No but you are in D class airspace which is illegal to fly in unless you have permission from the CAA & ATC
UK announce registration required
- Thread starter ukracer
- Start date
No but you are in D class airspace which is illegal to fly in unless you have permission from the CAA & ATC
With all the idiotic flying of drones increased regulation is a given, sad but true. To say the problems stem from a small minority, I would have to disagree.
And you think that drone registration is going to stop the small minority from doing stupid things? They could at least have come up with something more effective after seeing how it went down in the US.
What a load of s*** this is the government is just following the US drone regulation plan like sheep as they clearly can't be arsed to think of something better or even improve on that idea.
I think in the future, this is what will happen.
I am just imagining when control on drone come to an extreme point.... it takes geo-fencing to a much higher level.
- All drones from XX weight and up, maybe 500 grams, must have a registered cellphone sim card installed.
- This sim card is linked to DJI geo fencing. If no sim card installed, drone can not take off or maybe can't even pair with the controller.
- If for some reason the drone user can by-pass geo-fencing and fly the drone, its internal geo fencing memory will still keep track and send data bits of flight track points ( GPS ) and its altitude to the controlling aviation authority of the said country , using the cell data service or even simple SMS/text if any violation occuring.
- If no cell service within a mapped cell coverage kept in drone memory, drone cant even take off, same as geo-fencing lock down.
- If no cell service and drone memory confirmed there is no mapped cell coverage, drone allowed to fly, example somewhere remote area or in the middle of the ocean.
- Every impact of the drone caused by collision or falling out of the sky ( accelerometer can trace this ), will be logged and sent out via cell service to authority as special data, on top of flight posititioning data. So if say a drone is reported to crash into a car on a highway, these logs can find the bad dude
. Computer is so powerful and cheap today, authority can do database search of 500 meter radius of reported crash and +- 120 minutes time period on any given day, in 2-3 seconds. Imagine credit card machine able to verify your credit card data with their server in just 3-4 seconds and there are probably 10,000 times more active credit card in circulation than all drones ever produced since the last 10 years.
- A small back up battery like how a clock is maintained on a PC is built into the drone, to allow at least 30 minutes of cell service for that sim card in the drone. This small battery keep getting charged by the main flight battery , without we knowing
Actually compulsory "vessel" tracking is not new.
Singapore, being one of the busiest shipping port in the world, has rules where even a small personal boat, anything with engine, must carry a special transmitter. Yes, cheap small old dinghy with outboard has to comply too.
http://www.mpa.gov.sg/web/portal/ho...-craft/harbour-craft-transponder-system-harts
This is actually similar transmitter like an AIS transponder on any 300+ gross ton vessel as per IMO ruling and it is global compliance.
https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=typesAIS
With a radar and AIS interface, authority can see all boats/ships that do not carry the transmitter.
Its very easy to get caught not operating this transmitter.
China made cellphone, simple one, is super cheap. US$20 only at retail.
To put a GSM cellphone chip on a drone of US$400 or more is not a $$ problem.
GPS data point at 1hz with altitude data is a small data package for a 25 minutes flight.
The annual licence to pay for the drone permit is what the government use to fund and operate the flight database program. US$75 a year, no one will deny it if the drone cost US$500 or more. No permit, no flying, that simple.
If I were to be the minister of X country, assigned by the government to be in charge for drone compliance,
I would do this. So well behaved pilots totally has nothing to fear and the bad ones will be tracked with ease.
If extra cost is an issue, then there is no need to do a hobby that wasted money in the first place
Of course hackers can by-pass all these, but government wants to look for the naughty boys.
If say a government goes 1 step further by using hardware finger printing, and is the one controlling special 256 bit password to first time activate any drone sold in that country, its not tough to enforce.
For those from UK, there is a law there, any air-rifle ( yes air-gun, not fire arm ) pumping more than 12 foot pound of power or air pistol 6 foot pound of power, will need Fire Arm Certificate, that is how a-n-a-l the UK control is. 12 foot pound is very low power. A 300 gram DJI spark at 40 KM/H speed hitting us is 14 foot pound of energy. A 9mm typical bullet is 344 foot pound of energy. A fast 100mph professional baseball pitch is said to be worth 103 foot pound
Airgun law in the UK
Imagine if authority allows you to own a drone, but they keep track of your drone flight to this extend, how would you response ?
I am just imagining when control on drone come to an extreme point.... it takes geo-fencing to a much higher level.
