Drone fliers are either 'clueless, careless or criminal' says air traffic gros fromage British drone fliers are either “clueless, careless or criminal”, according to none other than National Air Traffic Service's (NATS) head of unmanned traffic management. Andy Sage made the bold statement to Parliament yesterday while giving evidence to the Science and Technology Committee of MPs. He was supposed to have been …
Criminal maybe, but it seems drone pilots knew exactly what they were doing when they deliberately closed Gatwick for days.
And as they have managed to evade arrest and still not identified they weren’t careless either.
So 2 out of 3 of those adjectives applies to the authorities.
it seems drone pilots knew exactly what they were doing when they deliberately closed Gatwick for days.
That's if you subscribe to the view that there were actually any drones involved in the Gatwick closure.
Some might be more inclined to think that it was complete ineptitude on the part of the authorities...
Ah, comprehensive reading..
I inferred that there must have been credible enough observations to shut down the airport, and that includes a continuation of those observations or they would have opened it sooner.
It's the very duration that denies this event being merely based on some mass hysteria, it just doesn't stack up.
Serious question, how high do you have to go to be subject to a / any law regarding airspace in the UK ?
If I had a really big warehouse where I could let my kids fly their drones up to say 100ft I'm guessing that would be OK as it has a roof.
If I'm at the action end of an airport runway any height is most certaintyn not OK.
My back garden about 50 miles from the nearest airport and not in a flight path. How high do I have to go to before someone sees it as a threat to aircraft?
That makes me clueless about the law and therefore a criminal but I don't think I'm careless at all! I also doubt the local Bobby would know what do so with me either apart from asking to have a go flying.
I'm talking about toys that weigh less than a buzzard but more that an African swallow obviously.
Anything being flown indoors is exempt.
Apart from that, there's a general requirement not to fly remotely controlled models or drones further away than you can see them well enough to control them accurately or above 400 feet AGL. Thats naked eye or with spectacles: using binoculars etc. for extended range is forbidden.
You can also fly models or drones using a video camera on the aircraft that drives a headset or screen for the pilot in charge (PIC). This is known as First Person View (FPV). Flying this way requires an observer, alongside the PIC, who is observing the whole flight using unaided vision (apart from glases): his job is to watch for potential collisions etc because the field of view of a PIC using FPV is typically quite limited and is restricted to straight ahead of the aircraft: IOW it is inadequate for monitoring nearby traffic, which is why the observer is required.
Be thankful that you don't live in Germany. Drone flying is restricted to model aircraft airports and open spaces. It can only be flown in line of sight (even if it is fitted with a camera, it must be visible to the operator at all times).
Flying over built up areas, private property, airports, government or commercial property is not allowed (commercial drone pilots can get special permission for a specified route at a specified time, for film production).
You cannot use a camera on a drone, or its footage, if it looks onto a piece of property not owned by the operator (E.g. you fly it from your garden and the camera can see onto the street or a neighbouring property) - although that would come under built-up area anyway.
I live in Denmark, and the law is there to protect the general public from danger, and the new thing is privacy.
We have a 5km NFZ around airport, 8km around military airports - They tend to fly a bit lower with jets. We can fly up to 100m outside cities, planes can go down to 150m - so 50m separation if everybody puhes it to the limit. 2km distance to medic heliports (typical at hospitals). 150m away from buildings, parks/beaches near built-up areas, larger roads (defined as speed limit 70 km/h or more), railways, traffic accidents, nature preserves etc. 50m away from non-spectating people, ships etc.
For indoor shows, there must be sufficient protection of spectators.
Rules are simple, a license is £2.00. Drones must be marked with owners registration number, name and phone number. And you must have insurance.
The laws apply the moment you leave the ground regardless of what the flying object is. There is no minimum height.
Inside you will be fine but outside you are interfering with the controlled airspace that has been reserved specifically for private use.
If you are not in an area controlled by an airport then you will generally be fine as long as you follow the drone code. If you follow that they will turn a blind eye to your interference but no matter how high or low you are your aircraft must drop to the ground should any manned aircraft enter the area.
Basically you can play on the road till the cars come.
Just like cyclists, the majority of drive pilots are doing their own thing and minding their own business, but the ones that appear on the radar, so to speak, are the ice doing something wrong.
In all honesty, you could put any group in there. Gun owners, motorcyclists, dog owners, maybe even taxmen.
