UK To Require Drone Registration And Safety Exams (bloomberg.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK To Require Drone Registration And Safety Exams (bloomberg.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on Sunday July 23, 2017 @07:10AM from the flight-plans dept.

An anonymous reader quotes Bloomberg: Drones will have to be registered and their users required to pass safety tests under new rules to be announced by the U.K.'s Department for Transport... Registration will be mandated for owners of drones 250 grams (8.8 ounces) or larger after research found that drones as small as 400 grams (14 ounces) could damage the windscreens of helicopters. Other security measures like "geo-fencing" -- GPS-based technology programmed into drones to prevent them from flying into sensitive areas such as prisons and airports -- are also under consideration, according to a statement from the department.
The BBC points out that "There is no time frame or firm plans as to how the new rules will be enforced and the Department of Transport admitted that 'the nuts and bolts still have to be ironed out.'"

"The UK government says 22 incidents involving commercial airliners and drones were investigated between January and April of this year," adds TechRadar, "with police unable to trace the owners of the drones -- one of the reasons for the new legislation."

18 of 97 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Be careful by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 07:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Mandatory registration is usually the first step toward criminalization.
1. Re:Be careful by jareth-0205 · 2017-07-23 07:49 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Mandatory registration is usually the first step toward criminalization.
  Eh? We do registration and licencing for cars/driving, and there's a fairly clear parallel here. Unless you think driving licences are an unacceptable curtailment of your freedom, I can't get worked up about this. There's plenty of terrible things that the government are doing to rile against, this isn't one.
2. Re:Be careful by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 07:56 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Step away from the bong, dude. You've had enough already.
  You already have a driver('s) license, and your automobile already has a government issued tag that requires periodic inspection, and you're required to purchase insurance for damage that your vehicle may cause whether you're behind the wheel or not. Aside from the "self-driving cars are going to take our freedomz!" nut-jobs, nobody's claiming that they're going to criminalize driving. (When level 5 self-driving cars are mainstream, it'll just cost you an arm and a leg to insure your personal "human operated" automobile.)
  Drones are a legitimate threat to public safety. Mandatory registration is a first step towards accountability for damages, and it will make it easier to file civil and criminal charges against negligent drone owners / operators. As long as you follow the rules, nobody's coming for your drone.
3. Re:Be careful by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · 2017-07-23 08:48 · Score: 2
  
  Agreed. If anything, this change is well overdue. Unfortunately, there is plenty of evidence that a significant number of people buying drones don't know the legal rules for operating them and are doing so in ways that are dangerous, invade people's privacy, etc.
  Given that there have already been multiple near-miss incidents close to major airports, for example, it's obvious that we've basically just been lucky so far, and the consequences when that luck runs out will be very bad.
  
  --
  If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
4. Re:Be careful by ColdWetDog · 2017-07-23 10:00 · Score: 2
  
  Given that there have already been multiple near-miss incidents close to major airports, for example, it's obvious that we've basically just been lucky so far, and the consequences when that luck runs out will be very bad.
  While I agree that licensing of drone pilots is a Good Thing, let's not get carried away. The risk to the airspace from consumer level drones is real, in reality pretty modest and certainly not to the point of 'multiple near-miss incidents close to major airports'. The actual number of real UAV incursions into the airspace is pretty low. There are lots of 'sightings' and 'incidents' which typically are ludicrous on their face (altitude 10000 feet, 4 foot diameter object, speeds over 100 mph) or just reported with insufficient information (the 'plastic bag' incident at Heathrow last year as an example).
  UAVs are capable of intersecting other aircraft and therefore are appropriately regulated, but we can leave the Sturm Und Drang to the Kardashians.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
5. Re:Be careful by BlueStrat · 2017-07-23 15:21 · Score: 2
  
  Seriously, though get over your meme-centered life, and recognize that people do have problems with the operation of drones, and addressing them is going to lead to some restrictions.
  Why? Because crying "freedom" over being an ass makes a fool out of you.
  Yes, because making *another* law to make something that's already illegal...illegal...makes perfect sense. /s
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
6. Re:Be careful by CaptQuark · 2017-07-23 18:25 · Score: 2
  
  Step away from the bong, dude. Drones are a legitimate threat to public safety.
  B.S. The word "Drones" is a catch-all word that can mean anything from a nano-quadcopter the size of a beer coaster to a 5-foot octocopter big enough to lift a person. It also refers to autonomous fixed-wing aircraft. Just because someone labels something a Drone doesn't make it dangerous.
  
