UK "Drone" registration on the way?

[llewop]

Evanivitch said:

With a transmission range of a few miles, how do you trace who the owner is of an intercepted drone?

unfortunately that is the fundamental problem; responsible users will not operate them in risk areas, the idiots and worse will do so; using unregistered drones and control points that can't be found easily. I was amazed that the idea of geo-fencing prisons to stop smuggling would tell the drone to 'go home', surely better to redirect it to 'come here' so the drone and contents can be seized? At least then you deprive them of their drone and whatever it was carrying.

Having said that, I have my doubts the geo-fencing will be effective and even if it is, not sure how easy it would be to take over control of a drone, either to send it home or somewhere else!?

[Murph7355]

Just shoot it down. Easy.

Or get the eagle to bring it back.

Won't stop miscreants but removes their toy.

[Mastodon2]

I'm all for this. I haven't yet been subject to people looking in my garden but it does seem to be a more and more regular thing that they are being used irresponsibly. Sadly probably a case of the minority spoiling it for the majority, but the drone "community" seems to have been unable to persuade people not to fly these things in a dangerous fashion or in unsuitable areas and with their failure to self-regulate, it seems that the government will have to intervene. No doubt there will be some wailing and screeching from drone "pilots" or whatever they call themselves, but they should have really had a look at themselves before it reached this stage.

[jonnyb]

This is from the latest BALPA news letter, It makes rather alarming reading if your a pilot carrying 300+ people.

[justinio]

jonnyb said:

This is from the latest BALPA news letter, It makes rather alarming reading if your a pilot carrying 300+ people.

No more so than a mute swan or canada goose.

But then there are too many prats out there that think they can do whatever they want, whenever they want. Not just limited to drones unfortunately.

[Coolbanana]

terrydacktal said:

I think it's a great idea. Drone owners, on the whole, seem to be a certain type and registration would hopefully make them at least think about their selfishness a bit.

I'm 100% behind registration but your comment denigrating Drone owners "on the whole" as being a "certain type" merely serves to demonstrate that you are an ignorant bigot with an inferiority complex and quite possibly a rather unsightly mole on his nose and a painful wart on his bum.

[limpsfield]

Dash Cammers of the skies

[Evanivitch]

Murph7355 said:

Just shoot it down. Easy.

Or get the eagle to bring it back.

Won't stop miscreants but removes their toy.

Shoot it down with what? We haven't the marksman or the falconers to cover that many locations.


I sympathize with hobbyist drone operators, I don't generally support government encroachment. But I'm struggling to see what the alternative can be given the vast availability and potential sites that need to be protected.

[jonnyb]

justinio said:

jonnyb said:

This is from the latest BALPA news letter, It makes rather alarming reading if your a pilot carrying 300+ people.

No more so than a mute swan or canada goose.

But then there are too many prats out there that think they can do whatever they want, whenever they want. Not just limited to drones unfortunately.

Not quite the same. Birds wouldn't penetrate the windows at these speeds. This was done at normal initial approach speeds.

[scrw.]

So would all the people who accept this is a good solution be happy to have a gps speed controller installed on their cars? Its the same blunt solution, as a result of a minority not towing the line. FYI I am insured and follow the caa drone code, which is more restrictive that flying my none "drone" r/c stuff.

[Murph7355]

Evanivitch said:

Murph7355 said:

Just shoot it down. Easy.

Or get the eagle to bring it back.

Won't stop miscreants but removes their toy.

Shoot it down with what? We haven't the marksman or the falconers to cover that many locations.


I sympathize with hobbyist drone operators, I don't generally support government encroachment. But I'm struggling to see what the alternative can be given the vast availability and potential sites that need to be protected.

This is what I mentioned earlier. Get our military might onto it. It cannot be too hard to make killer drones to patrol the perimeters of protected airspace against them, and would be fun doing so

(I sense a business opportunity).

[Evanivitch]

scrw. said:

So would all the people who accept this is a good solution be happy to have a gps speed controller installed on their cars? Its the same blunt solution, as a result of a minority not towing the line. FYI I am insured and follow the caa drone code, which is more restrictive that flying my none "drone" r/c stuff.

