If governments world-wide force manufactures of hobby-level drones to introduce hard and unhackable limits on range and height .......

[Deleted member 177263]

And that attitude is precisely why I forsee governments taking this route, if people won't voluntarily comply then force the manufacturers to build-in limits that end up penalising everyone. Well done!

I disagree, I completely fly by the law now
but it's all moot because it wont be happening.

 

[mavic3usa]

I disagree, I completely fly by the law now
but it's all moot because it wont be happening.

Agreed. Not my circus, not my monkeys. For sure, won't be happening in the US.

It matters not what the criminals are doing; dishonest folks don't drive the laws in a free country.

 

[mobilehomer]

Agreed. Not my circus, not my monkeys. For sure, won't be happening in the US.

It matters not what the criminals are doing; dishonest folks don't drive the laws in a free country.

You might need to watch the news a little closer!!

 

[shb]

And you know this ....... how?
Were you aware of the pending EU height rule before the threads of last week concerning it, if so how?
Are or were you aware that, in India, there was, and maybe still is, a something like 50ft or perhaps 50m relative to the take off point height limit for the Mavic Mini and/or perhaps the Mini 2?
If two 'governments' can do it why not more?

They've had over 10 years to do that and they haven't. Drone accidents that hurt 3rd parties are almost nonexistent. They were using drones to find that fourth grade girl kidnapped in NY. That would restrict the authorities ability to do stuff like that. I would not buy another drone if they did that.

 

[Deleted member 177263]

lets face it the more they restrict drone flying the more underground it gets then like everything else thats illegal that shouldn't be (EG weed) it would become more popular anyway

 

[shb]

lets face it the more they restrict drone flying the more underground it gets then like everything else thats illegal that shouldn't be (EG weed) it would become more popular anyway

They would have to smuggle drones through Mexico like they do fentanyl!

 

[Vic Moss]

I'll take "Things that will never happen" for $400 Alex...

 

[Yorkshire_Pud]

I'll take "Things that will never happen" for $400 Alex...

Time will tell. You maybe privvy to what's going on at the FAA etc. but are you privy to what is going on elsewhere in the world?
That said, I do, at times, wonder if the left hand of those 'elsewhere' people know's what the right hand is doing.

 

[123taff]

I feel that tighter restrictions on "hobby drones" will be inevitable in the not too distant future. That is partly based on the selfish attitudes displayed by rogue elements failing to comply with existing legislation, and the plethora of flyers as displayed on social media attempting non VLOS endurance trails, thus totally ignoring the law as it is.

Secondly there are the fast developing commercial drone disciplines that are as yet in their infancy such as parcel delivery, surveilance and search and even blood and medical deliveries now being trialled. There is only so much airspace for all this activity and if the proposed commercial drone use escalates, then given the choice of making money from them as opposed to "tollerating" leisure use, then Governments are obviously going to prefer the commercial use.

Then there are the privacy and security of overflown properties to consider. As it stands at least in the UK, sub 250 drones can be legally flown over most locations under civil aviation law, however, under common law (civil law) the drone flyer must still have the permission of the land owner to overfly any property they own, but being a "Civil" tort, there are no legislative remedies, only the long drawn out Civil Law action of sueing for damages, which is a very drawn out, difficult to prove and prohibitive in terms of costs.
There are IDIOTS (you know who they are) who tour the country making YouTube videos where they confront owners and security staff of large commercial properties and overfly these properties on the premise of providing a "service." To be fair, if I were an owner of such properties, I would not be too pleased on the basis of the security of the site and safety of the workers if ariel shots highlighting any weaknesses were displayed on YouTube for all including potential criminals to see. This "confrontation" in particular is the greatest danger, and I feel that this alone could accelerate the further restrictions to our leisure flying as more and more "voters" become worried about thier privacy.

All in all, at my age, I might not have too long left to worry about it, but on balance, I don't think the tightening of the laws on leisure Droning is that far off.

