Brits must now register virtually all new drones and undergo safety tests New British drone owners will have to register their craft with the state and pass a mandatory safety test, according to a government announcement sneaked out over the weekend. The plans are a response to the perceived danger of amateur drone operators cavorting around the skies willy-nilly, causing headaches for airliner …
HM Gov will make a bollocks of this like they do with anything else.
It will just mean that criminals will steal drones for prison drops that are registered to someone else.
Or buy them second hand. Or give false details when they buy them. Or buy them from someone who will not bother with the registration malarkey for an extra twenty quid. Or perhaps just pull the sticker bearing the serial number off.
There might be a wider incentive to do this, as it will be implemented with the usual profitable PPI inefficiency and price gouging by the contractor, and the Government will doubtless view this as a perfect revenue raising opportunity too.
I'm pretty sure that "Criminals will ignore/circumvent this law" is not a good reason for not having a law.
Criminals have ignored/circumvented every law ever written. That's, by definition, what makes them criminals. If the law wasn't there, there would be no justification for penalising them when caught.
Or .... simply order the parts from the likes of Banggood or Goodluckbuy in China, to name but two, and assemble the damn things here at the comfort of the dining room table. There's no rocket science to assembling a more than viable Drone that can even fly autonomous missions to drop "stuff" off at yer average Prison or whatever. No need to buy DJI or whatever from a licenced shopkeeper or online store.
The law will do nothing to limit or impact the criminal fraternity. And numpty consumer Drone pilots will just carry on as normal ... because "Rules are there for the breaking of" as they say in such circles.
Criminals will just not register, or they will build their own...
How hard is it to order the parts from multiple suppliers and put one together?
If your a criminal, having one built for you won't be that hard...
Also will this cover only drones, or helis & planes too? what about blimps?
I understand the reasoning, but that won't stop idiots flying drones near airports or using them to spy on people...
For lists of UK aircraft registration, see Wikipedia. Everything from the late Concorde to gliders, hovercraft, and ultralights must be registered. And be insured. (There's a brief section in the Wikipedia article on registration of "unmanned toy balloons" -- anyone know if that's a Wiki-joke or not?)
Model rockets are regulated according to the size of their engines. Certification is required for larger models. Flying the little beasts is heavily regulated: UKRA.
Etc. Both left- and right-pondians live in heavily-regulated cultures. I've always thought of regulation as a sad phenomenon. Probably only one in a thousand drone owners would fly one near an airport, and probably only one in ten thousand would do it maliciously -- intending to cause disruption -- but all drone owners will be regulated. Just as all model rockets are regulated.
Sad fact of life in a society which has many potentially dangerous technologies, and a few people who, through ignorance or malice, may put others at risk.
And of course some people will ignore the law. Some people ignore the laws on bank robbery, too. Some ignore the laws of physics, but they often come to a messy end very quickly.
How hard is it? Very easy - it's how I built mine. I went to hobby king, bought all the bits, put them together by following some how-tos and common sense. Almost removed a finger too (common sense was on a coffee break at the time).
I also checked out the regs because we get RAF Pumas at low level near my office, plus we're just at the edge of a MATZ.
I would think that the main Point of this is not so much the database, but the fact that new users are forced to learn some of the Basic flying rules. If that helps stop some of the more stupid People out there, it's a win. People dedicated to causing mischief arent going to be deterred, but it certainly should stop the kid taking out his new drone and flying it directly above an Airport because he didnt know that wasnt allowed.
"but that won't stop idiots flying drones ...... using them to spy on people.
Somewhat ironic then, that it was in fact the police who were the ones caught spying on the people from their 'drone' aka helicopter
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/18/south-yorkshire-police-helicopter-crew-filmed-people-naked-sheffield-crown-court-told
HM Gov will make a bollocks of this like they do with anything else.
It will just mean that criminals will steal drones for prison drops that are registered to someone else.
Sledgehammer to crack a walnut as usual.
Not quite. You're missing the bigger picture, the same as people laughing about the question "have you ever engaged in terrorist activities?" on a US immigration form.
The point of this law is to establish a legal principle that you can be fined/convicted for. At the moment there's no clarity about who does what, but now your registration requires you to be aware of the rules so if you break those it's now easy to point at a principle for which you get fined/convicted. If you don't register the drone you can no longer claim ignorance either.
It creates some clarity in an area that has utter idiots allowed to roam free and it was pretty much inevitable after idiots started to gawk on their neighbours and hang around airports with these things.
Do I like regulation? Absolutely not, but it appears the not so cranially equipped need that sort of help to stop being stupid.
Do I like regulation? Absolutely not, but it appears the not so cranially equipped need that sort of help to stop being stupid.
Stop being stupid? Via legislation? Tell me how that's going to work? This pure eye-wash for the masses as there is no cure for stupid. As a reference point, look around at many stupd things are done by people first yelling, "Hey you all... watch this.".