  A multi-rotor helicopter that weighs 8 oz is no more dangerous than a Frisbee.
  
  ---
7. Re:Be careful by MercTech · 2017-07-24 05:27 · Score: 2
  
  Hobby drones do not have to be registered. Hobby drones have limits on weight, payload capacity, cannot be flown over another person's property without permission, and are not allowed to be flown in public areas where people congregate or out of sight of the operator. Hobby drones may not be used for commercial purposes. See https://www.faa.gov/uas/ for actual regulations and training requirements.
  Any drone that you want to operate out of sight of the operator, carry a decent payload, actually be useful; must be registered and licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration in the U.S. This is required for the public safety.
  Do you really want a bozo flown drone buzzing the airport and taking out a passenger aircraft? To be a licensed drone operator, among other things, you have to pass the equivalent of the Civil Aviation ground school where you learn where it is legal to fly and who needs to be notified of flight paths and height restrictions on the operation of a drone. There are already several precedents in case law confirming that if someone flies a drone over your property without permission you are within your rights to take down the drone. Nope, your teenage daughter can't be drone perved while sunbathing in the back yard without legal recourse.
  
  --
  NRRPT/RCT
Re:A knife is dangerous.. by jareth-0205 · 2017-07-23 07:52 · Score: 2

You also aren't permitted to carry more than a small pocket knife unless you have a good reason (eg you just bought it, you're transporting it, etc). So while you don't have to register it, there are laws against just keeping dangerous items around.
"drones" by YrWrstNtmr · 2017-07-23 08:01 · Score: 2

AKA "toy RC aircraft".
Why was this not required before?
1. Re:"drones" by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 08:27 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Because in the past, before stabilization controllers became cheap and common place, it took a great deal of skill to fly an RC aircraft.
  It cost hundreds of dollars for a machine capable of flying anywhere near high enough to bother anyone or anything. Unless you were a skilled pilot or in some sort of club with a simulator, you would probably wreck one before even getting it off the ground. Thus breaking your hundred dollar toy in seconds.
  Thus the only, small number of people capable of flying RC planes were typically those that respect the hobby, aircraft, etc. They were knowledgeable, talented, skilled, and many times wealthy/educated type of folks.
  With gryo sensors, cheap micro controllers, etc, RC Helicopters IE Drones allowed every day Joe to fly an RC craft with very little risk of wrecking it. There is very little risk of it becoming a money sink due to lack of talent. This opens the door to snot head punks kids, frat boys, and every other kind of low life scum being able to fly these things. Which is why now we're at the point of registering them.
  It's the same thing with cars really. As they became cheaper, more reliable, and easier to use, more people used them. And as less able people used them, there came the need to hold people responsible for their stupidity.
2. Re:"drones" by serviscope_minor · 2017-07-23 08:40 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Why was this not required before?
  Most legislatures don't sit around thinking up new laws in a vacuum, they are on the whole pretty reactive not proactive.
  So, essentially the advent of cheap, high capacity, high power li-po batteries for the power supply, high strength neodynium magnets and amazing MOSFETS for power control, remarkably good, cheap 9 axis IMU chips (3mm by 3mm) and cheap 2.4GHz radio comms have made making plug-and-play drones viable. CPU power hasn't had much to do with it, you can run the control loops on a couple of ATMegas.
  But the point is these things are (a) very cheap and (b) fly themselves for everything but direction (even that if they also have GPS).
  Previously, RC planes were (and still are) much, much more expensive, much more specialist bits of kit. They required many many months of dedication, lots of money, and nice big wide open spaces and the sort of user community of knowledgeable people who would tell you how to get going. Helicopters were that times about 20. Phenomenally hard to fly, experts only.
  Now any idiot can go to maplin, buy a drone and be flying it where they want in the time taken to unbox it and charge the batteries. So, it's gone from "expert only" to "any idiot can do it" and so many idiots are doing it.
  Previously the RC aircraft community was very small and very well behaved. Now it is large, and with enough ill behaviour that it's attracted the notice of the MPs.
  Kinda means the system works.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
Re: A knife is dangerous.. by Anonymous Coward · 2017-07-23 08:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why does Vermont, with no gun controls, have a lower murder rate?
Why does Venezuela, with a total gun prohibition, have some of the worlds highest murder rates?
Re:Don't worry... by CanadianMacFan · 2017-07-23 08:30 · Score: 2

