which requires prior permission. Third, ordinances: Tokyo Metropolitan parks (Ueno, Inokashira, Yoyogi and the rest) are listed by MLIT as prohibiting flight in principle, and the Metropolitan seaside parks along the Odaiba waterfront require the Governor’s permission. The correct verdict is not “you cannot fly in Japan” but “you cannot fly where you most want to point the camera.”

Q5：If I get MLIT permission, am I covered?

No, and this is the most expensive misunderstanding in the whole subject. MLIT writes it out in full on its own page: even where permission or approval under the Civil Aeronautics Act has been obtained, consent and prior notification under the Small Unmanned Aircraft Flight Prohibition Act are separately required. Two statutes, two ministries, two penalty schedules, and neither licence substitutes for the other. There is a third and a fourth as well. Your transmitter needs Japanese type certification — that is Radio Act territory and has nothing to do with where you fly. And every take-off and landing happens on somebody’s land: Civil Code Article 207 provides that ownership of land extends above and below it, which is why a shrine, a ropeway station, an observation deck or a private attraction can simply say no without needing any ordinance behind it. The order to memorise: the Civil Aeronautics Act governs airspace and flight method, the Prohibition Act governs the rings around key facilities, the Radio Act governs your transmitter, and land ownership governs the ground under your feet.

Q6：Will my controller and video link be legal in Japan?

It depends on the band — and the government splits drones across both columns of the same leaflet. Japan’s low-power radio devices need no licence and no operator qualification, but they must carry Japanese type certification, the “giteki” mark. Visitors bringing uncertified equipment can use a 90-day exemption from the date of entry, and the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications leaflet for inbound travellers lists what qualifies. In the “usable” column: smartphones, handheld consoles, laptops, and drones on the 2.4 GHz band only. In the “not usable” column: drones on anything other than 2.4 GHz, and wireless LAN routers. So an uncertified aircraft using a 5.7 or 5.8 GHz video link falls on the wrong side. Radio Act penalties run to one year’s confinement or a ¥1,000,000 fine, entirely separate from the aviation penalties. Two related points from the same source: a pocket Wi-Fi router without the giteki mark cannot be used either, and the 90-day window is hard — after that you need certified equipment. The ministry publishes the condition but never a model list, and tells you to check the device’s own settings screen or manual, so no model names appear here.

Q7：Does the Remote ID built into a drone I bought abroad count?

Not automatically. It has to conform to Japan’s domestic Remote ID technical standard. One official FAQ entry deals with exactly this — a machine with built-in Remote ID ordered online from the United States — and the answer states that even for an aircraft purchased overseas, flight inside Japan requires conformity with the domestic Remote ID technical specification. MLIT maintains a list of conforming equipment, last updated 8 July 2026, with 132 entries covering DJI, Autel, Skydio, Sony Airpeak, Holy Stone, Potensic and HOVERAir, plus several standalone bolt-on Remote ID modules. But that list is organised by type name, and many of the registrants are Japanese subsidiaries. Your model appearing on it does not establish that the overseas variant in your bag conforms — the ministry has never written anything about that, so ask the manufacturer. Also worth knowing: the exemptions from carrying Remote ID number three — a pre-notified designated area, tethered flight on a line of 30 metres or less, and covert police work. Photographing scenery is none of them.

Q8：How far ahead do I need to apply for flight permission?

Ten open office days before your intended first flight — and before you can apply you need ten hours of logged flight time. MLIT’s examination guidance sets both: applications must be submitted by ten open office days before the planned start date, and an applicant without a national drone pilot skill certificate must hold at least ten hours of flight experience for each category of aircraft they intend to fly, confirmed item by item on the official form. Open office days are business days, so a ten-day trip means filing about two weeks out, while you are still at home. Permission itself carries no fee; it normally runs three months, extendable to a maximum of one year where the content does not change and flights will continue. So the honest verdict is not “Japan bans drones” — it is “you cannot decide to fly on the day.” One point of legal rank: the ten hours and the ten days come from administrative guidance, not from the Act itself, and this guide does not call them statutory. Separately, specified flights also require a filed flight plan (up to a ¥300,000 fine) and a maintained flight log (up to ¥100,000) — both routinely forgotten.

Related reading

← Back to Essentials