U.K. Registration petition

[The Editor]

From incidents i know of currently its enforced by the police turning up at the owners house 3-4 weeks after a flight as a result of a call complaint from a member of the public. In other words, they'll do it when they have time. No need to prioritise if you have a name, car registration number etc.

Don't forget police of late LIKE stuff like this. Any offence they can "solve" with minimum effort looks good on paper. Thats why they're really into prosecution mean comments on twitter far more than they are for turning up if your house gets broken into. It makes the stats look better.

Plus as others have said, things like Aerosense etc make it very easy to ID and fine people, the evidence is already recorded and all they need to do is pay a visit during a quiet shift to tick the box.

Ultimately for the vast majority of drones in the sky, they're a flying, easy to detect radio transmitter than in DJIs case, passes vital and personally identifiable information completely unencrypted for all to read. Someone with an SDR and a few days could easily code a detector and deplot it.

I assume you mean Aeroscope and this only works if deployed in time and is within range - so a vehicle would need to be carrying a unit, be able to get to a reception boundary, deploy the system whilst the sUAS was still airborne. Once the aircraft + TX is powered down reception and manufacturer id is lost.
Production versions of the technology do not give personal details (this is protected under GDPR) - only manufacturer and serial numbers.
Only a potential risk to life (as in the Gatwick incident) or a suspected terrorism threat under section 17a of the terrorism act would get plod all excited and actually spend money/resource.
Johnny who bought his Mavic in Jessops or Argos flying over a housing estate for a couple of batteries won't.

Don't get me wrong - I fly commercially under CAP 393, have held PFAW and now PfCO for a number of years and have permission to fly at night from the CAA so I am all about flying safely, mitigating risk, undertaking risk assessments and understanding airspace.

However, I also live in the real world and I'm afraid, other than making the odd example of an individual, routine prosecution of casual offenders is not going to happen.

 

[zocalo]

I agree that enforcement needs to happen to make this scheme a success in terms of adoption, but I just can't see it happening at scale. The police are underfunded, understaffed, and have bigger fish to fry, regardless of whether this is an easy bust or not or, more importantly, they *think* it's an easy bust or not. Hint: It's not as easy as you might think.

Aeroscope? Have you considered how much that would cost to deploy *on a national scale*, or even just in the kinds of area where most of us fly our drones for that matter? Even allowing for more powerful receivers, they'll have an effective radius of maybe a few 10s of km at best; so at least 4 sets per 100km². The UK has a land area of 242,495 km². (Maybe I should buy stock in DJI?) At best, they'll be able to pick out a few choice locations and move them around like those mobile speed traps. Chances of you actually flying your drone in the same place at the same time: pretty much zero.

Spot checks on pilots? Maybe in *very* popular flight areas, but in case you haven't noticed beat cops are mostly found in cities (where we usually can't fly legally anyway). Chances of a cop driving past you while you are flying a drone and being able to tell you're not on a phone and eligible for a check? Pretty much zero. Chances of bumping into a beat cop in the middle of the countryside more than a few 100m from a road while you are flying your drone: zero.

Responding to a drone sighting in less time than it takes for the battery to die and the pilot to move on? It can take *days* to respond to robberies and assaults. Maybe if they're in the area, and especially if it's a regularly patrolled area like an airport, but even then I'll give you Gatwick as Exhibit A: massive police presence, multiple supposed drone flights, numerous "technical measures" deployed. Prosecutions: zero.

There's a number that seems to keep cropping up here. Have you spotted it yet?

Realistically, I think the best they can hope for with this is it'll give them another charge to add to the sheet if/when they actually bust someone doing something stupid/illegal with a drone, and a stiffer penalty as a result. If you're busted and not registered, you *will* have the book thrown at you. Fly your drone sensibly and legally away from the general public, and I think you can probably guess what the chances of you being detected are.