I've heard it said that up to one in twenty five people is a sociopath - a figure that seems to tally nicely with driving behaviour on the roads if you're aware of the number. Ever had someone on the opposite side of the road who sticks their full beams back on at the last minute knowing there's no consequence for them? Likely you've just passed one of those twenty five. So the reality could be more like 4%er.. It's always chilled me if this is the case that statistically, some of these people - with no ability to feel remorse or a conscience - would be in charge of safeguarding sensitive personal data, safety issues in industry, law enforcement, teaching, government bureaucracy.. and of course flying drones for a hobby. If they're on the psychopathic end, they're also more attracted to risk-taking. Sadly society will always have to make sacrifices to make allowances for the behaviour of these kinds of people.
The drone community isn't able to keep their clueless, careless or criminal members in check. So they all deserve to be called that. I am so in for a forced registration. Next would be a visit o every home in a 5 km area around the airport to check and make them sign, legally binding, that they either don't have a drone or proof of registration. Treat them like guns. Er, but not like the US treats guns please, like UK/Europe treats guns...
Now vote me down.
"Next would be a visit o every home in a 5 km area around the airport to check and make them sign, legally binding, that they either don't have a drone or proof of registration."
Yeah - because nobody in the UK owns a car is or otherwise capable of traveling more than 5km.
Mind you, it might work - my sister tells me that in the three generations it took for my grandparents to emigrate from the north of England to New Zealand and for her to end up living in Preston, some of her friends have moved as far as the next street from where their grandparents lived.
"Treat them like guns. Er, but not like the US treats guns please, like UK/Europe treats guns..."
Right...
The rational, reasonable country where the national Olympic pistol team has to go to another country to practice because they and their single shot .32 pistols are too dangerous to be allowed in the UK.
Good thing the UK citizens and politicians are not given to extreme policies.
"Next would be a visit o every home in a 5 km area around the airport to check and make them sign, legally binding, that they either don't have a drone or proof of registration."
I've never signed anything saying I don't own a gun. I've never signed anything saying I don't own nerve agent or the means and knowledge to manufacture it. I've never signed anything to say I don't possess any drugs or the means to grow/synthesise any. Nor have I been required to, because last I checked we're not THAT kind of police state.
Visit my home by all means. Pop a note through the door if you'd like. But if you expect me to certify to you that I *don't* own something I could build or buy legally, you can fuck right off, ALL the way off, fuck off so far that you get back here, and when you do, you can fuck off again.
>The drone community isn't able to keep their clueless, careless or criminal members in check. ...
Like the attempt at satire, needed a little more polish.
I really liked the idea "and make them sign, legally binding, that they either don't have a drone or proof of registration."; self-certification is so 'not' open to abuse because we (including the clueless, careless and criminal) are so honest...
Aside: More seriously, Sage is right when you factor in his NATS remit; To fly a drone around an operational airport like Gatwick you must be clueless, careless or criminal. However, I suspect the odds are high that the authorities are already capable of apprehending the careless or clueless.
Ok I've taken your advice and voted you down.
"the drone community isn't able to keep their clueless, careless or criminal members in check" - what are you on about? Do you seriously think that every drone owner knows every other drone owner, and has some kind of influence over them?
You could just as well say:
" the car-owning community isn't able to keep their clueless, careless or criminal members in check"
or
"the knife-owning community isn't able to keep their clueless, careless or criminal members in check"
Therefore all car owners and anyone who has a knife in their kitchen should be subject to your "visits".
Yes stupid/criminal drone users should be persecuted. However, I suggest we gather some actual evidence that this is a problem (cf the Gatwick alleged incident) before getting too excited.
> " the car-owning community isn't able to keep their clueless, careless or criminal members in check"
They get checked every year for having a roadworthy car and checked every few mins when driving past ANPR cameras for insurance and tax.
> "the knife-owning community isn't able to keep their clueless, careless or criminal members in check"
We started checking them by stop and search recently. Checking homes may be a bit much due to the numbers but we can certainly check the manufacturers and make sure only the prescribed types of knife are generally available.
> Therefore all car owners and anyone who has a knife in their kitchen should be subject to your "visits".
Like I said, car owners already are. Technically they are expected to visit the officials themselves, if they dont the officials visit them with a crusher.
Your argument is absurd stupid nonsense, just because one person enjoys a hobby in a safe manner and another person is reckless, it doesn't automatically mean the good person knows who the bad person is or could stop them even if they did know them.
It's the same situation with drone registration - at the end of the day the police will only have a list of good owners and it won't help them find the bad owners because they just won't register. If an incident happens, how tempting will it be for the overstretched, underfunded police to see that list as an instant suspects list? Just look at what happened to the Gatwick couple, names smeared across the news and dragged into the police station because some busybody must've told the police that man owns a drone, except he didn't anymore...