" If you don't register the drone you can no longer claim ignorance either."
The article says that existing drone owners are not required to register. That seems to produce a case where ignorance of the law is a defence.
IIRC A bit like the original car seat belt laws where only new cars were required to have them fitted and then worn. Retro-fitting was encouraged but was not compulsory.
Legislate, tax, registration fees etc.etc. Same old, same old.
The model as shown doesn't look anything like any drone I've ever seen and just strapping a normal DLSR camera on is laziness of the highest order. The DLSR alone will be far heavier and denser than anything likely on a drone. The weight alone would cause the drone problems.
Also, how valid is it to fire (using a canon) the item at a cockpit mockup. This seems to fail to take into account the airflows around the cockpit, as it flies through the air at 600mph (ish).
Ah, the "I don't know about something therefore it can't possibly exist" argument.
So you've never seen a DJI S1000 Octocopter then? - https://www.dji.com/spreading-wings-s1000
That has a camera mount that lets you attach your own gear to it, as a number of other professional drones do. Drones with camera mounts and enough power to lift a DSLR are pretty common and used by professional camera operators.
The one in the image at the top of the story looks like a DJI Phantom Vision with a gimbal mount and something like a GoPro, to allow for separate movement. It's not a DSLR in that case, but the phantom Vision has less power so not unexpected
@Paul 25.
I didn't say there weren't drones that could carry a DLSR, just that the vast majority will not be. The kind that can do tend to be of the size and money that makes them very serious and much easier to regulate. The weight limit of 250 grams is pretty low and will include a vast number of drones that aren't anything like that. Effectively, what they've done is try a worst case scenario, but are then applying it to almost everything. Not very sensible. Yes, the very big, very heavy, large amounts of metal and carrying DLSR camera drones maybe could do with regulation because they can do that sort of damage, but that's a weight limit way over 250 grams.
"Ah, the "I don't know about something therefore it can't possibly exist" argument."
Ah, the I think I know everything, misinterpret what someone is saying and then decide a mature answer is to insult them argument. Childish.
'The weight limit of 250 grams is pretty low and will include a vast number of drones that aren't anything like that. Effectively, what they've done is try a worst case scenario, but are then applying it to almost everything.'
They did also model and test the cockpit sections against a smaller quad copter and a larger fixed wing drone, page 11 of the PDF linked in the article. This was used to validate the computer model which ran simulated tests over a wider range of data points (including an even smaller quad copter) to establish the risk. I believe the main limiting factor in live testing was the availability of windscreen sections.
So no, it wasn't just testing the worst case scenario and applying it to everything. It's a shame the videos aren't widely available (I asked) as even the small quad copter led to glass shards being shed by the inner layer of the windscreen which could be uncomfortable for the occupants.
@SkippyBing.
I haven't seen the videos and didn't know they tested smaller as well.
To be honest, if even a small drone causes glass splinters, then they really need to do something about the windscreens. They clearly aren't strong or resilient enough. Whilst I appreciate birds are much softer, I would have thought an albatros hitting wouldn't be good news under those circumstances?
Perhaps the issue (for windscreens at least) is that they need to be better. Maybe drones are just highlighting the problem?
Now, the average turbofan engine; that's a different matter. Have they done any tests on a drone entering one? What sort of size and construction drone leads to compressor blade failure etc.?
Hobbyists have been flying fixed wing and rotary models for a long time now and some of those are pretty damn heavy and solid. I remember a neighbours helicopter that would put most drones to shame in terms of solidity and weight. Is it that hobbyists know what they're doing and keep away from sensitive areas (would have thought some dodgy/stupid people have used them though), or are they too difficult to fly and people just give up, whereas drones are much simpler?
@Mad Mike,
Re the windscreens, of the two helicopters tested 1 had a bird strike resistant screen, 1 was too old for it to have been a requirement when designed but is still being built, the airliner didn't really have a problem from memory. The screens wouldn't be albatross resistant any way as they're outside the mass the certification standard tests to, but then you're likely to see an albatross quite a way off compared to a drone of equivalent mass.
Apparently during the eight months of scoping the trials team asked airlines what they were most worried about being hit and they weren't concerned about the engines as to be certified airliners have to demonstrate the ability to lose one at any stage of flight and carry out successful recovery to an airfield. Compressor blade failure isn't normally a problem as they can be contained, turbine blades less so but there's a lot of material to get through before you get to them.
I think you're last sentence nails why there's concern, drones are so simple to fly that they're proliferating wildly and are flown by people with next to no idea about what the legalities are, never mind airmanship.
To be honest, if even a small drone causes glass splinters, then they really need to do something about the windscreens. They clearly aren't strong or resilient enough. Whilst I appreciate birds are much softer, I would have thought an albatros hitting wouldn't be good news under those circumstances?
