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

[Deleted member 177263]

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

again I feel I must stay legal & go with the law on this, it's totally legal & no such law exists of what you're talking about, look below directly from the CCA site law.
I think your confusion stems from your belief that the owner of land also owns the air space above, & thats just not the case the CAA own it.

---

Small drones and model aircraft below 250g​

You can fly small drones and model aircraft that are lighter than 250g at residential, recreational, commercial and industrial sites.

Remember, you must always fly safely.

Examples of residential, recreational, commercial and industrial sites​

Residential sites include:

• individual residential buildings
• small groups of residential buildings
• housing estates
• villages
• cities and towns
• schools

Recreational sites include:

• tourist attractions
• sports facilities
• beaches and parks
• theme parks

Commercial sites include:

• shopping centres
• warehouses
• business parks

Industrial sites include:

• factories
• docks
• rail and transport hubs

 

[123taff]

You obviously haven't read the links I supplied, in particular this link .

Bernstein of Leigh v Skyviews & General Ltd - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I suggest you do, then you might understand how inaccurate your last sentance thus is "I think your confusion stems from your belief that the owner of land also owns the air space above, & thats just not the case the CAA own it.."

CASE LAW QUOTE! "The case established that the rights of a land owner over his land extend only to a height necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land." (which could include the limited height that a drone can be flown at! - but it will take a case specific test but the point is that the CAA do not "own" the space above private land, they just legislate for air safety)_

It is your confusion between Statute law (which you keep quoting) and Civil Law and your inability to see the difference that is the problem.

Still never mind.

 

[Droning on and on...]

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

Hang on to it.

The infrastructure necessary to monitor and capture all RID broadcasts simply doesn't exist. Not even close.

The expense to put this in place would be enormous. Such a huge initiative is not going to be undertaken and funded without some compelling reason, trying to build this out would be very public, as would the debate over funding.

Save this claim too: It'll never happen.

 

[mavic3usa]

Hang on to it.

The infrastructure necessary to monitor and capture all RID broadcasts simply doesn't exist. Not even close.

The expense to put this in place would be enormous. Such a huge initiative is not going to be undertaken and funded without some compelling reason, trying to build this out would be very public, as would the debate over funding.

Save this claim too: It'll never happen.

Maybe we are talking about different things. I'm talking about private companies and stadiums and local boardwalks and city centers, train stations and airports, maybe FRIAs, office complex, city parks and sports complex, etc deploying equipment to capture RID and saving the details and going from there....it's completely localized to start off with but I can imagine being able to capture 90% of all *relevant* drone traffic pretty quickly. At that point, we will truly get to the point where nobody cares if you fly your drone in the middle of nowhere which is what we've been saying all along.

 

[Deleted member 177263]

the point is that the CAA do not "own" the space above private land

Still never mind.

 

[Droning on and on...]

Maybe we are talking about different things.

Don't know. I'm talking about exactly what i posted:

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

Nationwide, everywhere. That's what's been asserted, and furthermore the RID signals would be LTE. No constraint to only certain areas was mentioned. It's hysterical BS.

I'm talking about private companies and stadiums and local boardwalks and city centers, train stations and airports, maybe FRIAs, office complex, city parks and sports complex, etc deploying equipment to capture RID and saving the details and going from there....it's completely localized to start off with but I can imagine being able to capture 90% of all *relevant* drone traffic pretty quickly. At that point, we will truly get to the point where nobody cares if you fly your drone in the middle of nowhere which is what we've been saying all along.

I understand, and this is the sort of view I believe is way overblown. Doing what you describe costs money, resources, and personnel. All those private interests have much better things to spend their limited budgets on than something that isn't a problem.

If recreational drones become enough of a problem that, say, stadiums are having to deal with at most events, they will make the investment to mitigate. However most sporting complexes haven't even had one adverse drone event. It would be a misuse of funds to put some drone monitoring program in place, when there is always deferred maintenance, underpaid staff, old obsolete equipment still in use, etc. – neglect that exists at the best maintained stadium.

 

[mavic3usa]

If recreational drones become enough of a problem that, say, stadiums are having to deal with at most events, they will make the investment to mitigate. However most sporting complexes haven't even had one adverse drone event. It would be a misuse of funds to put some drone monitoring program in place, when there is always deferred maintenance, underpaid staff, old obsolete equipment still in use, etc. – neglect that exists at the best maintained stadium.

I hope you are right.

 

[Tim68]

Brand new to this forum, and it is a great forum. I do have some left field questions. How do you suppose they differenciate between a drone that is being used in rhe line of work vs. hobbiest? What will stop the hobbiest from buying a commercial version? Or are you saying only drones above the weight threshold will be viable for commercial use? I know where I work we use the smaller ones for inspections. They are easier to deploy into tigh spaces. Also what is stopping any hobbiest from getting their 107 part A certification in the US? That would circumvent the restrictions, no? I fly as a hobbiest and as a job and I am bound by the 107 rules regardless of what I fly or why I am flying because I have the certification. Why wouldn't the opposite be true?

 

[Meta4]

I fly as a hobbiest and as a job and I am bound by the 107 rules regardless of what I fly or why I am flying because I have the certification. Why wouldn't the opposite be true?

When you fly recreationally, you are not bound by Part 107 rules, even though you have Part 107 certification.

 

[Tim68]

T h3r3ehn

When you fly recreationally, you are not bound by Part 107 rules, even though you have Part 107 certification.

