How many drones are actually used legally?

I've had cause to claim on someone's model aircraft insurance. It cost him 1 pound per year and paid out thousands when a wing broke in high winds and it dived into the crowd at a show. I still have deep scars 30 years later.

On a different 'note', the thread title reminded me of a Bob Dylan song "How many drones...?"
" How many drones... must a man walk down, Before you call him a man?
...
The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind"
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
Or a kamikaze drone!


Steve.
Click to expand...

A Bit like the V1 flying bomb or doodlebug, now that is a concern. Drones have already been used to drop drugs into prisons and also for criminal surveillance.

But then again cameras have been used to blackmail people for years. Like all things it's use comes down to the integrity of the user(s)
 
Pookeyhead said:
^This....

People have been flying radio controlled aircraft for decades, including helicopters.
Click to expand...

To be fair, RC helicopters are very hard to fly and any fixed wing capable of holding a SLR would have to be pretty enormous (and hard to fly). Drones, I understand, are pretty automatic by comparison.
 
ianp5a said:
I've had cause to claim on someone's model aircraft insurance. It cost him 1 pound per year and paid out thousands when a wing broke in high winds and it dived into the crowd at a show. I still have deep scars 30 years later.

On a different 'note', the thread title reminded me of a Bob Dylan song "How many drones...?"
" How many drones... must a man walk down, Before you call him a man?
...
The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind"
Click to expand...

They're not nearly as heavy as they used to be, I think you'd be unlucky if an average RC plane cause any serious damage. Obviously the scale jets and helicopters have a very serious risk profile for their own reasons but the average plane will have plastic prop and weigh less than 2kg these days.
 
steveo_mcg said:
To be fair, RC helicopters are very hard to fly and any fixed wing capable of holding a SLR would have to be pretty enormous (and hard to fly). Drones, I understand, are pretty automatic by comparison.
Click to expand...

Mine certainly aren't "automatic", and even if they were, from what you are saying the "harder to control" rc helis and fixed-wings pose much more of a safety threat to the scaremongers surely?
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Mine certainly aren't "automatic", and even if they were, from what you are saying the "harder to control" rc helis and fixed-wings pose much more of a safety threat to the scaremongers surely?
Click to expand...

Its a matter of perception, drones are perceived to more popular than RC especially amongst inexperienced filers, non club members and folk trying to do "something cool". RC helis have had the payload and the stability for video for years but they're very hard to safely fly so its very uncommon to use one outside a club field so the public rarely encounter them.
 
steveo_mcg said:
Its a matter of perception, drones are perceived to more popular than RC especially amongst inexperienced filers, non club members and folk trying to do "something cool". RC helis have had the payload and the stability for video for years but they're very hard to safely fly so its very uncommon to use one outside a club field so the public rarely encounter them.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm in the minority. The only ones I've ever seen flying are mine. The press were trying to whip up hysteria last December talking about a Christmas droneageddon. Pathetic.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Maybe I'm in the minority. The only ones I've ever seen flying are mine. The press were trying to whip up hysteria last December talking about a Christmas droneageddon. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Indeed. But how many RC helis' have you ever seen?
 
I have seen one... and that was in the mid 1970s.

It belonged to one of my father's friends. He claimed that it was more difficult to fly than the real thing. I don't know if there's any truth in that or if it's just a bit of bragging but it didn't appear to be easy to fly.


Steve.
 
StewartR said:
Why buy one?
Click to expand...
Ricardodaforce said:
To offer commercial aerial photography and video services?
Because flying remote control aircraft has been done for over half a century and there are thousands of people that like doing it?

Seems to be you've been sucked into the ant-drone hysteria. Why weren't you asking this question 10 years ago about remote control helicopters or fixed wings?
Click to expand...
I'm not being sucked into anything. I'm just curious.

Of course, offering commercial services is a legitimate reason for buying one, and I'd expect that the vast majority of commercial service providers would get the proper permissions from the CAA. No issues there. But I think this probably accounts for only a relatively small percentage of all drone sales. If anybody has any data there, it would be very interesting.

The reason I'm asking these questions is because I suspect that:
* most of drone sales are to 'recreational' users;
* most recreational users are not going to bother getting permissions from the CAA, and a lot won't even be aware that they need permissions;
* most recreational users are quickly going to get bored of taking photos and videos of open fields and countryside - if they ever restrict themselves to these legal activities in the first place, that is.
And I was just wondering whether other, more knowledgeable, people agree.