- All drones from XX weight and up, maybe 500 grams, must have a registered cellphone sim card installed.
- This sim card is linked to DJI geo fencing. If no sim card installed, drone can not take off or maybe can't even pair with the controller.
- If for some reason the drone user can by-pass geo-fencing and fly the drone, its internal geo fencing memory will still keep track and send data bits of flight track points ( GPS ) and its altitude to the controlling aviation authority of the said country , using the cell data service or even simple SMS/text if any violation occuring.
- If no cell service within a mapped cell coverage kept in drone memory, drone cant even take off, same as geo-fencing lock down.
- If no cell service and drone memory confirmed there is no mapped cell coverage, drone allowed to fly, example somewhere remote area or in the middle of the ocean.
- Every impact of the drone caused by collision or falling out of the sky ( accelerometer can trace this ), will be logged and sent out via cell service to authority as special data, on top of flight posititioning data. So if say a drone is reported to crash into a car on a highway, these logs can find the bad dude
. Computer is so powerful and cheap today, authority can do database search of 500 meter radius of reported crash and +- 120 minutes time period on any given day, in 2-3 seconds. Imagine credit card machine able to verify your credit card data with their server in just 3-4 seconds and there are probably 10,000 times more active credit card in circulation than all drones ever produced since the last 10 years.- A small back up battery like how a clock is maintained on a PC is built into the drone, to allow at least 30 minutes of cell service for that sim card in the drone. This small battery keep getting charged by the main flight battery , without we knowing
Actually compulsory "vessel" tracking is not new.
Singapore, being one of the busiest shipping port in the world, has rules where even a small personal boat, anything with engine, must carry a special transmitter. Yes, cheap small old dinghy with outboard has to comply too.
http://www.mpa.gov.sg/web/portal/ho...-craft/harbour-craft-transponder-system-harts
This is actually similar transmitter like an AIS transponder on any 300+ gross ton vessel as per IMO ruling and it is global compliance.
https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=typesAIS
With a radar and AIS interface, authority can see all boats/ships that do not carry the transmitter.
Its very easy to get caught not operating this transmitter.
China made cellphone, simple one, is super cheap. US$20 only at retail.
To put a GSM cellphone chip on a drone of US$400 or more is not a $$ problem.
GPS data point at 1hz with altitude data is a small data package for a 25 minutes flight.
The annual licence to pay for the drone permit is what the government use to fund and operate the flight database program. US$75 a year, no one will deny it if the drone cost US$500 or more. No permit, no flying, that simple.
If I were to be the minister of X country, assigned by the government to be in charge for drone compliance,
I would do this. So well behaved pilots totally has nothing to fear and the bad ones will be tracked with ease.
If extra cost is an issue, then there is no need to do a hobby that wasted money in the first place
Of course hackers can by-pass all these, but government wants to look for the naughty boys.
If say a government goes 1 step further by using hardware finger printing, and is the one controlling special 256 bit password to first time activate any drone sold in that country, its not tough to enforce.
For those from UK, there is a law there, any air-rifle ( yes air-gun, not fire arm ) pumping more than 12 foot pound of power or air pistol 6 foot pound of power, will need Fire Arm Certificate, that is how a-n-a-l the UK control is. 12 foot pound is very low power. A 300 gram DJI spark at 40 KM/H speed hitting us is 14 foot pound of energy. A 9mm typical bullet is 344 foot pound of energy. A fast 100mph professional baseball pitch is said to be worth 103 foot pound
Airgun law in the UK
Imagine if authority allows you to own a drone, but they keep track of your drone flight to this extend, how would you response ?
@SPP that's why you scratch build . Then Neither DJI or the government can physically control your drone.
. Then Neither DJI or the government can physically control your drone.
Think if you have a drone in London, you'll need to move! - If you have a DJI P3 upwards all your flights are logged on the drone in a separate internal SD that you cant erase/or access easily! - so they can tell what you have been up to, where when and how far & how high.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2016
- Messages
- 3,591
- Reaction score
- 1,540
- Age
- 43
Like most things, once the legislation and control is in place new zones will be added/extended for 'safety'
there's a few (well quite a lot actually) bits of misinformation in this thread
1, there is no legislation that's been announced - on case you hadn't noticed, the British government is in recess/on holiday at the moment so nothing has been announced by them. all of this speculation is based on an inaccurate BBC news item - most likely the first of many in this year's 'silly season' Silly season - Wikipedia
2, This all stems from the release of the findings off the consultation that was announced last year - everyone had the chance to make comments and voice their opinion - this is what the latest document is - a summary of those comments and a list of possible options that will be debated at a later date - so, no, there's no legislation at all (yet)
3, Mark99 - you state that the Air Navigation order makes no mention of drones - I suggest you read CAP 722 https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP 722 Sixth Edition March 2015.pdf The 'drone code' is a simplified version and refers to the relevant sections of the ANO - it's law, not a voluntary code of conduct.