You absolutely are

 

[Tim68]

T h3r3ehn

You absolutely are

Unless it has changed or we were taught incorrectly...lol I should not have been so defensive with my rebuttle.

 

[Vic Moss]

Unless it has changed or we were taught incorrectly...lol I should not have been so defensive with my rebuttle.

You've never been bound to 107 rules if you want to fly recreationally. Even if you want to fly recreationally. You still need your trust though.

I don't know where you were taught, but that's never been the case.

There are times when you actually can't fly under 107 if you're flying recreationally. The most common would be if you're out flying with a bunch of buddies and you want to fly one of their drones. If they're registered recreationally, you legally can't fly them under your 107. In order to fly under 107, the drone must be registered under 107.

So no, you were taught wrong, or misunderstood the lesson.

 

[Deleted member 177263]

Brand new to this forum, and it is a great forum. I do have some left field questions. How do you suppose they differenciate between a drone that is being used in rhe line of work vs. hobbiest?

Welcome, if you get paid it's work, if you don't get paid it's a hobby,
weather that can prove you're working is another thing

 

[mavic3usa]

Welcome, if you get paid it's work, if you don't get paid it's a hobby,
weather that can prove you're working is another thing

Whether you get paid or not is not the most relevant factor. What the FAA uses is called "in furtherance of a business." In other words, you are not being paid any money but you are still flying commercial if your activities promote a business. Free work or volunteer work can still be considered commercial work.

 

[dj impatience]

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.

It's one of the reasons I build my own, I completely get responsibility of flying, but same as my guns , I have a license,I paid the fee Now leave me alone, especially as my home builds are fast and I run at 1-3 m off the ground.. I am not hurting anyone, and I have acres to scream around in.. Bothers me when the gov is like here have some repurposed tech, but don't you use it like we use it

 

[astroprojector]

I already bought M4P, but thinking of keeping the M3P and not updating it with any future firmware, to keep it able to fly above 120m.

 

[Sparc343]

I'll be honest, I did not read this thread at all; just the title. I am here to say:

There is NO such thing as "un-hackable"

(that is all)

 

[Felix le Chat]

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.

The major difference between the GB/EU and the US is that the grass-roots citizens of the latter are not shy of knuckling-up to defend their civil liberties, that's what the whole of North America was based on and I'll take my very British hat off to 'em for it. On the other side of the pond, the only thing Federalization has accomplished is the manipulation of member-state policies by unelected bureaucrats. Basically, what the EU wants: the EU eventually gets because of a fat subsidy finger in every gau-states economic pie. Observation of its history from 1970 to the present day shows this to be true.
EU regulatory committees specifically tasked with developing and implementing laws to constrain the operational use of privately owned drones already exist and have done so for over four years (EUROCAE ED269 for one) and EASA is in the process of implementing a radical re-working of light/private aircraft regulation (U-SPACE) that will include significant restrictions to the use of both small commercial and 'hobbyist' drone traffic in large geographical areas whose boundaries are hard set on the EURO GZM set to be initiated from 2024.
In accordance with the roll-out of the EU GZM, all manufacturers of private drones are required by EU law to build all new drones sold in the EU bloc to operate solely with the EU GeoZone Map with the additional requirement that they have to perform a check through a live internet connection at every boot-up in order to refresh the map and confirm compliance before the drone can take off. DJI and other major players are also expected to retro-fit all existing drones by firmware 'upgrade' with the current map check and confirmation of compliance. Then you'll have the fun and games of dealing with the USSP's (the drone equivalent to air traffic control) who will charge you a nice fee for every flight you want to make.
This might not be the case in the near future for Blighty or the Land Of The Free And The Home Of The Brave, but don't hold your breath.
Don't believe it? The EU is a turd-skinning bureaucracy that likes to publish it's reams of records. Log in to their web site and do your own research. It's all there in black and white.

 

[shb]

all manufacturers of private drones are required by EU law to build all new drones sold in the EU bloc to operate solely with the EU GeoZone Map with the additional requirement that they have to perform a check through a live internet connection at every boot-up in order to refresh the map and confirm compliance before the drone can take off.

This sounds really bad. Can't individual EU countries make their own laws?

 

[123taff]

I just wanted to offer the opinion that the non sale of the larger batteries for the M4P/M3P in the UK is a business decision and not done to conform to non existant legislative measures.

I say that because there is no legislation that prevents the sale of such batteries in the UK, the illegality only comes when used in the sub 250G drone category..

DJI probably believe that most of their UK customers will be compliant with the law so made that business decision on that basis.

In the UK you need a Driving License to drive a car, but anyone can purchase a car and it is not the responsibility of the car suppliers to ensure that only licenced drivers drive the cars they supplied or that the drivers conform to traffic laws whilst driving their cars.

But a better anology is the proliferation of electric scooters in the UK which apart from hire schemes that use licensed restricted machines, are illegal to ride on the public roads.
That does not stop large companies like Halfords from importing and selling them to the public on the premis of only using them on private land, they must know that the majority they sell will end up being used illegally.

I am not sure that DJI are being responsible for purely altruistic purposes, but more of a commercial decision to save on the shipment and stocking of what would be largely illegal to use in the UK when there is a perfectly legal alternative they can supply.

To be fair, for the majority of UK users, if using the product under the UK legal framework, there really isn't a need for the larger batteries!