"at the end of the day the police will only have a list of good owners and it won't help them find the bad owners because they just won't register."
Yes, but. If an idiot is out doing what they're best at, stupid things, and they get nicked, the unregistered drone is another offense and possibly could be confiscated (or ransomed).
£16.75 is a bit rich. Registration shouldn't be more than a fiver.
Drones aimed at anyone not using it as part of a job should be banned unless they are tethered (say a 20m long line delivering power so if it get s cut the drone dies) or flown exclusively indoors or within outdoor netted areas.
Any drones in toy shops/amazon that are not professional ones costing several thousand should be intercepted at the ports and destroyed as contraband. Drones that can only fly indoors successfully would be ok, they should use IR controls, that way they will be almost next to useless outdoors.
I want to see raids on houses!
All outdoor drones should communicate to the tower at airports and operators should use 2 way radio like pilots to request clearance etc from the tower. Flight plans must be submitted for approval and must be accurate plans of the actual route, deviation of the route should be logged by the drone and reported. Of course the wind may be responsible so if nothing bad happened it will simply be a quick investigation/interview etc. The tower must have the ability to signal the drone to order it to return to home point and shutdown.
The folks flying previously legal model fixed-wing aircraft have been up in arms about this, and rightfully so.
I'd be interested to see if the sale and import of drone accessories such as motors and control gear will also get blocked.
Also how would the law apply to "indoor" ie those cheap infrared toys intended for 5 minute flight time?
Let's face it. Take any particular group of people. It doesn't matter. 10% of them will be jerks. Applying that rule....
Yes, the drone operators around Gatwick were in the 10% category. No doubt about it.
And it seems the 10% within the National Air Traffic Service have also been identified.
"We regard drone users in, kind of, three categories: 'clueless, careless and criminal'.”
The gentleman studied at Oxford (though, mercifully, engineering, not PPE). This whole thing reminds me of a recent article by Simon Kuper in the FT where he mentions how, during debates at the Oxford Union, you won debates "... not by boring the audience with detail, but with jokes and ad hominem jibes." That may be mildly entertaining at uni but I would prefer civil servants and their political masters, all of whom we pay for, to focus more on substance and less on puerile excercises in wit.
But perhaps I'm just a grumpy old git, one of those reviled experts, even a despicable technocrat.
Source for this quote:
https://www.ft.com/content/85fc694c-9222-11e9-b7ea-60e35ef678d2
If that's behind a paywall then search on "How Oxford university shaped Brexit"
you won debates "... not by boring the audience with detail, but with jokes and ad hominem jibes."
That's how debates are meant to work. While they can be won by a razor-sharp forensic disassembly of the opponent's position, generally they are won by rhetorical tricks and a willingness to misrepresent and mischaracterise the other person.
"That may be mildly entertaining at uni but I would prefer civil servants and their political masters, all of whom we pay for, to focus more on substance and less on puerile excercises in wit."
Many of them went to Oxford too, so why would they expect anything different? You just have to watch PMQ to see the Oxford Debating Society techniques in action.
...was he wrong?
I have a toy drone - nothing special, picked up from one of those manchild shops around the place.
I *don't* know the maximum height or exclusion zones for drones, making me clueless.
I still fly the thing on the assumption that as a toy variety drone it's not got the range to get into trouble, which probably makes me careless.
So far I haven't used it to nefarious ends, but clearly that happens.
Registered drone pilots represent a tiny minority of drones out there, with the rest being owned by muppets like me - so whilst he probably should have given a nod to the professionals, ultimately, was he wrong?
You don't hear about operators when nothing happens unless some paranoid whatsit climbs all over them thinking their spying on them. Very few videos on YouTube that get many views are "here's me taking photos of a flat for let and nothing happened". What you will see on the news and the recommended videos is where some yahoo flies their drone and lands on a stage right in front of a senior politician.
I fly commercially and have my license and insurance. I would like to see more enforcement of the regs, especially against those that are doing dangerous things. I'm much better off if there is a bar set for getting into the business and people such as estate agents are diligent about only hiring licensed operators to avoid being fined themselves. I'm fine with hobbyists not needing a license, but they should be required to fly in areas with fewer people, aircraft, etc.
I used to do aerial photos from a plane or helicopter, but that's really really expensive. I also had to use a long telephoto lens as we couldn't fly right over the top of a building. With a drone, I can pop up very quickly, get my photos and be packed up in less time then it takes to preflight a manned aircraft. They are a great tool but can be dangerous in the wrong hands.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