4, Neon UC - you are saying that you are OK flying over the Thames - nope, you aren't really because the Thames Estuary is classed as a congested area (the UK's busiest shipping lanes) so shouldn't be over flown without permission or clearance from the Port Of London Authority who also control the banks and foreshores - they don't like drones/scale aircraft filming (they don't like much at all) so don't expect an easy ride if you ask for permission. Filming and Promotions on the Thames
1, there is no legislation that's been announced - on case you hadn't noticed, the British government is in recess/on holiday at the moment so nothing has been announced by them. all of this speculation is based on an inaccurate BBC news item - most likely the first of many in this year's 'silly season' Silly season - Wikipedia
2, This all stems from the release of the findings off the consultation that was announced last year - everyone had the chance to make comments and voice their opinion - this is what the latest document is - a summary of those comments and a list of possible options that will be debated at a later date - so, no, there's no legislation at all (yet)
3, Mark99 - you state that the Air Navigation order makes no mention of drones - I suggest you read CAP 722 https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP 722 Sixth Edition March 2015.pdf The 'drone code' is a simplified version and refers to the relevant sections of the ANO - it's law, not a voluntary code of conduct.
4, Neon UC - you are saying that you are OK flying over the Thames - nope, you aren't really because the Thames Estuary is classed as a congested area (the UK's busiest shipping lanes) so shouldn't be over flown without permission or clearance from the Port Of London Authority who also control the banks and foreshores - they don't like drones/scale aircraft filming (they don't like much at all) so don't expect an easy ride if you ask for permission. Filming and Promotions on the Thames
I think in the future, this is what will happen.
I am just imagining when control on drone come to an extreme point.... it takes geo-fencing to a much higher level.
- All drones from XX weight and up, maybe 500 grams, must have a registered cellphone sim card installed.
- This sim card is linked to DJI geo fencing. If no sim card installed, drone can not take off or maybe can't even pair with the controller.
- If for some reason the drone user can by-pass geo-fencing and fly the drone, its internal geo fencing memory will still keep track and send data bits of flight track points ( GPS ) and its altitude to the controlling aviation authority of the said country , using the cell data service or even simple SMS/text if any violation occuring.
- If no cell service within a mapped cell coverage kept in drone memory, drone cant even take off, same as geo-fencing lock down.
- If no cell service and drone memory confirmed there is no mapped cell coverage, drone allowed to fly, example somewhere remote area or in the middle of the ocean.
- Every impact of the drone caused by collision or falling out of the sky ( accelerometer can trace this ), will be logged and sent out via cell service to authority as special data, on top of flight posititioning data. So if say a drone is reported to crash into a car on a highway, these logs can find the bad dude
- A small back up battery like how a clock is maintained on a PC is built into the drone, to allow at least 30 minutes of cell service for that sim card in the drone. This small battery keep getting charged by the main flight battery , without we knowing
Actually compulsory "vessel" tracking is not new.
Singapore, being one of the busiest shipping port in the world, has rules where even a small personal boat, anything with engine, must carry a special transmitter. Yes, cheap small old dinghy with outboard has to comply too.
http://www.mpa.gov.sg/web/portal/ho...-craft/harbour-craft-transponder-system-harts
This is actually similar transmitter like an AIS transponder on any 300+ gross ton vessel as per IMO ruling and it is global compliance.
TYPES OF AUTOMATIC IDENTIFICATION SYSTEMS (PER ITU-R M.1371 AND IEC STANDARDS)
With a radar and AIS interface, authority can see all boats/ships that do not carry the transmitter.
Its very easy to get caught not operating this transmitter.
China made cellphone, simple one, is super cheap. US$20 only at retail.
To put a GSM cellphone chip on a drone of US$400 or more is not a $$ problem.
GPS data point at 1hz with altitude data is a small data package for a 25 minutes flight.
The annual licence to pay for the drone permit is what the government use to fund and operate the flight database program. US$75 a year, no one will deny it if the drone cost US$500 or more. No permit, no flying, that simple.
