Are stricter drone laws on the way?

[123taff]

I have been watching TV news and in particular the “drones” war in the Ukrainian conflict.

The majority of drones they use appear to be DJI.

Then there are those idiotic “auditors” who in the guise of “protecting” our rights to fly, deliberately seem to antagonise security and Police staff and land owners and bait them for dramatic effect.

There are news items of drone pilots endangering air displays and the like.

There is an increased threat of terrorist attacks as the recently cancelled Austrian Taylor Swift concerts.

There are the increasing prospects of commercial licences for drone commercial use. There is a lot of money to be made on this aspect alone.

I can’t help but think that we, the drone “hobbyists” are on borrowed time, and a universal clamp down on drone usage is on the way.

As mentioned above, the ammunition for misrepresentation is there. I do hope I am wrong on this!

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

I whole-heartedly agree about those 'auditors', I think they do us no favours.
I also think the CAA etc. should go after the "I flew to x miles, watch my video" youtubers and make public, well publicised examples of a few of them, that at least might deter the publication of such videos.

I think one of the easiest steps for the authorities to take would be tell manufacturers, "Introduce a hard range-limit of xyz into your drone's firmware ( corresponding to the average person's VLOS eye-sight range ) otherwise you will not be allowed to import your drones into our country." and can easily imagine that that is under consideration.

Of course that wont stop all of the provocation but ..........

 

[Phantomrain.org]

The only thing really to come is if they really pull the Plug on DJI products in the US is what China will do to us in Return, other than that, I see no changes as they have already cut the Head off the Dragon as it is.

Phantomrain.org
Gear to fly in the Rain, Land on the Water, Capture the Storm

 

[Cafguy]

I have been watching TV news

Don't do that!

The majority of drones they use appear to be DJI.

This is not true at all. Most of these "Conflict" Drones are actually pieced together on the fly FPV Drones some are even made of wood.
There are DJI Drones being used BUT they are not the majority.

Then there are those idiotic “auditors” who in the guise of “protecting” our rights to fly, deliberately seem to antagonise security and Police staff and land owners and bait them for dramatic effect.

We have these same type of morons in the U.S. Running into courthouses and Post Offices Screaming about there right to do so, While ignoring everyone else's rights to not be Harassed. They are a huge problem for those of us who just wish to fly and get along with others and as long as there is an audience for it We will just have to deal with them.

There are news items of drone pilots endangering air displays and the like.

There is an increased threat of terrorist attacks as the recently cancelled Austrian Taylor Swift concerts.

There will always be those few idiots out there that will use their drone simply to cause problems This is why We are seeing more and more regulation every day.
Terrorist will use a rock if that's what they can get!
Putting more rules in place to regulate Drone use will do nothing to stop them from being used in a crime!

I can’t help but think that we, the drone “hobbyists” are on borrowed time, and a universal clamp down on drone usage is on the way.

In the U.S. these new rules are only the start of things to come. I think Recreational Drone pilots here will soon be restricted to where they can fly by weight. Those not holding a part 107 will be told to fly their "Big" stuff at the field.
Part 107 pilots face more paperwork down the road I fear.
Will They ban our hobby? NO, BUT they will make it more difficult for you to enjoy. That seems to be the thing in ALL things RC!

 

[AeroJ]

I have been watching TV news and in particular the “drones” war in the Ukrainian conflict.

The majority of drones they use appear to be DJI.

That is only because DJI UAVs are so very good at what they do. DJI themselves say they do not approve of this use so shouldn't be blamed just because people use the best tools for the job. The threat to DJI in the states is not really related to that I think. In a way I would have more respect for the attempt to ban them if that was the grounds they were using to support their case, but instead they are attacking DJI based on a national security / infrastructure paranoia concern that appears entirely unevidenced to the rest of the world ! Madness, and yet still seems likely to succeed...

I do, however, retain a small hope that the UK will not follow where the US leads in this instance. We don't blindly copy everything they do !

Then there are those idiotic “auditors” who in the guise of “protecting” our rights to fly, deliberately seem to antagonise security and Police staff and land owners and bait them for dramatic effect.

