Watched a news item on BBC news this morning that stated the government is going to introduce legislation that will enforce training and licencing for any user with a drone heavier than 250g - thoughts?
Regulation to be introduced in the UK
- Thread starter ukracer
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2016
- Messages
- 1,049
- Reaction score
- 435
Yep - it's already being discussed here New Drone tests introduced next year in the uk under General Discussion, as it will affect all UK droners, be you P4, P3 or other.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2016
- Messages
- 331
- Reaction score
- 71
- Age
- 57
Yes I had seen this on the news this am. Don't know just what will be involved and what fines will be imposed if caught using one with out the proper paperwork. There is also a matter of how much it will cost the individual.
What about all the people who will be given drones as presents the Christmas only to find out that they are going to get more than they bargain for.
What about all the people who will be given drones as presents the Christmas only to find out that they are going to get more than they bargain for.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2017
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 3
- Age
- 49
It says 'may be required' to take tests. Personally i believe its s good thing. UAVs are not toys, theyre accidents waiting to happen when placed in the hands of idiots who think its cool to overfly cities and risk the safety of others. This will weed out the people who are killing the reputation of the hobby i love!
The requirement of taking a test won't prevent stupid people from being stupid.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2017
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 3
- Age
- 49
Very true, but anything that makes it harder for people who are more concerned about how far they can fly rather than how safe they can fly has to be a good thing. The trouble is that the government has no idea how to police it. I think people should have to pay for their safety training when they buy their drone. Say £150-£200. And when they have attended a course they get the drone. That would deal with a large proportion of it!
How should it work when coming from abroad to visit UK and flying there? What if I have the license in other EU country? Or 107 in the US? Still tests needed?
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2017
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 3
- Age
- 49
I guess you would have to compare the Part 107 against the CAA PFCO amd see which is more stringent. If there are any areas that are lacking in either you could take some kind of one day competency test?
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2016
- Messages
- 331
- Reaction score
- 71
- Age
- 57
This is all a good idea but the real criminals out there will just get round any geo fencing etc etc as they have access to top programmers who will just remove any measure's put in place, They are always one step ahead and that will never change.
We all have to play by the rules, they wont, that's for sure.
We all have to play by the rules, they wont, that's for sure.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2017
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 3
- Age
- 49
The UK pfco process is one of the most stringent in Europe. We have to sit a two hour exam, write an ops manual which has to be acessed by the caa, and then a two hour flight exam where you are acessed and scrutinised against the manual. It takes a few months of study and a few thousand pounds!
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2016
- Messages
- 287
- Reaction score
- 159
- Age
- 57
That is just ridiculous. A small drone like the Phantom or the Mavic is not an ”aircraft” but a professional flying camera, and should be treated as such. It would make more sense to set a total weight limit of like 7 kg or so (like in Sweden), possibly also a speed limit. Anything above that is an aircraft, anything below that is a flying camera (or a toy).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2016
- Messages
- 1,049
- Reaction score
- 435
I don't know - 6.9 kg is quite a mass falling from above - and even c. 1.4 kg of a Phantom falling from a reasonable height with props spinning could make quite a nasty dent in someone's head or even eye, even though, in theory, anyone with a shred of common sense should realise that flying above, or even near people, could lead to some sort of potential disaster should the unforeseen happen.
The problem is that regulations and laws need to take into account both the utmost stupidity and uncaring attitude, in this case, to flying drones, along with the potentially most environmentally-unaware person who could ever exist...
It's all well and good to say that I, personally, am not going to fly this potentially serious lethal weapon in places where I shouldn't and I, personally, am always aware of what is happening around and above me, but there will always be those who do, and those who aren't. There will always be those, too,who will flagrantly flout laws and regulations no matter what the consequences. Look at drink-driving laws for example - long established in law in most countries, and yet many hundreds and thousands still break those laws.
As regards droning, we seem to be very much in a bit of a 'shake-down' period, IMHO. Flying of drones by the masses is still a relatively new activity and most administrations aren't quite sure how to deal with it and where to 'set the bars'.
I think that eventually it will all settle to to more reasonable level of regulation in most countries but, like most, I can't currently give any indication of how long it will take or where those limits may be. If I could jump straight to them... then why! - I'd be a worldwide adviser!
Autos can kill you. I think it would be hard pressed trying to kill someone with a phantom. Don't get me wrong, I'm for some regulations. I think people go overboard with the falling dangers of a phantom. A weight limit class for drones to more strict regulations seems a good idea. The phantom weight class being more lenient.I don't know - 6.9 kg is quite a mass falling from above - and even c. 1.4 kg of a Phantom falling from a reasonable height with prop s spinning could make quite a nasty dent in someone's head or even eye, even though, in theory, anyone with a shred of common sense should realise that flying above, or even near people, could lead to some sort of potential disaster should the unforeseen happen.
The problem is that regulations and laws need to take into account both the utmost stupidity and uncaring attitude, in this case, to flying drones, along with the potentially most environmentally-unaware person who could ever exist...