 

[Crashdummytest]

e.g. a 500m range limit and a 120m relative to the take off point height limit, do you think it will kill off hobby flying for photographic etc. purposes and or perhaps kill off the manufacture of hobby level drones, particularly by the big manufacturers?


This is prompted by the pending under-250g rule in the EU, which, truthfully, I can see being adopted by other governments.

500m range limit will certainly kill it for many users, including myself. The height-limit is of lesser importance, in terms of photography which is what I use my drones for.

 

[Deleted member 177263]

As it stands at least in the UK, sub 250 drones can be legally flown over most locations under civil aviation law, however, under common law (civil law) the drone flyer must still have the permission of the land owner to overfly any property they own, but being a "Civil" tort, there are no legislative remedies, only the long drawn out Civil Law action of sueing for damages, which is a very drawn out, difficult to prove and prohibitive in terms of costs.

do you have a link for that law because I don't believe it exists, in the UK you can fly over any private land as long as you don't take off from private land and don't fly into a no fly zone.
also private land owners don't own the air space, it's Governed by the CAA thats why it's called private land & not private "airspace".

 

[123taff]

Unlike the CAA rules, it is not a statute law, in other words there is no penalty. It comes under Common Law (AKA Civil Law)
It can be classed as a Civil Torte and a form of trespass (that is infringment of the civil rigths of an individual, not a physical presence) and can be dealt with under Civil Law whereby the appellant can sue the defendant for damages. (Like I said, difficult to pursue and expensive) This could be in the form of damages for invasion of privacy, distress caused, harrassment etc and also for any physical damages caused.

Whilst it is extremely unlikey at present, if enough irresponsible drone owners continue to ignore this civil law right of landowners, (particularly those who Youtube confrontations) I don't think it will be very long before it will be brought under statutory law.

Two quick sources of information that explain this

Neighbour is Flying a Drone Over My House UK | What Can I Do

If your neighbour is flying a drone over your property, you may have legal rights and remedies available to you. Full Guide

dronesurveyservices.com

Landowner’s rights in relation to Drones. - ML Aerial Photography

This article seeks to explain the rights and responsibilities of Landowners Rigths in relation to Drones

mlaerialphotography.co.uk

 

[123taff]

Having said all that, I feel it would be impractible to attempt to obtain the permissions of individual land owners before overflying, but if approached by a landowner and asked to desist, then the wisest and simplest thing to do is to comply, bring the drone safely down and live to fight another day.
Absolutely no need to seek confrontation and give the anti drone brigade more ammunition and the potential for futher future restrictive legislation.

 

[Droning on and on...]

And that attitude is precisely why I forsee governments taking this route, if people won't voluntarily comply then force the manufacturers to build-in limits that end up penalising everyone. Well done!

TL;DR, but it was cathartic for me to write it:

I think this a bit overblown. I'd agree if flaunting the regulations was a widespread problem, but I sure don't see it.

Authorities don't get all draconian in western countries, usually, for a relatively small numbers of violators. We actually have quite a problem in most western nations with drunk driving, yet breath start mechanisms have not been mandated in all vehicles to make sure there aren't ANY violators.

A balance must be struck between mitigation, and compromising civil liberties. Western social philosophy generally tolerates the prospect of law-breakers so long as the impact isn't broadly significant. A counter-example to how we mitigate drunk driving is traveling by plane. EVERYONE goes through the metal detector, has their luggage x-rayed.

So I'm not too worried, in fact not at all, that the rules violators will cause problems for me. In fact with the activity around BVLOS at the FAA, i'm optimistic things will be getting better for us here.

We focus on caterwauling way too much about things like RID, and ignore completely what the FAA has done over the past decade that has made this hobby better. Two things that come immediately to mind are recreational night flying, and LAANC.

I know that's US-centric, and in many ways the European authorities are much harsher. Sometimes reading about how drone regs are evolving across the pond feels like it's driven by animus, hate, rather than sound reasons.

Or are you European pilots constantly maiming people with your drones, violating privacy and sending salacious pics of MPs and their secret mistresses to Page Six? How many little human figures have you stamped on the side of your drone case, @Yorkshire_Pud?