Incidentally you seem to have overlooked the reason why these regulations exist. Yes, people have been flying remote control aircraft for over half a century, but not with cameras attached. The regulations about keeping a distance from people, vehicles, structures etc only apply to "surveillance aircraft", and they're relatively new. So it follows that the regulations are about privacy, not safety.

I personally don't have a view as to whether the regulations are too restrictive. Presumably their formulation involved some sort of thought process.
 
steveo_mcg said:
They're not nearly as heavy as they used to be, I think you'd be unlucky if an average RC plane cause any serious damage. Obviously the scale jets and helicopters have a very serious risk profile for their own reasons but the average plane will have plastic prop and weigh less than 2kg these days.
Click to expand...

Care to stick your finger into that plastic prop at wide open throttle?

No.. thought not :)
 
Mark Johnson said:
Seemed to be flown responsibly, by an older couple they kept out of every ones way, but not sure of the point. They seemed to enjoy.........
Click to expand...
Well, maybe they have plans to offer commercial services, and intend to jump through all the CAA hoops, and this was their very first test flight.

But if not, you can't help thinking that's perhaps not the most fun you can have by spending £2000.
 
StewartR said:
Well, maybe they have plans to offer commercial services, and intend to jump through all the CAA hoops, and this was their very first test flight.

But if not, you can't help thinking that's perhaps not the most fun you can have by spending £2000.
Click to expand...

Some people would say that about a camera.
 
StewartR said:
The regulations about keeping a distance from people, vehicles, structures etc only apply to "surveillance aircraft", and they're relatively new. So it follows tha
Click to expand...

whilst specific reference to distances to people etc are in relation to surveillance. the core ANOs state that you should not endanger people or property. That would presumably include flying close to them
 
Last edited:
Daz B said:
whilst specific reference to distances to people etc are in relation to surveillance. the core ANOs state that you should not endanger people or property. That would presumably include flying close to them
Click to expand...
Blank_Canvas said:
ANOs are primarily prescribed for safety it's their reason d'être !
Click to expand...
Yeah yeah. But look at the actual regulations.

The Air Navigation Order 2005 had regulations - in paragraph 98 - governing the flying of "small aircraft". These basically said:
  • don't drop anything from the aircraft;
  • (for aircraft weighing 7kg or more) don't do anything that might be unsafe;
  • (for aircraft weighing 7kg or more) don't fly in restricted airspace or above 400 feet;
  • (for aircraft weighing 7kg or more) don't undertake commercial usage without permission.
Skip forward to the Air Navigation Order 2009. This also has regulations - in paragraph 166 - regarding "small unmanned aircraft", which say:
  • don't drop anything from the aircraft;
  • don't do anything that might be unsafe;
  • maintain direct unaided visual contact with the aircraft;
  • (for aircraft weighing 7kg or more) don't fly in restricted airspace or above 400 feet;
  • don't undertake commercial usage without permission.
So that's all pretty much the same. There's a new requirement to maintain visual contact, and some of the rules which previously only applied to aircraft over 7kg now also apply to aircraft under 7kg. But this is all obviously 100% safety related.

However ANO 2009 also has a totally new paragraph 167, which had no counterpart in ANO 2005. It is specifically aimed at "small unmanned surveillance aircraft", and it says:
  • don't fly over or within 150 metres of any congested area;
  • don't fly over or within 150 metres of a crowd;
  • don't fly within 50 metres of any vehicle or structure;
  • don't fly within 50 metres of any person (30 metres during take off and landing).
So it's totally OK to fly a small aircraft 20 metres away from a building or a person (subject to the requirement in paragraph 166 to do so safely), BUT put a camera on that exact same aircraft and it's not OK. Personally I don't see how that can possibly be a safety regulation. It must surely be about privacy, and I don't see how it can be interpreted in any other way.
 
Last edited:
Endangering safety of an aircraft

137. A person must not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in an aircraft.

Endangering safety of any person or property

138. A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.

But i take the point, that more text applies to presumed privacy
 
Last edited:
StewartR said:
Yeah yeah. But look at the actual regulations.