Well if people weren't idiots when flying them then we wouldn't need to have to get registered and have laws in place. Governments are almost always reactive. They are writing these laws because people are flying drones into the flightpaths of planes (which even if it doesn't cause harm to the plane it causes the pilots to react), using drones to deliver contraband into prison areas, and generally fly them into areas where they shouldn't.
There are plenty of people that are using them responsibly. However enough of the people aren't that the governments feel that they needs to step in. All it will do is take away the excuse that people didn't know but won't stop them from behaving like idiots, like driving.
Re:Geofencing by NewtonsLaw · 2017-07-23 10:05 · Score: 2

Regulators are *way* out of their depth on this issue.
Firstly, there are already regulations in place that make it illegal to endanger person or property using a drone. With this in mind therefore, those who *do* endanger person or property are obviously doing so out of ignorance or arrogance.
Just making more regulations does *nothing* to address ignorance or arrogance so it shows a lack of intelligence on the part of regulators.
What is needed is:
1. education (this addresses the issue of ignorance)
2. enforcement (this addresses the issue of arrogance).
Simply expecting that by making more regulation, those who are presently unaware of the regs or who choose to thumb their nose at them, will change their behavior is an incredibly naive perspective.
In the case of drones, the regulators are operating from their own position of ignorance. They are not au-fait with the technology or the culture and therefore they are trying to solve symptoms not causes.
The very first thing the regulators need to do is to draw a distinction between the idiot-droners (ie: those who buy a GPS-assisted camera drone from eBay and go fly it at the airport) and the responsible and traditional model fliers who have been safely flying remotely controlled aircraft, helicopters and multirotors for many decades. Without drawing this distinction, any regulation will be excessively punitive to the responsible fliers whilst having little effect on the idiot-droners.
It strikes me that the bureaucrats working on drone rules are more interested in "being seen to do something" rather than coming up with fair, reasonable, effective, workable solutions to the problem.
Let's remind ourselves of one very small but important fact when putting the drone issue into perspective:
Never, at any time, anywhere in the world, has a recreational multirotor drone been responsible for a single human death.
Compare that with other items which are not required to be registered and require no qualification to own or use but which have been responsible for countless deaths: knives, bats, bicycles, alcohol, tobacco, etc.
Surely there are much bigger problems worthy of the attention of regulators than some innocent RC model fliers?
I did a video rant on this for anyone who might be interested or who wants to put a face to this post: VLog on UK drone rule changes.
Re:Geofencing by zippthorne · 2017-07-23 10:47 · Score: 2

Frankly, I'm suspicious of even the numbers. Firstly, 22 incidents over a four month period in a country of 60 million doesn't seem like very much, but I'm even suspicious of that number. Is there actual evidence in 22 cases of drone involvement, or is it more like 22 cases of a pilot "seeing something whiz by fast" and calling it a drone instead of a goose.

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re: A knife is dangerous.. by quenda · 2017-07-23 19:09 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why does Vermont, with no gun controls, have a lower murder rate?
Actually, for a rural white state, the murder rate in Vermont is high. It is comparable to some of the more violent European countries such as France, which are plagued with urban decay, ethic violence and terrorism.
But the obvious answer is that states with more gun crime introduce stronger gun control. Is it not obvious? You have the causation backwards.
Re:Don't worry... by jabuzz · 2017-07-23 21:30 · Score: 2

Anyone driving on the right is doing so at the behest of Maximilien Robespierre. Well it is a product of the French Revolution where peasants walked on the right and the aristocrats drove their coaches on the left (you always walk on the opposite to the vehicular traffic). As such driving on the left was a quick way to get yourself identified as an aristocrat and your head chopped off. This convention was then spread by Napoleon. The British Isles, and much of the empire spared this tyranny kept to the left as had been the convention since antiquity.