The General Drone-Related Thread

At least the point out some of the legalities involved in flying the things - for profit, at least!
 
And also mention that they run training courses, just a big ad really.
 
I'd rather that approach than that taken by some retailers who just want to shift the boxes and don't even mention any of the legalities when they're trying to sell you the things.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Personally I feel that training / licensing should be compulsory.
Click to expand...

I would disagree. If you make training compulsory, it will add a significant cost, to the overall purchase price. Licensing would also add a cost, but also realistically, do you think the idiots causing any current issues, are going to adhere to licensing :rolleyes: So ultimately, we make the hobby more expensive, exclude more people and not fix the issue of irresponsible users.

I don't believe, the issue of irresponsible users is that prevalent, but news outlets and especially the internet, latch on to each "bad" story and magnify the extent of any problems.
 
Presumably C4 have used properly permissioned (to keep Riccardo happy and not call it licensed!!! ;)) operators etc..
 
Nod said:
I'd rather that approach than that taken by some retailers who just want to shift the boxes and don't even mention any of the legalities when they're trying to sell you the things.
Click to expand...

That's not strictly true,

When I opened the box of my P3 advanced, the first thing I saw was one of these.

tumblr_o56ii6X9xG1sb7qm1o1_1280.jpg


So at least there is awareness, whether the person who bought the device reads it or not is another matter, but you can't say the retailers and manufacturers aren't trying.
 
It is strictly true. When I was enquiring about them in PCW/Currys, Maplin and HMV, NONE of the salespersons I spoke to even mentioned the legalities involved. By the time a customer has forked out and opened the box, it's too late. Shoving a link to the CAA in the box is a cheap get out for the manufacturers.
 
There have been numerous examples of Maplin breaking the law to sell these things.
 
Nod said:
It is strictly true. When I was enquiring about them in PCW/Currys, Maplin and HMV, NONE of the salespersons I spoke to even mentioned the legalities involved. By the time a customer has forked out and opened the box, it's too late. Shoving a link to the CAA in the box is a cheap get out for the manufacturers.
Click to expand...

TBH its up to the person buying the drone to do some research first, you can't expect sales reps who are most likely on minimum wage to know all the legalities involved, well at least I wouldn't.

If I wasn't already building and flying them and I was a newcomer into it, the first thing I would do is go on the Internet and find out what I need, what I can and cannot do, it's common sense really.
Having something in the box that explains the fundamentals is a step in the right direction and is better than nothing, after all if one has the sense to buy a drone in the first place, then one must also have the sense to read through everything properly before flying.

But that's my opinion on it.
 
I would agree completely, Emily. However, the reports of illegal overflights clearly demonstrate that common sense doesn't always prevail! I wouldn't expect sales personnel to know all the legal technicalities but I would expect them to know that there are restrictions and guidelines (and ideally for the retailers to have leaflets like the one in your Phantom's box available for prospective buyers, if not with more detail.)
 
Yuneec Typhoon H delayed till the end of the month I have heard today...
 
"This video is private."
 
Hopefully the powers that be will have more success tracking Paul John Raptis down than the Eenin' Stannid did. As Mike the Crash said, he (PJR) hasn't done the responsible fliers any favours.
 
Nod said:
Hopefully the powers that be will have more success tracking Paul John Raptis down than the Eenin' Stannid did. As Mike the Crash said, he (PJR) hasn't done the responsible fliers any favours.
Click to expand...

Good to see such a swift reaction from the community. The CAA have tweeted that they are aware of it, so hopefully this will lead to another prosecution.
 
Nod said:
Hopefully the powers that be will have more success tracking Paul John Raptis down than the Eenin' Stannid did.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty unique name, it shouldn't be that hard for them to track him down"
 
From the Sky story (also has been reported on the Sky News channel this evening), they say there there have been 23 drone/aircraft incidents in a 6 month period last year. I may not be clairvoyant but I can see the regulations around drones being tightened up drastically in the near future, and after that a drone owner or 2 possibly ending up in jail.

Flying a drone anywhere near an airport or where a plane might be at low altitude is really stupid.
 
Any regulation/registration etc. that the decide on now will be bolting the door after the horses have all bolted. It'll be incredibly hard to introduce it retrospectively and the stupid will simply either not bother or say they weren't aware of the rules.
 
Nod said:
Any regulation/registration etc. that the decide on now will be bolting the door after the horses have all bolted. It'll be incredibly hard to introduce it retrospectively and the stupid will simply either not bother or say they weren't aware of the rules.
Click to expand...

I agree that it will be difficult to implement any system now, but government being government it will implement a draconian knee jerk reaction of some sort.
 
