Drones and Knee Jerk Reactions - It starts....

[Dave Hopkin]

BBC News Report this morning relating to misuse of Drones....

**LINK**

No doubt there will be calls to bring back the death penalty for even thinking of owning them from some of the more rabid members of the house

[Jez Harris 1]

Hi,

 

But there clearly is a problem isn't there?

 

Anyone at all can go and buy a machine that is requires zero skill to operate that can be remotely piloted over any venue they choose.

They are already being used to drop drugs into prisons, film people without permission, and now they are being flown over very large gatherings of people.

They don't require a large take off area and can be made to automatically land back into a car boot if you saw fit.

You can pre-programme flight paths into them.

 

Do they require a licence? - No.

Should they be controlled in some way by law - Err - I think so.

As a "plank flyer" I would not be too fussed if my flying was subject to "law" in some way as I would simply comply with the legislation. Only dodgy people or those who don't like being told what to do when its clearly in someone elses best interest will be annoyed.

 

Jez

Edited By Jez Harris 1 on 22/10/2014 10:40:28

[Dave Hopkin]

We are already controlled by the law be it flying a plank or a drone - the ANO covers everything once you leave the ground, and all the things you mention are already illegal and require no additional legislation, however from my very limited experience the Police have no idea of what the ANO is or what it says nor does the general public

What worries me is likely over reaction to reports like this which might lead to additional legislation that significantly impacts upon our hobby - remember your plank is also a "remotely piloted vehicle" and in the terms the report is couched would fall under its scope

[Steve McIntosh]

The problem is that despite whatever legislation is introduced if it is used illegally it is used illegally. In my experience, coming up to 30yrs as a cop, legislation generally only hinders the legal use of items.

[Dave Hopkin]

Exactly Steve,

Is your average run of the mill terrorist plotting to do a aerial version of Guy Fawkes going to be put off by a fine for misuse of a RPV? I don't think so somehow

[John F]

I don't believe it is a knee jerk raction at all but rather the exact opposite.

I don't think it will do anything to stop a terrorist but it will make it easier to spot if flying was restricted or banned from areas such as sporting events, Glastonbury etc.

It won't stop our hobby as we would be flying with approved clubs, approved areas etc and to fear the cessation of what we old dear isn't seeing what is trying to be achieved here, but it might help to control the seemingly innocent flights over crowds before they start to become mainstream. There has already been a couple of incidents this month alone with regards to drones flying over football crowds and the pitch.

**LINK**

We all know the damage one prop with an electric motor can do; imagine the carnage four whizzing props can do to a crowd of people!

Edited By John F on 22/10/2014 11:27:06

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Stop fretting every time these things get negative publicity, behave yourself and enjoy your hobby

John

[Andy Meade]

First they came for the FPV'ers, and I did not speak out - because I was not an FPV'er

Then they came for the quadcopters, and I did not speak out - because I didn't fly quadcopters

Then they came for the noisey slimers, and I did not speak out - because I didn't fly a slimer

Then they came for the planks - and there was no one left to speak for me.

[Phil 9]

Posted by Steve McIntosh on 22/10/2014 10:54:58:

The problem is that despite whatever legislation is introduced if it is used illegally it is used illegally. In my experience, coming up to 30yrs as a cop, legislation generally only hinders the legal use of items.

It may mean some sort of licence or registration in the future. This will just cost you money as a responsible user. Of course criminals wont bother with any of that.

[Tony Read 2]

Posted by Andy Meade on 22/10/2014 13:14:44:

First they came for the FPV'ers, and I did not speak out - because I was not an FPV'er

Then they came for the quadcopters, and I did not speak out - because I didn't fly quadcopters

Then they came for the noisey slimers, and I did not speak out - because I didn't fly a slimer

Then they came for the planks - and there was no one left to speak for me.

I like it Andy! Very well put, reminds me of something someone else said, cant put my finger on it.

[Andy Meade]

Tony,

Here it is : **LINK**

[paul handley 1]

it looks like a very clever suited bod in an office has thought mmmmmmm i wonder the naughty badies could use rc planes as a device to carry wmd`s, so lets licence um say £20 a year that should help with the deficit.... we cant have the general public have so much fun and not paying for it` looks like the suits are hoping to create another money making scam just leave us alone..

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Have any of you actually read the report - rather than read the journalists' precis who as we all know (or should know) are only really interested in a "story"?