If I were to be the minister of X country, assigned by the government to be in charge for drone compliance,
I would do this. So well behaved pilots totally has nothing to fear and the bad ones will be tracked with ease.
If extra cost is an issue, then there is no need to do a hobby that wasted money in the first place
Of course hackers can by-pass all these, but government wants to look for the naughty boys.
If say a government goes 1 step further by using hardware finger printing, and is the one controlling special 256 bit password to first time activate any drone sold in that country, its not tough to enforce.
For those from UK, there is a law there, any air-rifle ( yes air-gun, not fire arm ) pumping more than 12 foot pound of power or air pistol 6 foot pound of power, will need Fire Arm Certificate, that is how a-n-a-l the UK control is. 12 foot pound is very low power. A 300 gram DJI spark at 40 KM/H speed hitting us is 14 foot pound of energy. A 9mm typical bullet is 344 foot pound of energy. A fast 100mph professional baseball pitch is said to be worth 103 foot pound
Airgun law in the UK
Imagine if authority allows you to own a drone, but they keep track of your drone flight to this extend, how would you response ?
All drones fitted with this new technology will be programmed to send an airborne virus to specifically track down the offending drone pilot and melt their brain! Really! [emoji12]
I decided to contact the BBC (Basically Biased and Corrupt) with my sensible views on this policy, as well as taking the opportunity to show them my drone work, which was met with the following reply:
Hi,
Thank you for getting in touch - your videos are lovely!
As it's something you've done for a while, is there a time when you can think of when something went wrong with a drone or not as you had planned?
If so, please let me know if there's a number I can reach you on.
Best,
**********
What instantly struck me is the highlighted text. Why? Gathering negative stories to create new articles to scare people? Probably. Thankfully I've never had a run away drone issue or failure.
Hi,
Thank you for getting in touch - your videos are lovely!
As it's something you've done for a while, is there a time when you can think of when something went wrong with a drone or not as you had planned?
If so, please let me know if there's a number I can reach you on.
Best,
**********
What instantly struck me is the highlighted text. Why? Gathering negative stories to create new articles to scare people? Probably. Thankfully I've never had a run away drone issue or failure.
What the CEO of the BMFA (British Model Flying Club) says about the released documents
The Department for Transport (DfT) has now published the outcome of their consultation on the safe use of drones in the UK. The document can be viewed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...e-of-drones-in-the-uk-government-response.pdf
The document has evidently caused some concern within the model flying community and has set some ‘hares running’. As such, I thought that it would be useful to comment on the DfT publication and clarify the situation.
The DfT document sets out their thoughts on the basic plan for the future regulation of unmanned aircraft in the UK. However, the details of how any new regulations will be developed and implemented are still to be negotiated which will take some time, so nothing will happen instantly.
The DfT proposals generally align with those developed by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The general principle is that (for those operating outside the framework of an established model flying association) the regulations for unmanned aircraft will be more restrictive than those currently in place with additional requirements for training, registration and a 400ft/120m height limit. This is comparable with the ‘Open Category’ requirements proposed by EASA.
Within the EASA proposals, established model flying associations would operate within the ‘Specific Category’ under an authorisation granted by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) which would essentially allow us to operate as we do today. The DfT’s proposals do not change this. Essentially, the CAA would issue us with an authorisation (or exemption) defining our agreed operating parameters which would reflect how we operate today (including operations above 400ft/120m).
In terms of registration requirements, we maintain the position that membership of one of the UK’s established model flying associations provides an appropriate form of ‘registration’ and the DfT/CAA remain amenable to this option as referred to in the publication:
“The Government will work with model aircraft flying clubs to examine ways in which it may be possible to exempt members of model aircraft flying clubs with adequate safety cultures and practices from certain elements of registration and other educational requirements, or where their club will be permitted to undertake regulatory requirements on their behalf. Flyers of model aircraft who are not members of a club, or are members of a club not deemed to have adequate standards will, however, not be excluded from registration or other requirements.”
Negotiations are continuing with the DfT/CAA on a positive basis, to try and ensure that we are allowed to operate largely as we do today and keep the impact of regulations written principally to deal with the ‘drone issue’ to a minimum for UK model flyers.
Dave Phipps
CEO
So, there really is no need to panic, the sky isn't falling in and we can still fly as normal.