Nod said:
Any regulation/registration etc. that the decide on now will be bolting the door after the horses have all bolted. It'll be incredibly hard to introduce it retrospectively and the stupid will simply either not bother or say they weren't aware of the rules.
Click to expand...


I think realistically, retrospective registration would turn out to be unworkable
 
boyfalldown said:
I think realistically, retrospective registration would turn out to be unworkable
Click to expand...

It should be straightforward. They bring in a law, new purchases have to register at point of purchase. Existing owners get a period of grace to voluntarily register. After that date anyone found flying by the police or that get into trouble with one face a punitive fine. A bit like when they changed the car tax laws.

In other news: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...rror-attack-should-i-be-worried-a6988951.html
 
Wayne Els said:
It should be straightforward. They bring in a law, new purchases have to register at point of purchase. Existing owners get a period of grace to voluntarily register. After that date anyone found flying by the police or that get into trouble with one face a punitive fine. A bit like when they changed the car tax laws.
Click to expand...


genuine question (not trying to be awkward) on my phantom 2, how would I realistically record a registration in such a way as to be sure it wouldn't come off. And also, why should I register my drone but not my model glider thats 10 x the size and about 7 the weight?
 
I would think that most drones already have serial numbers on them - not easily legible from a distance but fairly easy when it's in the hand.
 
Nod said:
I would think that most drones already have serial numbers on them - not easily legible from a distance but fairly easy when it's in the hand.
Click to expand...


True...(I hadn't realised it was so accessible on mine) so accessible that I've manged to completely obscure it fitting a gimble over it. Like all these things though I'm still not sure, for very light (7KG is the cut off at the mo) registration is practical. I know there has been 23 airproxs in the last year with drones, but to give some context there were 670 other airprox too
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
I know there has been 23 airproxs in the last year with drones, but to give some context there were 670 other airprox too
Click to expand...
I would guess that the large majority of the 670 'other' airproxes were the result of "human error" whilst the majority of the 23 relating to drones were the result of "human endeavour".

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
I would guess that the large majority of the 670 'other' airproxes were the result of "human error" whilst the majority of the 23 relating to drones were the result of "human endeavour".

Bob
Click to expand...


I wouldn't even start to guess without reading the lot
 
boyfalldown said:
genuine question (not trying to be awkward) on my phantom 2, how would I realistically record a registration in such a way as to be sure it wouldn't come off. And also, why should I register my drone but not my model glider thats 10 x the size and about 7 the weight?
Click to expand...

So you think they need to add gliders to this new legislation too? :police::rolleyes:
 
Wissel said:
Not sure if it's been mentioned yet, but drones are now banned on National Trust land (unless you have a licence, insurance and written permission etc).

Not sure when this came in but I hadn't noticed until a few days ago so thought I'd post for others.

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/visitor-faqs
Click to expand...
They don't have power to do anything of the sort, they may ask you not to take off from there, but like other landowners they don't have jurisdiction of airspace.
They have also banned photography at least if the resulting pictures are in any way commercial.

A lot of the near miss reports seem a bit strange, I've come to the conclusion that a good percentage would previously have been UFO reports.
A frequent feature is being seen at implausibly high altitudes for hobby quadcopters - I once took mine to about 1000 feet up the side of a hill and it took a worryingly long time to come down again.
Also I struggle to see how pilots are identifying something [relatively] almost stationary and the size of a duck as they whiz past at 300mph.
One report said something about a balloon like body (?) maybe it was a balloon?

Then this recent collision, I think it would be wise to actually locate some debris before deciding what was hit.
There was a similar incident not long ago where the media were getting excited after a helicopter hit a 'drone' but it was later shown to be a bird.
As above I doubt very much the pilot could actually identify something so small at that closing speed.
In any case it's rather re-assuring that no noteworthy damage was caused.

Any kind of knee jerk new legislation will have precisely no effect since anyone responsible won't be flying anywhere near planes coming in to land to start with.
DJI and others already have exclusion areas round airports where you literally can''t take off.
Despite mischievous BBC report saying otherwise this is not easily bypassed unless GPS is completely disabled.
It's funny how they can find a commercial drone company spokesman to come out with a holier than thou statement asking for new rules ... which would co-incidentally get them more business.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Els said:
So you think they need to add gliders to this new legislation too? :police::rolleyes:
Click to expand...


;) I think perfectly adequate legislation already exists. If people were more aware of it. I'm just asking why one model aircraft needs more legislation then another ;)
 
I used to fly radio control helicopters for about 25 years and safe flying was paramount and as a member of a club you were covered for public liability insurance. There seems to be no or very little safety concerns with some people. If I was to get a drone which is very unlikely I would not dream of putting people of property in danger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top