There are no "global" changes planned since there is no global authority. As more moronic drone operators get drones I'm sure more restrictions will be put in place but hopefully there will be exemptions (as there are now in the US) for licensed operators. Iceland really clamped down due to the stupidity of tourists and this last trip I saw quite a change in the amount of drones flying which was a good thing to see. The vast majority of operators had virtually no idea of what being a responsible drone operator was all about. The reckless way they were flying which I witnessed would have precluded any descent photography or video. They were flying as if it was an aerobatic competition.
Future UAV Regulations, Restrictions - Be Aware
- Thread starter Mickeyboo
- Start date
According to my research, there are regulatory changes coming around the globe but they aren't global changes. Yuneec and others will have to produce different versions of their firmware for each regional or national authority.
I don't think the US regs are anywhere near settled yet - as this late 2017 news story indicates.
And having been temporarily withdrawn, I gather that the 2015 Drone Safety Act is back in play - and especially
"SEC. 3. SAFETY REQUIREMENTS FOR MANUFACTURERS OF CONSUMER DRONES" which includes the requirement for tamper-proof built-in safety measures.
PatR
Premium Pilot
YuKay,
U.S. regs won't be settled for another 5 years yet. Too many corporate board rooms involved in formulating the desired rules, and none of them can make decisions influencing their own corporate policies in less than a year or two. Put one CEO in a meeting and you will obtain actionable decisions. Put two or more in a meeting and all you get is a long series of meetings where nobody will ever agree, especially when the outcome will establish who ends up with most of the revenue stream. Toss our FAA into the mix and that problem gets worse by orders of magnitude.
U.S. regs won't be settled for another 5 years yet. Too many corporate board rooms involved in formulating the desired rules, and none of them can make decisions influencing their own corporate policies in less than a year or two. Put one CEO in a meeting and you will obtain actionable decisions. Put two or more in a meeting and all you get is a long series of meetings where nobody will ever agree, especially when the outcome will establish who ends up with most of the revenue stream. Toss our FAA into the mix and that problem gets worse by orders of magnitude.
Last edited:
PatR
Premium Pilot
I think it was Six Sigma that published a maximum effective size for a working group. The number was in the single digits.
This recent (UK) public opinion survey shows that the vast majority is in favour of drone regulation. Politicians will doubtless oblige rather than lose votes.
PatR
Premium Pilot
The media has been quite extensively used to shape public opinion. Funny it was used in the same manner to generate approval for government drone use. We stood by as a group and did nothing to refute gross reporting inaccuracies and are beginning to reap the rewards of our avoidance.
Last edited:
I actually did not and have not stood by to let an uninformed media and public direct the use and information of drones. I spoke to several organizations in my home town a few years ago. Groups like Rotary etc. to show them what a marvelous tool drones could be when used safely. The response was overwhelmingly positive. I did something for the local police chief for recruitment using a drone and he became an advocate. I've done untold local television interviews and presentations for media representatives. I recently informed two city council members that their idea of local police giving citations for improper drone use was something the FAA would frown upon and directed them to documents which would provide them more information. In the classes I teach I stress the importance of safe operation because unsafe operators may result in the banning or curtailing of drone use. Probably the most important thing I do is always try and operate the drone in a courteous manner when people who may become annoyed with drones are in the vicinity and I take the time to patiently interact with them to answer their questions and concerns. I only mention this not because I'm touting my behavior but because I think we obviously need to take a proactive stance instead of whining and letting control slip into the hands of people who know little or nothing about drones.
As for professional VS amateur drones I've found that in most cases it's the end user and their creative abilities which determines whether the devices they are using are professional or amateur and by what they can produce with that device and not how the manufacturers label it. An old girlfriend in college wrote her PHD thesis entitled Reel Families which dealt with what sort of elements go into the distinction between professional and amateur. For me it's as simple as a device which generates revenue is professional and a device which does not is amateur.
As for professional VS amateur drones I've found that in most cases it's the end user and their creative abilities which determines whether the devices they are using are professional or amateur and by what they can produce with that device and not how the manufacturers label it. An old girlfriend in college wrote her PHD thesis entitled Reel Families which dealt with what sort of elements go into the distinction between professional and amateur. For me it's as simple as a device which generates revenue is professional and a device which does not is amateur.
Good on you; but even if there were one of you in every community (which there isn't), you wouldn't be able to reach out to all the drone operators. And the regulators don't seem to be in the mood to leave education/training to chance.
Of course, politically, it isn't drone owners who need to be educated - it's the non-owners, who are the vast majority and have the most votes. And however much you may educate non-owners, I think the majority would still be pro-regulation. Perhaps not too many folk are worried about their physical safety but it seems a perfectly natural response to be concerned about privacy and noise.
Even as a drone owner, I would vote in favour of regulations which prevent drones from spying on me or ruining my Sunday afternoon siesta in the back yard. And neither I, nor I suspect, the majority, would ever trust all drone pilots to fly considerately or within unenforced guidelines.
With the growth in drone use, governments are also naturally increasingly concerned about security, crowd safety, property ownership rights, etc. They have obviously been talked out of compulsory drone training by the manufacturers and by their own treasury officials who would lose a lot if the booming consumer drone market were diminished by red tape.