Might be worth reading up on the behaviour of bodies on impact. Even an albatros will at the collision speeds we're talking about here be more or less a squishy sack that will deform on impact and spread out the load over a large contact area. A drone will maintain the sharp points of impact that will crack the otherwise bird proof certified windows.
The cost of upgrading all windows on all planes versus the costs of fining the everliving crap out of idiots placing a drone in the flight trajectory of a plane very much favours placing the costs where they belong: with the idiot.
'The model as shown doesn't look anything like any drone I've ever seen '
Having seen a presentation by the study team there's a reason for that, a quad copter as traditionally configured wouldn't survive the acceleration down the cannon, basically the two arms perpendicular to the acceleration broke off. Also the test firing was validating the computer model of how the different materials interact during a collision, to the extent that the simulation of a collision is eerily similar to the film with crack propagation on the windsceen being almost identical. With the model validated it's relatively trivial to try different configurations of drone against different cockpit sections.
As to the airflow deflecting it, it doesn't work on insects or birds so I'm fairly sure it won't work on something dense like a drone.
'Brilliant. "Our test won't work on a typical drone, so we'll use something completely unrealistic to get the result we've been paid to get."'
That's not what they said or did, all they did was remove the two arms that would have broken off before getting to the target. The structure they fired at the windscreen was still representative of a drone in its weight class in terms of materials, size, shape, form etc.
I mean you could just read the report linked in the article it does explain that, or you can stay in your own little outrage bus, up to you.
Arguing about the nature of the drones used in aircraft collision tests implies that the complainants consider their smaller lighter drones don't put passenger aircraft at risk. Well put up or shut up, run your own tests to prove your case. On the other hand you might consider the alternative: comply with current legislation, don't fly in prohibited zones including where there is the possibility of collision with passenger aircraft, i.e. at high altitude or near airfields.
The argument that "legislation won't work so don't do it" is garbage, there is legislation prohibiting murder but it still happens.
The reason the registration/training proposal has been put forward is that the idiots are out there doing stupid things. "Self regulation" in other sectors invariably fails, legislation doesn't put a stop to abuse but it does reduce it. The marketing lobby succeeded in getting self regulation in respect of junk telesales, that gave the telemarketers another 15 years relative freedom as the only sanction they applied to themselves was "a strongly worded letter if a large number of complaints were made". Only since the ICO bared their teeth have any proper sanctions been applied. Has that stopped junk telesales? No but the miscreants are being fined. OK some of the miscreants are limited companies that liquidate rather than pay the fine but from getting 2 or 3 spam calls a week (despite being TPS registered) they are now below one a month.
'The argument that "legislation won't work so don't do it" is garbage, there is legislation prohibiting murder but it still happens.'
That's an interesting point, if there's no legislation forbidding it, then no crime would have been committed so you couldn't punish the sort of f***wit who'd do it, unless they'd got to the stage of actually hitting an aircraft.
“Users may be able to register online or through apps, under plans being explored by the government,” though the mandatory test will cover “safety, security and privacy regulations”.
Meaning:
1) The app and online form will be put out to tender [Capita or Steria]
2) There will be a maximum cost and time limit [£2Bn for the app and a 3 year cost overrun]
3) Users will be able to register and pay the 'Drone Licence Fee' online [We will need to use Drone Detector Vans to check unlicensed drones and we will send lots of threatening letters to pensioners about the danger of their unlicensed drone]
4) There will, of course, be a need for a new government department within the Dept of Transport known as the Pilotless Vehicle Licensing Authority (PVLA). This department will need a minimum £1Bn annual budget.
I agree, flying over private gardens is pretty stupid, you can easily hit the building if your not in LOS
My son has a drone, its fairly big, but mostly plastic so light, I make him keep it in the garden.. my drone is bigger, but still I keep it over my property, and not too high, I am scared of it hitting my roof (or head) if I fly high and it falls!
Ahaha you fell for the chicken gun story. One of the oldest urban legends on the internet.
I hadn't heard that version before. The one I am familiar with is that the chicken punched right through the engine/train/airframe etc and out the back of the vehicle because they had bought a frozen chicken and forgotten to defrost it.
"Mythbusters did it with a frozen chicken. They may as well have fired a cannonball. It made a proper mess."
But, to be fair, MythBusters also neglected to use "bird strike resistant" windscreens for their experiment. Wouldn't have made any difference with the frozen chickens, but it would've with the thawed ones. Part of the reason I watched them less frequently in the later seasons; less science, more Hollywood.
There's at least one "undetected" murder mystery story where the gun fired an ice bullet.
There is also the one where a woman killed her husband using a frozen leg of lamb as a club. At the end of their fruitless initial investigation - having not found the murder weapon - the detectives happily accepted the woman's offer of some dinner. They appreciated the leg of lamb that had been temptingly cooking in the oven during their visit..
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