Eh? If you want to draw parallels then there would be a lot more legislation surrounding small aerial systems before they even came close to cars.

Car drivers must pass a test and be licensed. Cars are registered and insured.

No one is suggesting live monitoring of SAS, just that they are properly operated.

[scrw.]

Its not a manageable solution though, tossers will still do what they feel like and people following the current guidelines will be penalised

[djc206]

scrw. said:

Its not a manageable solution though, tossers will still do what they feel like and people following the current guidelines will be penalised

How is that any different to motoring or gun ownership? It's tough luck. Like you said people can't be trusted.

No one is really being penalised by the proposal are they? They just have to prove they know the rules in the same way that drivers have to sit a theory test. It's a minor inconvenience at most.

[Evanivitch]

scrw. said:

Its not a manageable solution though, tossers will still do what they feel like and people following the current guidelines will be penalised

And those that are tossers now and continue to be tossers can now be traced, prosecuted and prevented from repeating.

Currently, the chances of catching a drone operator is slim unless they put a Return to Sender note on their device.

Those following the current guidelines will be inconvenienced initially,but otherwise business as usual.

[anonymous-user]

scrw. said:

Its not a manageable solution though, tossers will still do what they feel like and people following the current guidelines will be penalised

As manageable as anything else, and overdue IMO.

[terrydacktal]

Coolbanana said:

terrydacktal said:

I think it's a great idea. Drone owners, on the whole, seem to be a certain type and registration would hopefully make them at least think about their selfishness a bit.

I'm 100% behind registration but your comment denigrating Drone owners "on the whole" as being a "certain type" merely serves to demonstrate that you are an ignorant bigot with an inferiority complex and quite possibly a rather unsightly mole on his nose and a painful wart on his bum.

A lovely personal attack there rather than actually attempting any debate of the point. As such, I have no interest in discussing anything further with you.

I don't think my point need expanding on but for the hard of thinking - drone tend to be intrusive, impolite, dangerous and, certainly in suburban areas, pointless.

I completely understand their usage in rural areas for photography etc by the way.

[untakenname]

I've been into drones nearly a decade now and have seen them progress from niche DIY stuff you'd have to source online and spend an age building /calibrating to being able to go down to Maplins and get a RTF off the shelf, sadly the availability and ease of use has allowed imbeciles to own them and thus ruin it for those who have common sense.

Reading the proposals it seems that the government is under the impression that geofencing will be included and enabled in all drones which is just wishful thinking especially when it comes to the global online marketplace.

Unless the penalties are severe I don't think they are going to stop criminals using them for nefarious purposes like smuggling class A drugs into prisons but it may deter people who hook the fpv feed up to the reversing camera in their cars and then use a drone as a spotting device to enable some sideways fun on empty roundabouts on industrial estates.

[scrw.]

Evanivitch said:

And those that are tossers now and continue to be tossers can now be traced, prosecuted and prevented from repeating.

Currently, the chances of catching a drone operator is slim unless they put a Return to Sender note on their device.

Those following the current guidelines will be inconvenienced initially,but otherwise business as usual.

How will that happen though? Likelyhood of a scrote who wants to get drugs into a prison or any other ilegal activity registering is zero, hence not actually useful. It like asking someone to register an ilegal firearm. Registering at the shop won't work when you can buy over the internet

[rscott]

scrw. said:

Evanivitch said:

And those that are tossers now and continue to be tossers can now be traced, prosecuted and prevented from repeating.

Currently, the chances of catching a drone operator is slim unless they put a Return to Sender note on their device.

Those following the current guidelines will be inconvenienced initially,but otherwise business as usual.

How will that happen though? Likelyhood of a scrote who wants to get drugs into a prison or any other ilegal activity registering is zero, hence not actually useful. It like asking someone to register an ilegal firearm. Registering at the shop won't work when you can buy over the internet

Exactly right. I could buy a drone over the net from China which won't have any of the geoblocking code in it, nor will I need to register it.
Even if it did have geoblocking, many of the flight controllers are open source so it's easy to load code without it.

It's another utterly stupid idea which will waste money and achieve nothing, just like May's plans for a Chinese style internet.