The Air Navigation Order 2005 had regulations - in paragraph 98 - governing the flying of "small aircraft". These basically said:
  1. don't drop anything from the aircraft;
  2. (for aircraft weighing 7kg or more) don't do anything that might be unsafe;
  3. (for aircraft weighing 7kg or more) don't fly in restricted airspace or above 400 feet;
  4. (for aircraft weighing 7kg or more) don't undertake commercial usage without permission.
Skip forward to the Air Navigation Order 2009. This also has regulations - in paragraph 166 - regarding "small unmanned aircraft", which say:
  1. don't drop anything from the aircraft;
  2. don't do anything that might be unsafe;
  3. maintain direct unaided visual contact with the aircraft;
  4. (for aircraft weighing 7kg or more) don't fly in restricted airspace or above 400 feet;
  5. don't undertake commercial usage without permission.
So that's all pretty much the same. There's a new requirement to maintain visual contact, and some of the rules which previously only applied to aircraft over 7kg now also apply to aircraft under 7kg. But this is all obviously 100% safety related.

However ANO 2009 also has a totally new paragraph 167, which had no counterpart in ANO 2005. It is specifically aimed at "small unmanned surveillance aircraft", and it says:
  1. don't fly over or within 150 metres of any congested area;
  2. don't fly over or within 150 metres of a crowd;
  3. don't fly within 50 metres of any vehicle or structure;
  4. don't fly within 50 metres of any person (30 metres during take off and landing).
So it's totally OK to fly a small aircraft 20 metres away from a building or a person (subject to the requirement in paragraph 166 to do so safely), BUT put a camera on that exact same aircraft and it's not OK. Personally I don't see how that can possibly be a safety regulation. It must surely be about privacy, and I don't see how it can be interpreted in any other way.
Click to expand...

Tip of the iceberg. If you have occasion to use the Loo on a passenger aircraft, If it's a UK registered aircraft you will see a sign in the toilet:

'Air Navigation Order' smoking is forbidden on this aircraft etc.

ANOs are are all about safety however, they are being updated all the time. It's only right that security and privacy are taken into consideration. It's the right bit of legislation to include it in.
 
The biggest danger is not t coming down and hitting one person but it coming down and hitting a car windscreen causing the car to career across the road mounting a pavement taking out a mother walking her 2 children .... or car coming the other way, or a school bus on the way home.

The CAA only charge £57 for a licence renewal so to suggest they're in it for the money I think I'd crank my rates up a bit of that were the case, the people looking to milk from drone users are the companies offering courses to qualify.

The real danger is not so much the qualified people but more the unsuspecting person that walks into a shop and buys one who has no flying experience and as he's not acting commercially thinks (note teh thinks) he can go and fly it anywhere and is unaware of the dangers and failure rates of them, I don't think they should be sold to anyaon who hasn't read
 
Witterings said:
The biggest danger is not t coming down and hitting one person but it coming down and hitting a car windscreen causing the car to career across the road mounting a pavement taking out a mother walking her 2 children .... or car coming the other way, or a school bus on the way home.

The CAA only charge £57 for a licence renewal so to suggest they're in it for the money I think I'd crank my rates up a bit of that were the case, the people looking to milk from drone users are the companies offering courses to qualify.

The real danger is not so much the qualified people but more the unsuspecting person that walks into a shop and buys one who has no flying experience and as he's not acting commercially thinks (note teh thinks) he can go and fly it anywhere and is unaware of the dangers and failure rates of them, I don't think they should be sold to anyaon who hasn't read
Click to expand...

As I think someone may have mentioned before. The danger posed by cars driven by idiots poses a far greater risk to the general public that badly flown drones. I really think the gravity of the issue is being exaggerated.
Also, there is no license in the UK for drone use. The CAA issue a Permission.
 
But by law, all cars SHOULD be insured, SHOULD be driven by people who have shown competence (or are being accompanied by a responsible adult), SHOULD be safe etc.. Doesn't mean that all are but they SHOULD be!

Unfortunately, the irresponsibles who will probably continue to fly where they want, when they want might end up spoiling it for those like Richard who are doing it properly and responsibly. The fact that the things are being sold as toys with no instruction or proper advice ("Yeah, you can fly it anywhere, mate." was what I was told a short while ago when I enquired...) isn't helping the situation much.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Care to stick your finger into that plastic prop at wide open throttle?

No.. thought not :)
Click to expand...

My small electric helicopter has a 1 meter area of destruction with its carbon rotor blades travelling at speed. Ask my garden bushes how I know that.