Kidding, of course! I joke about this only to illustrate the phantom danger EU regulators are working so hard to prevent. Talk about tilting at windmills, Don Quixote!

 

[123taff]

Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos - Wikipedia


In Lord Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd,[17] the Court noted that the ad coelum phrase was 'colourful', but said that it was well settled in the common law that a land owner had rights in the air immediately above the land, extending in particular to signs overhanging from adjacent properties. The right did not extend though to more than was 'necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the land and structures upon it'.

 

[mavic3usa]

Having said all that, I feel it would be impractible to attempt to obtain the permissions of individual land owners before overflying, but if approached by a landowner and asked to desist, then the wisest and simplest thing to do is to comply, bring the drone safely down and live to fight another day.
Absolutely no need to seek confrontation and give the anti drone brigade more ammunition and the potential for futher future restrictive legislation.

For sure if someone came to me and said please stop or don't fly your drone over our private property (home, residence, etc) then clearly the right thing to do is refrain since there's no practical reason to continue to do so. For the most part, I don't think anyone is against it unless it is unavoidable. My thoughts are not the same when it comes to public property and businesses that are open to the public, etc.

 

[Droning on and on...]

I feel that tighter restrictions on "hobby drones" will be inevitable in the not too distant future. That is partly based on the selfish attitudes displayed by rogue elements failing to comply with existing legislation, and the plethora of flyers as displayed on social media attempting non VLOS endurance trails, thus totally ignoring the law as it is.

Could you explain your reasoning?

The exact opposite of this has been happening over the last decade in the US. For example as I mentioned above, recreational night flying and LAANC. These are hardly trivial additions to recreational drone flying, and they're wonderful!

Most of the restrictions that have been added are very defensible, like the 400' AGL ceiling (maintain separation from manned aircraft).

Going forward, it looks near certain we will get some new rules allowing for BVLOS operations. And some modification to FPV operations to make it easier (elimination of VO, under defined conditions).

So the actual history of aviation regulation for drones in the US is mixed, at best, and IMO net positive for hobbyists. The biggest complaint in the US by far has been about RID, and in the opinion of many of us those fears are paranoid, overblown, and in some cases outright absurd conspiracy theories (database created and all drone flights monitored and recorded in DB).

 

[mavic3usa]

.... and in some cases outright absurd conspiracy theories (database created and all drone flights monitored and recorded in DB).

Marking this statement for future reference. I'm not a conspiracy theorist but anyone who thinks drone flight data won't somehow eventually get collected and [over] analyzed and shared and sold and even monitored by everyone who can get their hands on it....is

 

[Deleted member 177263]

For sure if someone came to me and said please stop or don't fly your drone over our private property (home, residence, etc) then clearly the right thing to do is refrain since there's no practical reason to continue to do so. For the most part, I don't think anyone is against it unless it is unavoidable. My thoughts are not the same when it comes to public property and businesses that are open to the public, etc.

I totally agree, I'd never even think of flying over a residential estate even though legally I can.
but i think people who do are idiots & intentionally or not will cause trouble for real drone hobbyists, on the other hand it states on the CAA site itself that it's fully legal to fly over industrial sites and those who do it I encourage, I love seeing new factories get built over time.
theres also historic buildings in commercial zones that get filmed by drone so in years to come we can all look back & remember, you never know if that building will disappear through a fire or insurance scam.

 

[123taff]

I absolutely agree with your sentiment. Again though you need to seperate the statutory limitations from the Civil Law rights of individuals. Flying over private property with a sub 250g drone is legal in terms of CAA aviation laws, which are primarily imposed to protect manned aircraft from interferance.
You still have to seperate this statutory law compliance from the Civil rights of the owners of property and under civil law you must have thier permission to infringe those property rights, including overflying thier property with a drone capable of recording footage.

There are many examples of a person infringing a person's civil rights under a civil torte without necessarily committing a criminal offence punishable by prosecution.

I just fear the prospect of this particular potential civil torte turning into statutory law in the future.