UK drone law.. Just about money.. Heres why

[Neon Euc]

So the UK government pigs want us to "register" our drones. Is it to make people safer from our hobby? Nope.... Its because its an idea to get money. They get money from cars, bikes, planes, etc... With drones there are no profits to be made. Sure... They get a cut on the purchase of a drone from the shops. But....

If you buy it as an import with free shipping... The government gets nothing. And lets look at another section on this "register" they want us to do.

Let's say it gets the go ahead. We all register, we all fly within the code. Does that make it any safer? Well.... No actually. How many drones have malfunctioned and fell out of the sky due to hardware failure? Quite a lot. So the register makes no difference at all... Oh.. Apart from the government. And you know whats coming next don't you if this gets the go ahead?

Adverts... Lots and lots of "have you had a drone fall on you, been hurt by a drone, want to sue the crap out of the drone owner" law adverts on our TV. All this will be possible now. And guess what.. That means more money for the government. Your thoughts on this guys?

 

[mark99]

I dont think the average Joe understands "registration"
It is a legal term of a language known as legalese .
When you enter registration if it requires a wet ink signature then it is quite a serious thing.
You drone now belongs to who you register it to and you become a keeper, a trusted party to look after it .
break the conditions and the registrar can confiscate it back or they can use their agents (the police) to take it from you.

They want ownership and the want to be able to see who was flying where, DJI will provide this data to them by one mouse click.

They are afraid of flying cameras and now zoom cameras look to be next on consumer drones they want a stop on it.
Model aircraft have flown for decades and they could not care less, but with HD cameras fitted, they are scared half to death.
The Grenfel tower fire has alerted them to just how a "story and cover up" could be busted wide open by one picture.
They want control, and they want it quickly.

You see if the form requires a wet signature like your V5 car log book does and you will soon see that this is not some tin foil hat conspiracy .

 

[GMack]

I agree that regulations are a big money maker, aside from the regulation being some feather in the cap of the bureaucrat that created it for their own notoriety.

If I go into a forest and decide to take a picture of some famous tree to sell it to a travel mag for maybe $100, the lunacy that revolves around it all to do it legally since it falls under "Commercial, and therefore needing a permit" is absurd. Forest Service gets about $240 for a permit and non-refundable. Then you need a $2-$4 million liability signed over to them and the ACORD paperwork from the insurance agency. Then you need to deal with the locales business licensing fee. If you park along the road built in the forest, then that County's Roads Dept. wants maybe $1,600 to park your car in a pullout (Where anyone else can park for free!) since they built the road and not the forest service. If other people are involved (Models, assistants, etc.), you may have to haul in porta-potties to the location and then pay to have them pumped out before than can be hauled back out on the road. They'll assign some wildlife bio or ranger person to you as a monitor for $85/hr. too. So figure out your $100 tree shot to your pocket could cost you $3,000 out of it for a few hours. Put a drone in the mix and it might double with the service's aircraft stipulations. Every agency can get into your permit for cash and if you ever have filled in a permit, you'd be shocked at the others who are in on it and get added in. Given the others who get mixed in and you can see why it takes weeks to months at times to get a permit and not hours.

No wonder people fly on the sly. Costs are absurd, and then they make up more laws against them as "No one pays any attention to our drone laws, so will create some more laws and make everything a NFZ unless you pay us." Hence the "See a drone? Call the cops!" signs near the Golden Gate Bridge in San Fran.

Fwiw, my younger sister and her husband are wildlife bio's (i.e. Bug cops.) with the Nat. Parks Service. Her rationale eludes me much of the time when we get into arguments like "A drone creates undue stress for the reptile on the ground who may think of it as a bird of prey. They need to be banned for their preservation." Etc. Heck, I get a sermon from her if I swat a fly as "It upset the balance of nature so I prefer you catch and release it to the outdoors." You can't win with them as they will always make up something to get their way and attach a fine for breaking their rules too, but you can buy them off if you pay them enough for a permit for a flight.

 

[GMack]

...
They are afraid of flying cameras and now zoom cameras look to be next on consumer drones they want a stop on it.
Model aircraft have flown for decades and they could not care less, but with HD cameras fitted, they are scared half to death.
...

Exactly!

One AMA field has a blanket ban on drones as it is near a lake and drone fliers were chasing water skiers around and the Parks Dept. decided to ban them. They put up a sign not to cross the road to the lake but the drone fliers ignored it and kept annoying the water skiers and boaters to get close-up and personal. Since the Parks Dept. owns the lease of the flying field, they went after the president of the AMA club there to ban them and he has or they'd lose their lease.

Odd part was the field is on a bluff and has a sailplane and glider launch towards the lake. When I asked "Doesn't the Parks Dept. complain about that?" Answer was "Sailplanes and gliders don't have cameras so they don't bother them" (Even though some do).

 

[mark99]

DJI spokesman Adam Lisberg said the plans sounded like "reasonable common sense".
Drone maker DJI said it was in favour of the measures.
This company is on the wrong side and needs to learn who is keeping it in business.

Governments want a worldwide ban and as quickly as they can walk towards one.
DJI is dancing on the gallows here.

 

[GMack]

I wish cities had some of the rationale that Arizona has with a lot of city parks in that state where they allow drones and have maps posted where one can fly legally. These city-wide "No drones in our parks" restrictions will force flying in neighborhoods where the bureaucrats will get complaints and enact more restrictions against their use.

Ask your local city where you can fly at legally and maybe practice for your 107 license (Even though they don't require it yet.) and see what they say. Probably "No where" which results in more illegal flights in their eyes, and subsequent more restrictions until they are banned entirely. Open up some fields in unused football or soccer areas during off use for practice flying.

 

[N017RW]

DJI spokesman Adam Lisberg said the plans sounded like "reasonable common sense".
Drone maker DJI said it was in favour of the measures.
This company is on the wrong side and needs to learn who is keeping it in business.

Governments want a worldwide ban and as quickly as they can walk towards one.
DJI is dancing on the gallows here.

Other than the bolded text, I can't see any truth in your post.

No matter what DJI does folks have predicted their failure for years, years. Yet they continue to grow.

I'm open minded, where's the proof of the next to last sentence?

My experiece- our city's Manager and Council opposed (prevented) a city-wide proposed ban by the Park & Rec. Director.

 

[BCBasher]

Of course it is, it'll be like the Canadian gun registry. Scare the law abiding users out of a "registration fee", drag it out as long as possible and bleed lawful users until it's proven the system is doing nothing to stop the people who were using the thing unlawfully, "scrap it", no refunds, lol.