 

[FoxhallGH]

This whole thing is a bit like speeding control on roads and motorways ... It's practically impossible to 'police' the whole road system, so speed-cameras are erected at "Accident Hot Spots" ... DJI's Aeroscope is the equivalent of the speed-camera, but is just going to prompt those wanting to use a drone for disruptive & criminal purposes, to get a non-DJI drone or a home-built! Regulation will be enforced where it's most relevant is my thought ... e.g. near Airports and Events.

for example .... A funny old day near Gatwick

In regard to the BMFA's objections (& I'm a BMFA member), I'm pleased that the BMFA is taking up the batten to object to the SUAV registration scheme, but was very disappointed that they only did so once they realised their members and R/C aircraft in general, were included in the round-up! They have to be - otherwise, we are only going to see an R/C aircraft used to buzz somewhere like Gatwick, instead of a Drone ... (and before it's said, there are more - and cheaper, off-the-shelf buy-&-fly electric R/C model kits out there than there are drones!).

 

[zocalo]

This whole thing is a bit like speeding control on roads and motorways ...

The parallel with speed cameras did occur to me as well, and while I think a similar approach of "hot spots" will be applied it's not quite so effective. Road hot spots are essentially compact and one dimensional - a line - making them (in theory) reasonably easy to police. Drone operators have a much larger choice of areas to fly from and they are 2 dimensional; vastly increasing the search space. The math on Aeroscope still doesn't really work out as it being an effective tool for random deployment.

I'm not a BMFA member (I only fly drones), although I might become one if that becomes advantageous once registration is introduced. I'd prefer a more drone focussed body, or the BMFA leadership realising that we're now all in this together regarding the CAA and becoming more encompassing in their charter, though. Basically it's "wait and see" for me on the whole thing for now.

I agree with your sentiment entirely; I'm very happy to see the BMFA pick up the batten on this, but also very disappointed that many members of the BMFA still seem to have an "us and them" mentality when it comes to drones. That seems remarkably naive given the wording of the CAA consultation and likely to end up doing more harm than good. As you say, if there's a specific circumstances for model aircraft, then the next attack on an airport will more than likely be a kit RC aircraft with any serial numbers filed off.

Also, since Gatwick, the only actual prosecution I'm aware of for flying a SUAV in an NFZ was... an RC aircraft (albeit not by a BMFA member). Looks like the pot is black as well as the kettle...

 

[The Editor]

The other thing to bear in mind of course is the Pilot would need to be caught 'red handed' so to speak with the aircraft airborne to bring a successful prosecution.
The police couldn't pop round someone's house 3 weeks after the event and say " Oh, we have a record of your Drone/UAV flying illegally on such and such date over such and such and we have electronic evidence and positive id it was your aircraft registered to you at this address."
Since any legal challenge is based on the PIC the answer would be "Wasn't me flying at the time - I lent my drone to my mates officer and they must have been flying it"
Since there is no law that can prosecute you on ownership of a UAV rather than use at the time -
Case falls apart and gets filed away forever.......

 

[FoxhallGH]

The other thing to bear in mind of course is the Pilot would need to be caught 'red handed' so to speak with the aircraft airborne to bring a successful prosecution.
The police couldn't pop round someone's house 3 weeks after the event and say " Oh, we have a record of your Drone/UAV flying illegally on such and such date over such and such and we have electronic evidence and positive id it was your aircraft registered to you at this address."
Since any legal challenge is based on the PIC the answer would be "Wasn't me flying at the time - I lent my drone to my mates officer and they must have been flying it"
Case falls apart and gets filed away forever.......

Be a little careful regarding that approach! Your mobile device running Go 4 has got a very precise record of where your drone was and when ... If the Police had the powers to seize your phone, they would have all the evidence they needed. In regard to the '... my mates ...' bit - I think this is exactly why the CAA is splitting the registration into an 'Operator' and a 'Pilot' component. 'Your mates' would have to have passed the CAA on-line test and have a valid registration to fly the drone - so you might be getting them into hot water too.
If the complaint was minor - then yes - I think the Police would seek to caution, but not much more ... But as has been said in previous posts, I think you might find that the Police are just itching to slap somebody with a prosecution after the egg-on-face Gatwick affair ...

 

[gnirtS]

I assume you mean Aeroscope and this only works if deployed in time and is within range - so a vehicle would need to be carrying a unit, be able to get to a reception boundary, deploy the system whilst the sUAS was still airborne. Once the aircraft + TX is powered down reception and manufacturer id is lost.
Production versions of the technology do not give personal details (this is protected under GDPR) - only manufacturer and serial numbers.
Only a potential risk to life (as in the Gatwick incident) or a suspected terrorism threat under section 17a of the terrorism act would get plod all excited and actually spend money/resource.
Johnny who bought his Mavic in Jessops or Argos flying over a housing estate for a couple of batteries won't.