Yes, I deeply dislike those guys too, and see them as the single biggest risk to our (UK) currently rather sensible <250g rules. I can't watch their videos - total cringe-fests for me, and they end up making me very cross that people are 'poking the bear' in the way that they do... but perhaps we shouldn't worry so much about them - there are always going to be 'dicks' in every activity that humans undertake, and generally that doesn't result in bans of the activity as a whole...

I can’t help but think that we, the drone “hobbyists” are on borrowed time, and a universal clamp down on drone usage is on the way.

As mentioned above, the ammunition for misrepresentation is there. I do hope I am wrong on this!

A totally understandable worry. It is very hard to avoid the overall impression that we are under attack from all sides here, including from a lot of the people who are meant to be on our side (overreaching regulators, senators who are meant to be protecting our freedoms rather than eradicating them etc etc) !

As for the commercial delivery drones thing, personally I don't see why they can't just create a new 'layer' of airspace 500-800 ft, and confine commercial delivery drones to specific 'lanes' within that and make them pay for detect and avoid systems so they can't conflict with each other or manned traffic in or above their lane, or with other UAVs below it ! That would keep them out of the hobby space (except at precise point of delivery), and preserve it for its current uses for which a regulation framework has already been setup and is successfully utilised by many.

I suspect it will take (for the UK particularly) a long time for the hysteria around drones to simmer down, and newer, better, more sensible regulations to evolve in their place that allow us all to co-exist together, but I remain vaguely positive that it might happen, and that eventually sense might prevail. Perhaps that is optimism to the point of foolishness, but we have to retain a tiny of glimmer of hope to keep us trying don't we ?!

I hope we can get to the sort of tech that allows authorities to quickly differentiate between the law-abiding harmless flyers, and the lunatics spoofing GPS, hacking their drones and weaponizing them ! If that becomes a realistic possibility then maybe there will be cause for relaxing the rules for people who are obviously doing it safely and legitimately.

 

[chadCO]

When rules are made to punish everyone for the transgressions of a few, you know those in authority aren't fit.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

When rules are made to punish everyone for the transgressions of a few, you know those in authority aren't fit.

Aren't most laws created because of the transgressions of a few ?

 

[mavic3usa]

I whole-heartedly agree about those 'auditors', I think they do us no favours.
I also think the CAA etc. should go after the "I flew to x miles, watch my video" youtubers and make public, well publicised examples of a few of them, that at least might deter the publication of such videos.

I think one of the easiest steps for the authorities to take would be tell manufacturers, "Introduce a hard range-limit of xyz into your drone's firmware ( corresponding to the average person's VLOS eye-sight range ) otherwise you will not be allowed to import your drones into our country." and can easily imagine that that is under consideration.

Of course that wont stop all of the provocation but ..........

Are you asking the government to actively go after drone pilots who fly their drone beyond visual line of sight so what will happen:

1. They pop some innocent drone flyer who had no ill-intent and they threaten him with heavy 5-digit fines and drag him into federal court knowing he will ultimately take the plea bargain that you will offer him which is a $150 fine and 1 year of probation (no drone flying) and you confiscate his $300 used drone. Or,

2. The targeted flyer finally decides they have had enough and refused to give up his freedoms and says let's go to trial where the government will be forced to drop the charges and go after easier victims or come to court and explain not only why this is the law but also these are the reasons for it (which they may not have to do that to win but...). They can bring all their safety records documenting the numbers of fatalities and injuries and property damage from flying beyond visual line of sight and they can show where this particular incident (the pilot flew his drone over the open lake for 2.2 miles when no boats were on the water) and try to convince the judge how bad that was and why he was arrested. And finally the government can show where the law has been in place for years and they have "no plans" to change that law even when the technology improves and the conditions on the ground and in the air evolve. In other words, we're not going to "harass" a bunch of flyers one year and then the next year make it all legal with a "never mind" we were wrong.

Lot of sarcasm in #2 but I suspect it's #1 because the government has no intention of testing this in court and run any risks but instead they will use flying beyond visual line of sight as one of your many violations where they heap on half a dozen other violations to create on big violation that you can't possibly challenge them with (for fear of losing) and they get to keep all of their rules and regulations intact including the regulation called "no flying beyond visual line of sight." Meanwhile, the *few* criminal flyers who fly their no remote ID drones beyond line of sight while they put the public in danger by flying over busy highways and large crowds, deliver contraband, fly at night in restricted airspace blacked out so no one can see them....they continue to operate undetected and when confronted they run and evade and abandon their unregistered property and what's left is the law behind "heavily enforced and cracked down" only on the honest, law-abiding (recreational) flyers who have no ill-will, didn't know or forgot it wasn't legal, unintentionally lost sight, or stupidity tried it once or twice and got caught.