Personally, going by the comments above, I would say its very unlikely you have read it. If you did I think you might think rather differently and may be even find that it is a quite carefully thought through, measured and rather intelligent analysis of just one aspect of UAV use.

"Knee jerk reaction"? - I only see one knee jerk reaction here so far! (And it isn't this report )

BEB

PS By the way - if you do want to read it - though heaven fore-fend that we should sully our elevated deliberations with any as soiled and squalid as the facts! - you'll find you can download a PDF version here.

[John F]

I did say that it was not a knee jerk reaction but rather the opposite, considering the news story, and no-one has had sight of the report to read it; it isn't included in the BBC report. A bit strong there BEB .

Thank you for the link, it's interesting reading, although not much new info that we don't get in the RAF. Nice to see it in one big document though.

Paul, you need to look closer at the issues; it isn't as black and white and as spurious as making money from a hobby; these issues can be vast. The document is very good at telling you why measures are needed, page 74.

Edited By John F on 22/10/2014 15:30:59

[Dave Hopkin]

I think in my original post I was hinting at the knee jerk reaction we so frequently see from Westminster and the tabloid press - the could well result in the type of hasty legislation that will impinges on legitimate usage and has no real effect on illegal usage.

[John F]

As per my comments in my first post, Dave, I believe that there is no knee jerk reaction but rather directly the opposite; the situation has been given full and complete consideration with many facets looked at before they do anything.

The report called for ""urgent" measures to safeguard British airspace and privacy" which does not mean "legislation that impinges on legitimate useage" by any means. It would not mean all model flying would be affected, in fact it might not even affect what we do at all but rather exactly what it says on the tin; "airpsace and privacy" would be protected. That would mean rules on flying at public gatherings such as stadiums, for example, or flying over buildings, built up areas, over busy roads etc, which is something we don't do anyway.

I agree with BEB the knee jerk reaction has been here, reading into something that isn't there.

[Dave Hopkin]

My point is that all those rules are already in place within the scope of the ANO - the report would tend to agree with that as it specifically calls for more publicity surrounding these rules - As an example, I was talking to two coppers a few weeks ago and they saw one of my model and were asking about it, they were in total ignorance of any rules and regulations surrounding their use - they had never heard of the ANO either and were astonished that they fell under the jurisdiction of the CAA.

But (bearing in mind a double page spread of the idiot who was arrested in Asda car park while piloting a FPV over and into the Man City Stadium during a premiership game - and the Serbia v Albania game publicity recently) there will be elements of the media/Westminster "elite" who will see the report stating that"urgent measures are needed to protect British aerospace" and given that creating protection from Terrorism in this area is nigh on impossible and take the easy route and bring in measures (legislation) that impinges on lawful activity

[GrahamC]

I think we are clearly heading for more controls on drone use. I for one am surprised that this 'near miss' report hasn't hit the headlines.

I think more prosecutions for inappropriate drone use are probably to be welcomed by responsible flyers. To but it bluntly, the idiots need to know that they won't get away with it.

There is clearly a need for the law to respond to the new issues that the arrival of drones in the mass market have created.. They simply were not envisioned when the current rules were written.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Or maybe they will be made aware that laws are already in place to deal with it, (just like the two coppers ) as recent prosecutions have shown.

John

[Phil 9]

Posted by john stones 1 on 22/10/2014 11:31:33:

Stop fretting every time these things get negative publicity, behave yourself and enjoy your hobby

John

Negative publicity does have a knock on affect.

[john stones 1 - Moderator]

Yes Phil it can, however if some tweaks are made to deal with some of the idiots or the threats they see, I don't believe it will be the end of model flying as I do it....within the law. Politicians I have no faith in, the likes of the CAA I do, and they will have a say in it. And as keeps being said very know the rules...these folk will enlighten them.

John

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I don't think anyone is really seriously making a case for more primary legislation. As I see it the "law breakers" fall into two main camps - one very much bigger than the other.

The first, and by far the largest, are those completely unaware that they are breaking the law. Obviously, ignorance is no defense - but it is an explanation. These unwitting law breakers also divide into two camps; the first are the sort of idiots who fly a multi-rotor down the middle of the High Street or at a football match as a prank. They seem to be of the view "its only a toy, what harm am I doing". The second are people using drones professionally, unaware that to do so without a CAA Permit for Aerial Work is illegal. I find these are mainly photographers and the like looking for a new competitive "angle" for their business. They simply do not know that what they are doing is against the law. More worryingly, while I'm sure they do try to operate safely, they do not fully understand the potential dangers of what they are doing - so they frequently fail to control by-standers, fly over property and roads, fly in excess of permitted heights in controlled airspace etc. etc.

