Thou shalt use our drone app, UK.gov to tell quadcopter pilots As Prince Harry and actress Meghan Markle announce their engagement today, equally thrilling news is also breaking across Britain: new laws forcing drone operators to register. The new law will make it illegal to fly a drone weighing more than 250 grams unless you have registered with the government and passed various safety …
My kids were brought up on an unrelenting diet of Microsoft Office as 'IT'. Homework was usually prepared using PowerPoint on templates that were sized as US Letter, as it seems the teachers didn't know the difference. Hence all their work was squashed horizontally when printed on A4.
Don't know what it taught them apart from IT being boring and that mediocre results were acceptable.
> Don't know what it taught them apart from IT being boring and that mediocre results were acceptable.
"IT" often taught in school as just being boring crap ... could not agree more here...
However, the UK is not alone. At least here in Germany it's exactly the same. I guess this happens in all parts of the world where Microsoft is allowed to pay its way into the education system to farm future customers.
Raspberrys to the rescue ...
I've done my share of RC modelling, and as a Yank I've not heard much about drones being restricted in the US this way, as of yet. It's just talk so far, but things are likely to change soon and so this DfT thing is interesting.
The modelling-relevant paragraph from the BMFA article:
"We remain hopeful that the DfT will retain a ‘common sense’ attitude to model flying and will also follow EASA’s lead on this. EASA recognise the excellent safety record achieved by model flying and have made special provisions in their rules to allow a much ‘lighter touch’ to be applied."
That page also has a link to http://dronesafe.uk/. It's got the "Drone Code" (coming soon to theatre near you!) and describes the "app" as a map app that has a layer visually displaying restriction zones, so you can't claim "I didn't know."
The app also has a ‘Fly Now’ feature that "enables you to share your drone flight location with other app users and the wider drone community, helping to reduce the risk of a drone related incident in the UK’s airspace."
Um, need a bit of legal translation here. Is that, or is that not, saying the Fly Now "feature" is optional...?
The announcement and PDF never mention flying model aircraft at all, only "drones" period full stop. So the BMFA is basically expecting the government to eventually wake up and include modeling exemptions in the new drone codes. A lot of BMFA are probably long time pilots (ret.) and will have connexions, so I expect they'll have some pull here.
I figure they'll say "If it can't hover and weighs less than 5kg, it's not a drone" or something similar. The obvious next step for the hard-core dronies will be miniaturized parasail drones that go so slow they might as well be hovering!
I would assume not. This is the "get a fishing licence on paper" digital equivalent. It may still be for the wrong reasons and the wrong method (why is a web app not enough!!!).
But any "command and control" software they wish to add to it... us pure pie in the sky insane thinking.
However the article does mention integrating their systems into drone software (I assume it is on drone controllers? Though phone apps may have mandatory inclusion?). If this is just altitude limits and no fly zones (airports etc) from the GPS, or something more deeply involved I've no idea sorry.
If this is just altitude limits and no fly zones (airports etc) from the GPS, or something more deeply involved I've no idea sorry.
May's government is involved it. That should give you plenty of "idea". The same government who employs rhymes-with-Elmer Fudd.
Altitude limits, airport no fly zones, attitude limits (ie "Drone operator pissed us off by finding a way to capture footage of..."), and also protest limits (not near protests to film bad stuff by the piggywiggies), alleged terror incident limits (so you can film all the fleeing panicking people to your hearts desire, but you can't film that it's just a couple of blokes having a dust-up), and more that even I can't conceive of.
require any drone over a certain size to carry an operational identification transmitter, say a radio beacon weighing 10g, emitting a unique digital registration code on a standard multiplexed frequency which could be read by a smartphone user for reporting of privacy infringements? A sort of digital permit for the pilot, or like a registration plate on a car? Or both, even. Micro-SD card carrying the pilot's registration ID.
If there's a two-way communication built into the drone anyway, then it should be possible to do it without a separate transmitter module. I thought of a separate module because then it gets delivered as part of your drone pilot registration return and it's standard for the country it's operating in. There's no reason I picked 10g and a separate module other than it's a small amount of payload which seems reasonable to pack in enough electronics to produce a signal of the required strength to always be detectable a little bit further than the range of the vehicle's operation - line of sight.
How do you enforce it so that the required identification beacon is carried? Well, in a similar way to how you ensure that cars have their registration plates? You see one, you check for a beacon. Is it the correct one? Well, I guess that's kind of hard. Same as policing anything else really. But at least having a digital registration device makes it easier.
Basically a IFF for drones (err a DIFF). Most commercial drones can be locked down to stop flying near restricted airspace, so I can see no reason why the same rules would not apply if the IFF is not functioning.
Of course you can't legislate for hackers or own-build types. Also what about RC aircraft?
Also the CAA is the wrong organisation for this. They are used to dealing with 100's of registration, not thousands. Need a separate organisation totally funded by registration fees
There are several bad effects of introducing a law saying you may not now do something you could before unless you pay us as much as we spend on allowing you to.
Among them are a temptation to regulate where it might not be needed, and a lack of incentive to operate efficiently.