Don't get me wrong - I fly commercially under CAP 393, have held PFAW and now PfCO for a number of years and have permission to fly at night from the CAA so I am all about flying safely, mitigating risk, undertaking risk assessments and understanding airspace.

However, I also live in the real world and I'm afraid, other than making the odd example of an individual, routine prosecution of casual offenders is not going to happen.

You dont need to buy aeroscope. The protocols are out there and have been reverse engineered. Theres even a Kismet plugin to detect wifi based drones as opposed to occusync. You can build a detector for about £65 so trivial for people to place in areas where drones are a nuisance.
And i DO know of cases where plod get excited about drones over a housing estate - its a zero resource, non urgent potential offence with a very strong chance of being concluded so looks good on their stats. Its an easy one to get so makes the numbers look good. If it takes them a few weeks to get round to it, so be it. Its far easier to respond to something posted on facebook or youtube than to actually investigate something.

Detection systems are getting more and more widespread and affordable. Given the complete lack of link security on pretty much every single device this is inevitable.

 

[zocalo]

In regard to the '... my mates ...' bit - I think this is exactly why the CAA is splitting the registration into an 'Operator' and a 'Pilot' component. 'Your mates' would have to have passed the CAA on-line test and have a valid registration to fly the drone - so you might be getting them into hot water too.

The driving analogy works here too. As the registered owner of a vehicle you are expected to know who is driving it, with numerous examples of people being caught out giving false info. Given the data recorded in Go4, on the drone, and (potentially) by Aeroscope and the local cell tower, if you're already in this situation then you're probably just going to add to your charge sheet - lying to a police officer at best, perjury if you do so in court.

 

[The Editor]

You dont need to buy aeroscope. The protocols are out there and have been reverse engineered. Theres even a Kismet plugin to detect wifi based drones as opposed to occusync. You can build a detector for about £65 so trivial for people to place in areas where drones are a nuisance.
And i DO know of cases where plod get excited about drones over a housing estate - its a zero resource, non urgent potential offence with a very strong chance of being concluded so looks good on their stats. Its an easy one to get so makes the numbers look good. If it takes them a few weeks to get round to it, so be it. Its far easier to respond to something posted on facebook or youtube than to actually investigate something.

Detection systems are getting more and more widespread and affordable. Given the complete lack of link security on pretty much every single device this is inevitable.

You were the one that bought up Aeroscope (which you referred to as Aerosense), not me.

If an offender doesn’t post on YT or SpaceFace then there is no online evidence.
The pilot could (and should) be using their mobile device in airplane mode which means there will be no positional footprint of where the device has been since it would have never connected to a cell tower at the location - along with not syncing flight records to DJI.
In order to seize equipment, the police would need to have a warrant, which costs time, money, resource and a high probability of a successful prosecution or the judge will not sign one.
Johnny over a housing estate would not warrant this level of investigation for two batteries flight over ‘Dun Roaming Meadows’

Anyway - I’m bored now.

 

[The Editor]

The driving analogy works here too. As the registered owner of a vehicle you are expected to know who is driving it, with numerous examples of people being caught out giving false info. Given the data recorded in Go4, on the drone, and (potentially) by Aeroscope and the local cell tower, if you're already in this situation then you're probably just going to add to your charge sheet - lying to a police officer at best, perjury if you do so in court.

No - this is unique to the 1988 Road Traffic Act and called ‘Failing to provide Driver Information’
The onus is on the police/CPS to prove wrongdoing not on the registered owner of a UAV to incriminate someone else.

As I said, I am all for prosecution of wrongdoers - I am simply playing Devils Advocate here and arguing it is not so clear cut and easy for the Police to prove and gain a successful conviction as some people would suggest.

 

[zocalo]

No - this is unique to the 1988 Road Traffic Act and called ‘Failing to provide Driver Information’
The onus is on the police to prove not on the owner of a UAV to incriminate someone else.

As I said, I am all for prosecution of wrongdoers - I am simply playing Devils Advocate here and arguing it is not so clear cut and easy for the Police to prove and gain a successful conviction.