Is this what you are asking for?

 

[mavic3usa]

I'm glad you brought this up. Absolutely stricter laws are on the way. And in the US, they will come from other places like state and local governments where they can be *properly* enforced. Many of the laws will forgo intent and most of them will be trigger regardless if there are any *victims* or not. The penalties and punishment will be *disproportional* often involving arrest, heavy fines, and confiscation even on the first offense. Depending on the offense, you will probably end up on some sort of offenders list. Also when flying a drone, you will defacto lose many of your Constitutional rights. And finally, as public sentiment continues to grow against drones due to the perceived actions of the few, enforcement will increase in locations across the country such as rural and small towns never before seen. At that point, it's going to take a social media "audit" style drone movement to save whatever is left of the recreational hobby. Those are my predictions. /s /s /s

 

[MS Coast]

I'm glad you brought this up. Absolutely stricter laws are on the way. And in the US, they will come from other places like state and local governments where they can be *properly* enforced. Many of the laws will forgo intent and most of them will be trigger regardless if there are any *victims* or not. The penalties and punishment will be *disproportional* often involving arrest, heavy fines, and confiscation even on the first offense. Depending on the offense, you will probably end up on some sort of offenders list. Also when flying a drone, you will defacto lose many of your Constitutional rights. And finally, as public sentiment continues to grow against drones due to the perceived actions of the few, enforcement will increase in locations across the country such as rural and small towns never before seen.

Yet even more imagined horrors totally without basis in precedent or current events.

* laws will forgo intent
* penalties and punishment will be *disproportional*
* heavy fines, and confiscation even on the first offense.
* you will probably end up on some sort of offenders list
* lose many of your Constitutional rights.

At that point, it's going to take a social media "audit" style drone movement to save whatever is left of the recreational hobby. Those are my predictions. /s /s /s

A rabble of self-important amateur provocateurs with Go-Pro cameras and snide attitudes are not going to have any discernable effect on the actions of the United States Congress and the FAA.

I can't recall seeing many supportive comments about so-called auditors here on this forum.

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

Are you asking the government to actively go after drone pilots who fly their drone beyond visual line of sight

No.
I am saying they should go after those social media video posters that
a) fly to distances of several miles, and more, over ground inhabited by people etc. e.g.cities, towns and villages and
b) have no idea what is in the air around their drone. The drone's camera is usless for that, its field of view is too small. Just look at bird strike videos, half the time the birds are in shot for the blink of an eye and then gone.

and then POST the video for clicks.

Joe Bloggs flying over a lake or the sea poses no risk to anyone providing the drone is not over people etc. and generally isn't posting for social media clicks.

 

[tstr14]

Whenever an evil is found, the irrational thought it to stamp it out by making it illegal. This was tried in the US with booze during prohibition, and the infamous "War on Drugs", both of which were dismal failures.

Likewise, gun owners in the US have seen a steady erosion of their 'rights' for 90 years. It started in 1935 when the government classified machine guns, suppressors and short barreled rifles/shotguns as "Class 3" items. They weren't outlawed but had to be registered and a tax stamp obtained for $200. At the time, $200 was about a month's wages. Over the years, more and more laws were enacted, even though the US Constitution's 2nd amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Although there are lots of arguments as to the exact meaning of these words, the US Supreme court has upheld several claims that the amendment does indeed guarantee US citizens the right to own weapons.

So, could a government outlaw or severely regulate drones? Of course they can, especially if they are communistic or a dictatorship. Even a "free" government can easily enact regulations to prohibit or restrict their use. From a rational line of thought however, such regulations will only effect the honest law abiding citizen. Murdering someone is already against the law, so do you think someone planning a terrorist drone attack is going to worry about breaking a law against drone use? Nope.

Even worse, in the US, there is already a federal agency in place with the power to severely curtail or limit drone use without the due process of law, and that's the FAA. They could issue an edict tomorrow stating all drones were grounded and short of a lengthy and costly law suit, owners would be screwed.