The second group of law breakers are the real "bad boys" - people who know what they plan to do is illegal and either don't care or the breaking of the ANO is "small beer" compared with the full picture of their illegal activities. I believe these are a very small number of people indeed.

The problem, as I see it, is that although the second group are very small, the potential impact they could have is very large - much larger than the far more numerous first group. So, the security forces and the CAA tend to concentrate their resources there.

The fact is the CAA's resources for dealing with the first type of transgression (ie those ignorant of the law) are frankly woefully small - so the actual chance of getting caught as a member the first group is very small - unless you advertise your law breaking all over YouTube of course. With this group the CAA's strategy seems to be to launch a small number of high profile prosecutions in the hope of getting the message across to the first group - i.e. you cannot, under British law, just buy a ready to fly drone and do whatever you want with it. I don't know how successful this approach is being - looking at the increasing trend I'm certainly not convinced its working.

So, what seems to be needed is some sort of education campaign. Two things might help; firstly if every ready to fly drone came with an information sheet that at the very least stated that in many countries there is legislation covering the use of these devices and you should look it up, and then provide a list of the relevant national aviation authority websites, pointing to a page that stated, in plain language, what you can't do. Second, it would help enormously if, instead of just running stupid scare stories, the media carried a few lines in their reports that quoted someone appropriate saying what the actual law is and explaining what the person concerned did that was illegal and why its illegal.

If we could do that then there would be no need for more legislation and the CAA, alongside the security forces, could focus on the real "bad boys" rather than the "nuisance crime" and that would, I think, be good for us all.

BEB

[John F]

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 22/10/2014 16:46:36:given that creating protection from Terrorism in this area is nigh on impossible and take the easy route and bring in measures (legislation) that impinges on lawful activity

Isn't that a very cynical way of thinking about it?

How about this; like I said it is very easy. Do not fly above crowds, buildings nor roads. None of which affects what we do anyway. That way we get to do what we do and everyone else is protected, if they were to be put in place with those restrictions.

There's far too much hysteria and mistrust when it comes to the government affecting what we, the public, do.

Many think they just do it intentionally to annoy us / affect our hobbies / stop liberty etc etc. Nothing could be further from the truth really. The endless debates and public consultation in conjunction with subject matter experts makes sure that the rules are laid down with everyone considered as much as possible.

Edited By John F on 22/10/2014 19:57:16

[leccyflyer]

The interview on this topic on Radio Four's today programme had the interviewee making a statement that the authorities had the capability during the Olympics in London to intercept and destroy a model aircraft in order to prevent a terrorist attack. he didn;t say drone, he said "model aircraft".

Listen for yourself. 1:14 on this link

**LINK**

[Dave Hopkin]

Posted by John F on 22/10/2014 19:56:32:

Posted by Dave Hopkin on 22/10/2014 16:46:36:given that creating protection from Terrorism in this area is nigh on impossible and take the easy route and bring in measures (legislation) that impinges on lawful activity

Isn't that a very cynical way of thinking about it?

How about this; like I said it is very easy. Do not fly above crowds, buildings nor roads. None of which affects what we do anyway. That way we get to do what we do and everyone else is protected, if they were to be put in place with those restrictions.

There's far too much hysteria and mistrust when it comes to the government affecting what we, the public, do.

Many think they just do it intentionally to annoy us / affect our hobbies / stop liberty etc etc. Nothing could be further from the truth really. The endless debates and public consultation in conjunction with subject matter experts makes sure that the rules are laid down with everyone considered as much as possible.

Edited By John F on 22/10/2014 19:57:16

Cynical... yep, but then we are dealing with politicians here in the run up to an election

Sadly those that read and comment on threads like these are the ones who wont misuse the equipment, but the idiot who buys ones from a toy store probably wont even know there are rules governing their use.

@ Leccyflyer

That capability has existed for 30 years, we habitually carried jamming equipment in Northern Ireland for 27Meg to prevent RC sets being used as remote detonators, admittedly shooting down a 27Meg plane was pretty easy, and that 2.4Meg is far more resilient to interference, there are many ways it can be deliberately targeted "shoot down" electronically