Would I suggest joining the BMFA and an affiliated club? Yes, absolutely. The membership fees (£35) include public liability insurance. Prices to join local clubs vary but you will get access to their flying site, benefit from the knowledge of experienced model flyers and take part in the (free) BMFA achievement schemes which are flying/education certificates and which carry the same weight as the commercial drone NQE courses (about £1000 now) do when it comes to applying for commercial permission with the CAA
The Department for Transport (DfT) has now published the outcome of their consultation on the safe use of drones in the UK. The document can be viewed here: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...e-of-drones-in-the-uk-government-response.pdf
The document has evidently caused some concern within the model flying community and has set some ‘hares running’. As such, I thought that it would be useful to comment on the DfT publication and clarify the situation.
The DfT document sets out their thoughts on the basic plan for the future regulation of unmanned aircraft in the UK. However, the details of how any new regulations will be developed and implemented are still to be negotiated which will take some time, so nothing will happen instantly.
The DfT proposals generally align with those developed by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA). The general principle is that (for those operating outside the framework of an established model flying association) the regulations for unmanned aircraft will be more restrictive than those currently in place with additional requirements for training, registration and a 400ft/120m height limit. This is comparable with the ‘Open Category’ requirements proposed by EASA.
Within the EASA proposals, established model flying associations would operate within the ‘Specific Category’ under an authorisation granted by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) which would essentially allow us to operate as we do today. The DfT’s proposals do not change this. Essentially, the CAA would issue us with an authorisation (or exemption) defining our agreed operating parameters which would reflect how we operate today (including operations above 400ft/120m).
In terms of registration requirements, we maintain the position that membership of one of the UK’s established model flying associations provides an appropriate form of ‘registration’ and the DfT/CAA remain amenable to this option as referred to in the publication:
“The Government will work with model aircraft flying clubs to examine ways in which it may be possible to exempt members of model aircraft flying clubs with adequate safety cultures and practices from certain elements of registration and other educational requirements, or where their club will be permitted to undertake regulatory requirements on their behalf. Flyers of model aircraft who are not members of a club, or are members of a club not deemed to have adequate standards will, however, not be excluded from registration or other requirements.”
Negotiations are continuing with the DfT/CAA on a positive basis, to try and ensure that we are allowed to operate largely as we do today and keep the impact of regulations written principally to deal with the ‘drone issue’ to a minimum for UK model flyers.
Dave Phipps
CEO
So, there really is no need to panic, the sky isn't falling in and we can still fly as normal.
Would I suggest joining the BMFA and an affiliated club? Yes, absolutely. The membership fees (£35) include public liability insurance. Prices to join local clubs vary but you will get access to their flying site, benefit from the knowledge of experienced model flyers and take part in the (free) BMFA achievement schemes which are flying/education certificates and which carry the same weight as the commercial drone NQE courses (about £1000 now) do when it comes to applying for commercial permission with the CAA
You might like to have a read of this ......from the "horses mouth" Drones to be registered and users to sit safety tests under new government rules - GOV.UK - theres a 65page pdf as well ... HERE
I have read it and if you read the other links (including the consultation PDF) you'll find that it's all still going to be debated at some time in the future
What I did amazing is that despite this consultation being shared on every web site and facebook group is how few people bothered to comment or get involved - just over 500 from individuals.
This kind of apathgy will allow the authorities to do just what they want - any future complaints can be answered with a a simple 'you had your chance and couldn't be bothered'
You should read that PDF, rather than just telling other people to - everything still has to be debated in parliament and that will not happen until other documents and reports are in place.
Last edited:
I have read this fully - but true it will take a time to finally iron out...plus all drone pilots should also be forced to have 3rd part insurance as well... , being qualified, and registered already.
I have read this fully - but it will take a time to finally iron out...plus all drone pilots should also be forced to have 3rd part insurance as well... , being qualified, and CAA registered already.
I fully agree - I also think that more should join the BMFA/local flying clubs - that satisfies all the requirements and (until they change things) you can qualify for your PFCO without spending stupid amounts of money
If you have/get something like a BMFA (A) helicopter rating and have a few hours of flightlog data from your DJI app your well on the way.
You also qualify if you pass the Multi Rotor BPC. No need for the DJI app (although it's useful) for flight logs - individuals are allowed to self certify their hours
You can indeed ... and the app is a lot easier than the clipboard and note book way .... both are the best way. Document all aspects of your flights/equipment/batteries, keep the records.
Last edited:
Similar threads