I'd also suggest not googling rc helicopter injuries. Theres a few gory videos
 
StewartR said:
Which issue? The big concern which has driven the CAA regulations is privacy, not safety.
Click to expand...
Ricardodaforce said:
Have a read here. This explains what the CAA are about.
http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=2481&pagetype=90
Click to expand...
Yeah yeah, I know what the CAA is for.

But this thread is about drones, and the specific CAA regulations which have been introducted relating to drones are about privacy. I thougt we'd established that. Some people here are banging on about hysteria and over-reaction as if these specific CAA regulations were about safety, but they aren't.
 
StewartR said:
Yeah yeah, I know what the CAA is for.

But this thread is about drones, and the specific CAA regulations which have been introducted relating to drones are about privacy. I thougt we'd established that. Some people here are banging on about hysteria and over-reaction as if these specific CAA regulations were about safety, but they aren't.
Click to expand...

Your seem to be spoiling for a fight. I'm not going to indulge you. If you think the CAA's overriding priority when it comes to drones is privacy, then I'm happy for you.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Your seem to be spoiling for a fight. I'm not going to indulge you. If you think the CAA's overriding priority when it comes to drones is privacy, then I'm happy for you.
Click to expand...
I'm not spoiling for a fight, and actually I don't disagree wth you. Of course the CAA's overriding priority is safety.

However, the point I'm trying to make, and which I think some people don't appreciate, is that there is a bunch of regulations which apply *only* to "surveillance aircraft". Some people are saying that the drone regulations (don't fly within 50 metres of people or buildings, etc) are over-restrictive from a safety point of view, but *these* regulations aren't about safety, because they *only* apply if you have a camera fitted to your aircraft. That's all.
 
Are these regulations legally binding, advisory or a combination of the two, highway code style?
 
StewartR said:
I'm not spoiling for a fight, and actually I don't disagree wth you. Of course the CAA's overriding priority is safety.

However, the point I'm trying to make, and which I think some people don't appreciate, is that there is a bunch of regulations which apply *only* to "surveillance aircraft". Some people are saying that the drone regulations (don't fly within 50 metres of people or buildings, etc) are over-restrictive from a safety point of view, but *these* regulations aren't about safety, because they *only* apply if you have a camera fitted to your aircraft. That's all.
Click to expand...

That's not so, you're not meant to fly ANY RC Aircraft within 50 mtrs irrespective of whether it has a camera attached to it or not!!!!!

I believe their reasoning for wanting people working commercially licensed is that someone going out as a hobbyist will go out once every so often whereas someone doing it for a living could well be flying all day every day so the probability is your more likely to have an accident, be working in more populated areas.and being asked to regularly film near people and so should be more safety aware.

Whether they're legally binding as they've successfully prosecuted people I'd guess they are.
 
Witterings said:
That's not so, you're not meant to fly ANY RC Aircraft within 50 mtrs irrespective of whether it has a camera attached to it or not!!!!!
Click to expand...
Are you sure? If so, what's your source? I quoted chapter and verse of the CAA regs in post #63 earlier ( https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/index.php?posts/6865188), with references to the source material, and it seems fairly clear to me that the 50 metre rule applies only to "surveillance aircraft". But please do let me know if I've overlooked something or misinterpreted something.
 
Witterings said:
If you have a look at pages 15 and 16 here which are the BMFA handbook, the top left hand part of page 16 specifically refers to what you're saying
https://bmfa.org/DesktopModules/Bri...tryId=295&language=en-GB&PortalId=0&TabId=221
Click to expand...
That's interesting. The BMFA publication says that the 50 metre rule is "exactly the same as for any model over 7 kg", but I can't see where they've got that from, and it's certainly not in the Air Navigation Order. It wouldn't surprise me if there's some long-standing informal (i.e. not legally enforceable) guidance relating to >7kg models, for safety reasons, and when the CAA decided that some regulations were required for <7kg models with cameras fitted they just kept the same parameters. If it's possible to check the previous edition of the BMFA handbook, that might shed some light.
Witterings said:
I do agree though the wording of article 167 isn't clear as to exactly who / what it refers to!!
Click to expand...
Really? I think it's very clear. The title of the article, and every single paragraph within the article, say "small unmanned surveillance aircraft". I don't think there's any scope for misunderstafing at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top