It's all well and good to say that I, personally, am not going to fly this potentially serious lethal weapon in places where I shouldn't and I, personally, am always aware of what is happening around and above me, but there will always be those who do, and those who aren't. There will always be those, too,who will flagrantly flout laws and regulations no matter what the consequences. Look at drink-driving laws for example - long established in law in most countries, and yet many hundreds and thousands still break those laws.
As regards droning, we seem to be very much in a bit of a 'shake-down' period, IMHO. Flying of drones by the masses is still a relatively new activity and most administrations aren't quite sure how to deal with it and where to 'set the bars'.
I think that eventually it will all settle to to more reasonable level of regulation in most countries but, like most, I can't currently give any indication of how long it will take or where those limits may be. If I could jump straight to them... then why! - I'd be a worldwide adviser!
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2016
- Messages
- 287
- Reaction score
- 159
- Age
- 57
I don't know - 6.9 kg is quite a mass falling from above - and even c. 1.4 kg of a Phantom falling from a reasonable height with props spinning could make quite a nasty dent in someone's head or even eye, even though, in theory, anyone with a shred of common sense should realise that flying above, or even near people, could lead to some sort of potential disaster should the unforeseen happen.
The problem is that regulations and laws need to take into account both the utmost stupidity and uncaring attitude, in this case, to flying drones, along with the potentially most environmentally-unaware person who could ever exist...
It's all well and good to say that I, personally, am not going to fly this potentially serious lethal weapon in places where I shouldn't and I, personally, am always aware of what is happening around and above me, but there will always be those who do, and those who aren't. There will always be those, too,who will flagrantly flout laws and regulations no matter what the consequences. Look at drink-driving laws for example - long established in law in most countries, and yet many hundreds and thousands still break those laws.
As regards droning, we seem to be very much in a bit of a 'shake-down' period, IMHO. Flying of drones by the masses is still a relatively new activity and most administrations aren't quite sure how to deal with it and where to 'set the bars'.
I think that eventually it will all settle to to more reasonable level of regulation in most countries but, like most, I can't currently give any indication of how long it will take or where those limits may be. If I could jump straight to them... then why! - I'd be a worldwide adviser!
A hammer is a potentially lethal weapon. So is a fire extinguisher or a stiletto-heeled shoe. If we are only talking vehicles, why not bicycles. Kid's kickboards. Inline skates. .
A Nikon SLR with a 80-200 mm zoom lens can definitely knock out teeth or cause eye injury if you swing it carelessly over your shoulder in a crowd. But I still cannot see anyone advocating several month long training courses and certificates to use one. Common sense should suffice.
I am quite sure that Phantoms dropping onto heads are no more common than Nikon SLR's being slammed into faces.
Law-makers of course need to think about the future when creating regulation and laws. They already see automated drones weighing like small trucks, carrying cargo over long distances. I completely agree, there needs to be regulations for those. But also, let's not rush ahead blindly. A P4 or a Mavic is... well perhaps not a toy, but definitey not a lethal weapon either.
This really happened. A grizzly bear was mulling a woman's husband. She was an older woman. And she just couldn't let the bear keep mulling her husband. So she took her camera strap and started swinging her camera and hit the grizzly bear on the nose. She did that repeatedly for three times and finally the grizzly bear couldn't take anymore and ran away.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2017
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 3
- Age
- 49
I dont think its ridiculous. What is ridiculous are the number of idiots flouting the rules and flying without due care and attention! Without an understanding of the basics you're just dangerous!
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2017
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 3
- Age
- 49
Hmm i disagree. A small drone in flight if it hits someone at speed can do damage. I have seen someone sever an artery in their arm by crashing their p4 into themselves. Purely because they didnt know the basics. It doesnt need to be over regulated but we do need to keep the idiots out!
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2016
- Messages
- 287
- Reaction score
- 159
- Age
- 57
I am not saying that a small drone cannot do harm. Sure it can. A Phantom or a Mavic could take out an airplane engine - just like a wild goose, a swan or a crane can. If an R/C vehicle would appear in front of a small single prop engine during final approach, an inexperienced pilot might want to take evasive actions and stall into the ground.
But our small quads are not the deadly projectiles with guillotine blades that this current media-fuelled dronophobia seems to indicate. There are some videos on YT where people accidentally put their fingers in the rotating blades of a Mavic and end up with nothing but superficial cuts and some minir bleeding. Skin, muscle tissue and arteries is extremely tough material to cut through. Severing an artery in an arm with the soft plastic blades and the battery driven electic motors of a P4 is, well, unlikely to say the least. It would be like accidentally chopping off a finger with nail scissors or slitting your throat with a pencil; not impossible but extremely unlikely.
I would rather think that it is important to focus on the areas where there is a real risk for harm. That is: flying near and around airplanes. So, not in the vicinity of aerodromes, and not on higher altitudes than 120 meters. Nowhere near accident sites where there might be low flying rescue helicopters. If we can agree on that, I think we managed to eliminate like 99% of the risks. These rules should also be fairly easy to enforce. The last remaining percent can be left to common sense.
Last edited:
Similar threads