I get you're playing devil's advocate here (as are others) and, yes, you're right on the Road Traffic Act, but keep in mind that we're getting new drone legislation to back up the registration scheme. The consultation wording already made it clear that pilot competence will be a drone operator's responsibility, so while not guaranteed it does seem highly likely that we'll see a similar setup for drones.

My own view is that if you don't register, only ever fly safely and legally, and don't have an unfortunate accident that gets police/CAA attention, then your chances of getting caught, let alone prosecuted, are essentially zero. Similarly, if you are caught flying safely and legally without registration (assuming the person checking is even aware of the requirement) you'll probably just get a caution for a first offence and your details forwarded to the CAA to ensure that you do register. Get your registration checked by someone having a bad day and all bets are off, of course.

HOWEVER. If you get involved in an incident, regardless of type and intent, that results in the CAA/police getting involved and you get identified without registration... Well, you've just added an extra chapter to the book they're going to throw at you, haven't you? YMMV as to whether that gamble is worth £16.50pa (or whatever it turns out to be or not). For me it's definitely not worth the risk, and that's before any potential benefits to being registered.

 

[kensteele]

hence the difference between the UK and the US. some people are just being incredibly naive. interesting to see such a diverse view on the role of law enforcement in society.

 

[zocalo]

hence the difference between the UK and the US. some people are just being incredibly naive. interesting to see such a diverse view on the role of law enforcement in society.

In practice, I don't think it's all that different really. The US, via the FAA, implemented its registration scheme in 2015, so it's about 4 years old at this point. Registration cost and police funding/priority issues aside, it doesn't seem unrealistic to assume a similar uptake and enforcement pattern in the UK, so how's that working out in the US? This article is from about a year ago and things have moved on since, but I think it's fair to say "not great".

Of course, we don't know what the UK legislation will be yet, and we have a different setup between the CAA/FAA and the way our police forces might deal with the legislation. The crux for UK pilots will be who is responsible for enforcement as the CAA cannot bring a criminal prosecution; it can only initiate a civil suit or support the CPS in a prosecution by providing evidence.

As for enforcing registration, the UK police will generally not get involved in civil matters (e.g. tresspass) unless legislation requires it or there is a larger issue, like a threat of harm to persons or property. If they are required to enforce it, then it'll get prioritised against all the other things they are dealing with at the time; e.g. probably not very high up the list unless it's something like another Gatwick. The CAA simply does not have the staff or funding to outsource any kind of license compliance checking scheme.

The devil is going to be in the legal details, and right now we only have a very sketchy idea of what those might be other than that the CAA seems to be leaning heavily on consultants. Those consultants (as usual) are leaning heavily on what others have already done, which probably means they're going to mostly copy what the US/FAA have done. And charge more for it.

 

[sbishop1488]

This is typical of the UK, I don’t mind paying a one off fee to register it but I don’t see why I should have to pay it each year, the details will just be stored in a database and it would make more sense to just deregister it if you sell it on, there is zero need to register each year incurring the fee. Rip off Britain, this will just mean there’s going to be loads of people who don’t register their drones hence delegating the whole point of it.

 

[colinfowler]

Cause and effect: The laws are comming in due to the the behaviour of the drone flyers.

Wrong in the last media reported case of a drone pilot prosecuted near Heathrow was actually flying a plane.

 

[deleted member 877]

Wrong in the last media reported case of a drone pilot prosecuted near Heathrow was actually flying a plane.

That's one isolated case. There have been many reported cases of Idiot drone flyers deliberately breaking the regulations and causing real problems for fire-fighters, first-responders etc. If it wasn't for this rogue element then the FAA and other Airspace regulators wouldn't need to be so concerned about the future.

At the moment, with the number of recreational drone flyers growing exponentially and no real evidence of a decrease in illegal and irresponsible drone flying behaviour, the future is looking far from rosy. But still we see posts on this and other forums showcasing illegal stuff such as so called record breaking long distance flights going well beyond VLOS and others that clearly exhibit flying over crowds of people and so on.

The FAA can thank Drone related forums and YouTube for giving them clear visibility of what's really going on out there. They don't need the help of the police or citizens reporting illegal drone flying - it's all there on the internet. But of course the morons with egos much bigger than their private parts cannot resist showing off their stupid and useless endeavours - and so it has become a self-fulfilling thing with no end in sight.