Who is claimed to benefit? In short, all citizens, residents, visitors.
Who should pay for that benefit?
...all citizens, residents and visitors, through general taxation.
The problem is
It will be required, but
A) Wont be ready to buy before it is mandatory
and or
B) will be overweight ue batteries like mad and or cost a fortune.
Also, this does prevent the law respecting ppl from using it, but not the not law abiding ones.
How do they plan to enforce this?
'Miniature' one and two way ADSB transceivers are already available which would enable your multirotor to participate in TCAS avoidance, but they are of the $2k region, eat power, and aren't really miniature enough for smaller than 450 class craft. The sort of proximity flying your typical 150-250 class is doing is not going to interfere with aircraft in any case, so it would just be dead weight and something else to break in a crash!
The majority of law abiding fliers will register. The people breaking the existing rules will not bother and continue to break the rules.
Not sure how this improves the current situation (I already use Drone Assist...) If I was looking to do something illegal why on earth would I bother registering in the first place???
Possibly, but the rules exist already in the Air Navigation Orders. It's creating new rules that will be hard to enforce for the same of it.
Look at mobile use in cars, it was already covered under driving without due care and attention, a new rule may make it a more tangible "crime" but judging by the number of people I still see clutching their mobile as they drive its not really effective as a deterrent.
"Look at mobile use in cars, it was already covered under driving without due care and attention, a new rule may make it a more tangible "crime" but judging by the number of people I still see clutching their mobile as they drive its not really effective as a deterrent."
I used to think that too, then it was explained to me that it was an administrative law. The driving without due care and attention required a court case and a police officer taking time to attend court to give evidence. The more specific using a phone while droving offence is ticketed on the spot and although there remains the option to challenge the ticket in court, the vast majority will accept they did wrong and pay up.
"The majority of law abiding fliers will register. The people breaking the existing rules will not bother and continue to break the rules."
I've said essentially that multiple times here, along with the fact that all the police will end up with is a "nice list" when what they actually want in the case of someone being a dick with a drone is a "naughty list" which will never happen, but they have this "nice list" so they might see who lives in the area of the incedent and go interrogate them just to be sure...
Flying anywhere near airports is obviously madness, for which operators should go straight to prison, and no mistake. Flying near a motorway endangers others, and flying near high voltage lines endangeres the operator. All pretty much common sense, as observed by kite flyers for the last 100 years, and remote-controlled plane enthusiasts.
But these new rules seem like an overreaction. I hate it when drone nutters annoy their neighbours or endanger others, but I quite like the way they can take arial video of interesting places. This "video" aspect is a significant freedom for citizens, and one the government is not to keen on. Are they using the (highly valid) plane-endangerment argument to slip in a bit of oppression on the side?
"
I live almost adjacent to a small airport roughly in line with the end of the runway. I would never, ever, under any circumstances consider flying a drone from my property it's simple common sense.
"
The problem with "common sense" is that it's so often wrong. There would be nothing dangerous or wrong with practicing drone racing or similar low-level operations in your house or garden. Or even taking some videos of your property from 50 or 60 feet up. If an aircraft using the airport is flying lower than 100 feet over your property, a drone would be the least of the pilot's problems unless your house is extremely close to the runway threshold.
What is a drone?
Like all laws, this will always hang on the definitions, and likely be really badly drafted.
I've just built 2 Emax quads and a flying wing, all 3 with FPV, all above 300g TOW.
The quads have basic flight controllers purely as that's what quads need to fly, but their FCs have no GPS or RetToHome logic built in.
The police will not have the time or expertise to delve into any 1 FC's capabilities, so this would be simplified to: "a drone is anything with multiple rotors".
So to your average policeman, because "quads are multirotors, a quad is therefore a drone" and so would fall in this legislation, whereas the flying wing would not.
Yet I could easily install a full featured FC in the wing and get it to autonomously fly from say Windsor to LHR and back, and the police would be none the wiser to its capabilities, nor would they likely seize it as "its not got multiple props so its not a drone, Sarge".
All they would see is the wing, a battery, a motor and two three plastic boxes, so the default response will likely slide towards "seize ANY RC kit as its better we err on the side of caution".
I also see this in the Gov announcement:
"
The government is also working closely with drone manufacturers to use geo-fencing to prevent drones from entering restricted zones.
"
Good luck with geofencing any of my RC kit; none of it has GPS, nor any logic besides basic FC.
"The government is working closely with drone manufacturers..."
DJI may be playing ball but good luck getting the open source projects to comply and trusting that nobody will disable such code later if they do. A Chinese clone flight controller board can be got on eBay for £18. If Dope Dealer Dave wants a drone for nefarious purposes, there will be someone who will build him one from untraceable parts with the geo-restrictions neutered for a fat enough wodge of beer vouchers.
A recent story about the "Beat the BOSS" micro mobile phones that can be easily concealed said they cost about £25 and are changing hands for up to £500 each in prisons. With that kind of mark up plus the money that could be made smuggling drugs or weapons, DDDave can afford to offer someone £1000 tax-free to make him a drone that costs £200 to build. With the state of many people's finances as they are in this age of austerity, somebody will be tempted.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