 

[AZDave]

1. No, most of the drone used in Ukraine are NOT made by DJI. Ukraine had over 10,000 drone hobbiests when the war started and many of them were building their own drones. Ukraine now has VERY extensive national and cottage industries designing and making drones. The bulk of the drones Ukraine uses in conflict now are home built and purpose made.

2. Of course drone laws are going to get stricter, and that is primarily due to the idiots who think they need to exceed the regulatory and common sense boundaries in the name of personal freedom. Some of that very mentality has shown up here on this forum in one form or other.

 

[mavic3usa]

No.
I am saying they should go after those social media video posters that
a) fly to distances of several miles, and more, over ground inhabited by people etc. e.g.cities, towns and villages and
b) have no idea what is in the air around their drone. The drone's camera is usless for that, its field of view is too small. Just look at bird strike videos, half the time the birds are in shot for the blink of an eye and then gone.

and then POST the video for clicks.

Joe Bloggs flying over a lake or the sea poses no risk to anyone providing the drone is not over people etc. and generally isn't posting for social media clicks.

Got it. Put that in the law and I'll sign off on it. Make sure it includes factors such as risks, intent, and the social media factor which I am assuming you means if it's true or if it's fake (because there absolutely no way to tell what is real and what isn't real so the government needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it's you and it's real). And then list the exceptions as you mentioned for example, drones equipped with a camera that can see all-around....etc.

Until then I would not prefer that my government pick and choose the type of activity that violates the law and go after them based on those specifics. Posting something on the internet and then the government going after you for that is about the most anti-American thing our government can do in the 2020s. In the eyes of free citizens, posting about it on the internet or talking about it with your friend on the open public forum street corner are *exactly* the same thing and we don't allow that over here. If you go after drones, then you have to go after everybody else and I guarantee you, others are not going to like it.

Tired of being the scapegoat.

 

[mavic3usa]

Yet even more imagined horrors totally without basis in precedent or current events.

These are unprecedented times.

A rabble of self-important amateur provocateurs with Go-Pro cameras and snide attitudes are not going to have any discernable effect on the actions of the United States Congress and the FAA.

I can't recall seeing many supportive comments about so-called auditors here on this forum.

In America, the right to film the police in the course of their duties used to get your arrested and jailed for *doing the act*....not for getting too close, interfering, failing to obey, etc. It wasn't until activists (so called "cop watchers") and their lawyers had enough and fought for the rights that *everyone* enjoys today. It wasn't easy, the very people who look down their noses at audits and called the police on them and disrespected them are the very same people who now enjoy those benefit when it's their *turn* and the big picture is filming the police has changed policing in America and maybe even the entire world. Close to a billion people have been made safer from the worse part of their government by the video camera and I predict it will be drones that take this to the next level. It will be transparency and accountability a whole new meaning and while you may not benefit from it directly, someone in your family or maybe a friend might.

I get it, nobody likes someone who sees a problem before it becomes a problem and tries to do something bold about it maybe too soon. That's the way it *always* works. Initially lawyers won't take your cases, judges won't rule in your favor, law enforcement won't tolerate it and will overpolice it, friends and family refuse to get involved...it's not a big deal before it reaches critical mass. Again, my prediction is it will happen soon (one day) and then it will surge. Drones will find their way outside the flying-for-fun space that the government boxed them into to. That's where the real fight begins and in America, you don't have to join the cause in order to enjoy the spoils; the hard lift is for the few but the winnings are for *everyone.*

 

[Felix le Chat]

A couple of remarks in this thread have piqued my interest.

Firstly - the suggestion that a new airspace layer be created to cater for commercial drone use. This is already well past the drawing board stage in the U.K with 'drone super-highway' air corridors already planned by Altitude Angel (who already has quite a significant permanent seat at the CAA/Government drone regulatory table) - the company that will administer and regulate them once they are implemented (source: Altitude Angel Guardian UTM web resource).

The implementation of a 'new' airspace between 500' and 800' AGL would encroach on the already established airspace used by light aircraft users, who have been around a lot longer than drone fliers and who are smiled upon by the CAA because they pour large amounts of money into the coffers of the CAA as regular as clockwork every year. The same light aircraft pilots who have a powerful and well established lobby which would put up a hell of a fight if their airspace was threatened. It would be far easier to force non-commercial drone fliers (who pay no significant CAA dues and aren't even licensed as legitimate air users) out of the sub-400' airspace... which has already been allocated for drone use... but not necessarily our kind of drone use.