 

[FoxhallGH]

The FAA can thank Drone related forums and YouTube for giving them clear visibility of what's really going on out there. They don't need the help of the police or citizens reporting illegal drone flying - it's all there on the internet. But of course the morons with egos much bigger than their private parts cannot resist showing off their stupid and useless endeavors - and so it has become a self-fulfilling thing with no end in sight.

I agree with you 100% on that point ... The CAA was already planning the implementation of Drone registration before the Gatwick incident. Gatwick just gave the CAA an opportunity to highlight to the general public, that they were doing something (even though to a certain extent, they allowed the public to think that there were bringing in drone registration because of Gatwick). YouTube video's of rule-breaking flights are the major culprit! There has (thankfully) been no collision/crash incidents between aircraft & drones, so the only thing we can point the finger at and thank for all of this registration c**p - is those 'look at me flying my drone past an airliner on finals!' etc. videos ...
Saying that, I do think that there needs to be regulation and realisation of the responsibility that we have in sharing airspace with other users of all types and sizes!

 

[Shush_ya_mush]

I’ve just done it, it’s up to 1358

 

[jagraphics]

No it isn't.
You clearly have no idea how to read a sectional chart or do not understand what class G airspace is.

I have a very good idea. It is a controlled airspace. However despite the "uncontrolled" label there are rules in place IE drones can't go over 400 feet or fly with in certain distances of buildings and people etc. All that is going to happen is the rules for the "uncontrolled" G airspace are going to change a bit (more). Just becuase there are few or not rules for an area doesn't mean it is "uncontrolled" just that there are no additional rules over some basic ones.

It will be easy for the Police to enforce. Anyone carrying a drone around "the estates" and urban areas will be asked for their registration. I suspect it will be, as with cars, produce within 7 days but unliek cars it wil be "you can collect your drone then. They can confiscate a dozen drones and check them in the back of a panda car more easily than they can remove a single car to the pound.

Once they have mopped up some of the easy low hanging fruit complete with pictures and stories inthe local press a lot of the of the other usuall susspects are going sell of their drones for cash in local car boot sales. (will be worth going to in Spring 2020) this will remove a large part of the casual problem. The serious crimians are another matter.

 

[The Editor]

I have a very good idea. It is a controlled airspace. However despite the "uncontrolled" label there are rules in place IE drones can't go over 400 feet or fly with in certain distances of buildings and people etc. All that is going to happen is the rules for the "uncontrolled" G airspace are going to change a bit (more). Just becuase there are few or not rules for an area doesn't mean it is "uncontrolled" just that there are no additional rules over some basic ones.

It will be easy for the Police to enforce. Anyone carrying a drone around "the estates" and urban areas will be asked for their registration. I suspect it will be, as with cars, produce within 7 days but unliek cars it wil be "you can collect your drone then. They can confiscate a dozen drones and check them in the back of a panda car more easily than they can remove a single car to the pound.

Once they have mopped up some of the easy low hanging fruit complete with pictures and stories inthe local press a lot of the of the other usuall susspects are going sell of their drones for cash in local car boot sales. (will be worth going to in Spring 2020) this will remove a large part of the casual problem. The serious crimians are another matter.

As I said - no you do not.
I think perhaps it might be an idea to educate yourself on the 5 classes of airspace within the UK. A, C, D, E & G

Uncontrolled (class G) airspace will usually be from SFC to a low level (moot since standard UAV operation is under 400ft agl.) Class G is not controlled by ATC.
CAP393 still applies to all UK airspace since it is law and passed by an act of Parliament. So irrespective of where you are flying - be it in Class A under IFR as a commercial airline pilot or class G uncontrolled flying a UAV, within the UK, Pilots must abide by the ANO.

Quote from NATS website:
“Class G. In class G airspace, aircraft may fly when and where they like, subject to a set of simple rules.”

Quote from CAA website:
Controlled and Uncontrolled Airspace
In the UK class G airspace is uncontrolled. This means there are no restrictions on:

• which aircraft can enter it,
• what equipment the aircraft must carry,
• the routes taken by the aircraft.

In the UK all other airspace is controlled and aircraft are directed by air traffic controllers. They decide the safest and most efficient routing for every aircraft (taking into account the surrounding conditions including the weather and other aviation traffic).

Your statement in post #28 of this thread that controlled airspace in the UK is from zero feet everywhere is and remains incorrect.