Then there was the comment about ne'erdowells who fly hacked drones. Removing arbitrary restrictions from a mechanical device is not illegal - if it were: there would be an awful lot of heavily pimped cars and motorcycles headed for the knackers yard instead of being driven around the roads. Insisting on arbitrary restrictions to performance would be like forcing people who want to buy a Porsche or a Ferrari to have a Trabant engine dropped into the engine bay before they could legally take it out onto the road.

You can legally have a nitrous boosted, super/turbo charged muscle car as the school-run taxi if you wanted to - but if you thraped it up to the gates on the two back wheels amidst gouts of flame and rubber smoke: you'd be breaking the law. If you use your 8 litre muscle car for Driving Miss Daisy during the week - it's still the same completely unrestricted barrel of raw beastliness - but you're using it both responsibly and strictly within the framework of existing legal restrictions.

Illegality is defined by action and intent: not capability. If you intend to act in complete disregard to the established regulations and then go out and do so: the heavy hand of the local Bobby should come as no surprise as it smacks you upside the head with an invitation to take a seat in the dock to be stared at by sour-faced blokes (and bloke-esses) in dresses and really bad wigs.

The trouble is that it is those who advertise the fact that they break the rules who are the ones held up as the reason why all drone fliers should face draconian regulation - it doesn't matter if they are only one in a hundred, or even one in a thousand amongst a host of Dudley-do-rights: they are used to support the convenient narrative that all drone fliers are feckless, irresponsible, criminally minded, voyeuristic and a general pain in the arse, which is the bald-faced lie that the vast majority of the general public lap up every time it is repeated by the media.

 

[AeroJ]

he implementation of a 'new' airspace between 500' and 800' AGL would encroach on the already established airspace used by light aircraft users, who have been around a lot longer than drone fliers and who are smiled upon by the CAA because they pour large amounts of money into the coffers of the CAA as regular as clockwork every year.

Well that shouldn't be a factor at all (which isn't a comment on whether it actually is or not) - the CAA is not a profit-making organisation, and they do not depend on that money for their survival ! And there are going to be A LOT more drone pilots than there are light aircraft pilots soon, so I really don't see why their 'rights' should remain so sacrosanct, OR be allowed to trump everybody elses, especially when we have the greater numbers ! Obviously it is sensible to always have to defer to manned aviation in possible conflict situations, but I see no overriding reason why their airspace limits and rules couldn't be tweaked as easily and regularly as ours can, and are ! We should not be the ONLY ones expected to accommodate the required changes to these things...

 

[MS Coast]

These are unprecedented times.

Well, that's been said throughout recorded human history, and probably earlier, too. The other perennial pronouncement is "Our music was much better than this stuff they listen to today."

 

[Felix le Chat]

Well that shouldn't be a factor at all (which isn't a comment on whether it actually is or not) - the CAA is not a profit-making organisation, and they do not depend on that money for their survival ! And there are going to be A LOT more drone pilots than there are light aircraft pilots soon, so I really don't see why their 'rights' should remain so sacrosanct, OR be allowed to trump everybody elses, especially when we have the greater numbers ! Obviously it is sensible to always have to defer to manned aviation in possible conflict situations, but I see no overriding reason why their airspace limits and rules couldn't be tweaked as easily and regularly as ours can, and are ! We should not be the ONLY ones expected to accommodate the required changes to these things...

The simple answer to that question (why their rulebook isn't tweaked as much as ours) is that they went through exactly the same process of unwelcome regulation and restriction we presently face... but the foot on the back of their necks was felt 90-odd years ago and they've adapted to survive - they pay through the nose for their access and also pay to support the administrative and maintenance industries that have grown up around the regulatory framework. What do the majority of us pay? (in the UK) £10 a year and bugger all to officially sanctioned training and licensing bodies if we can get away with it, so out of the two groups, theirs will get the cake and the cherry and ours the begrudged crumb or two and the swift kick to remind us of our place.

The CAA may not be profit making: but it was set up to be completely self-funding in 1970: when it ceased to be known as the Air Ministry (a taxpayer funded department of Civil Government).