The alternative seems to be to build tamper-proof safety measures into every drone which isn't a child's toy. This will ensure an enforced level of safety out of the box and they will then deactivate the safety measures for commercial operators who apply for permits. That way, they only have to deal with the 5% (?) who fly commercially rather than the 95% who will have been covered by the built-in safety features.
Of course, politically, it isn't drone owners who need to be educated - it's the non-owners, who are the vast majority and have the most votes. And however much you may educate non-owners, I think the majority would still be pro-regulation. Perhaps not too many folk are worried about their physical safety but it seems a perfectly natural response to be concerned about privacy and noise.
Even as a drone owner, I would vote in favour of regulations which prevent drones from spying on me or ruining my Sunday afternoon siesta in the back yard. And neither I, nor I suspect, the majority, would ever trust all drone pilots to fly considerately or within unenforced guidelines.
With the growth in drone use, governments are also naturally increasingly concerned about security, crowd safety, property ownership rights, etc. They have obviously been talked out of compulsory drone training by the manufacturers and by their own treasury officials who would lose a lot if the booming consumer drone market were diminished by red tape.
The alternative seems to be to build tamper-proof safety measures into every drone which isn't a child's toy. This will ensure an enforced level of safety out of the box and they will then deactivate the safety measures for commercial operators who apply for permits. That way, they only have to deal with the 5% (?) who fly commercially rather than the 95% who will have been covered by the built-in safety features.
I did not mean to give anyone the impression I was not in favour of regulation. I'm in favour of it but by people who understand what they are talking about. (Naive perhaps) I think the aspect of drones which most non flyers find objectionable is the feeling that their privacy is being invaded. When I'm involved with a discussion like that I try and explain the limitations of cameras and that cell phones are much more of a threat with regard to privacy matters. The other issue is their noise, most of the photography or video I shoot with them is done in quiet pristine places where people go to escape noise...I'm pleased the industry recognises this and is making quieter machines and when I see people nearby I ask if this bothers them if it does I'll land until they leave the area.
PatR
Premium Pilot
Mickey,
The actions you and a few others have taken to better educate the public and civil organizations is why I stated "stood by as a group" instead of stating we've ignored the issue entirely. Some have done much, some have done something but not as much, but most have done nothing. They've been too distracted arguing which brand or model is best, which worked great from a brand recognition perspective but has been a disaster where future and continued use opportunities are concerned.
The problem going forward is that the public has been bombarded by media stories of how dangerous drones are in the hands of private users, how passenger aircraft will be falling from the sky in droves due to collisions with drones, killing untold thousands in the air and on the ground, how personal privacy (the little there is remaining) will be destroyed through the private use of drones, noise pollution, and ecological disruption. That much of that disinformation was derived from government sources without being questioned matters not, it was published therefore it must be true from the average person perspective. What's unfortunate is that people at our level have still failed to come together as a focused group to dispel all the blatant lies and misrepresentations, while larger focus groups like the AUVSI, Small UAV Coalition (of which DJI, Yuneec, 3DR, Go Pro, and Amazon are/have been members) used that hysteria to better serve their corporate interests at our (casual hobbyist, low level commercial operator) expense.
While all that has been taking place large corporate and government interests have created a near endless stream or press releases favoring their unmanned products and how they will benefit John Q. Public in order to alter the public perception to favor larger, more specialized UAS. Those actions have been well designed to cause the public to believe corporate/government drones are good but consumer drones are bad. Not mentioned is that only government or military sponsored drones have been extensively used to kill people allover the world, have been extensively used since the early 2000's through the present to secretly spy on people, track and record their movements and activities, and collect other personal data, and are currently in use in numerous U.S. cities without the public's authorization for civil agency community over watch. For quite some time makers of military drones for every size class have become more focused on expanded development of long distance, high resolution, wide data collection capability surveillance equipment for use in drones being submitted for use in U.S. airspace. As far as danger to the public is concerned, the government/corporate drone poses a far greater risk to the public than consumer drones if for no other reason than their much larger size, mass, and speed. If Freedom of Information requests were submitted by the public demanding the incident history of corporate/government drones they would provide data that established they have crashed uncontrollably or "flown away" in vast numbers all over the world, and that they have experienced collisions with manned aircraft both in the air and on the ground more times than anyone could be comfortable with. Those collisions may not always have been the direct fault of the drone or drone operator but the fact they have occurred remains the same and shows that further education of manned aviation pilots is just as important as educating unmanned operators. Perhaps more so as the mind set of manned aviation is one of "we were there first so it's not our problem" and "drones should be banned because they will take our jobs". To date there has been only one confirmed collision of a consumer drone with a manned aircraft, due entirely to a private individual violating LOS operating rules and failing to observe and comply with published temporary flight restrictions for the area. I'm personally aware of at least 5 instances involving military hardware in military controlled environments.
With every new drone regulation passed there has been alarming consistency with exclusionary terminology in those regulations. Government agencies are always exempted from having to comply, leaving them to act based upon whim of the moment with no controlling oversight and virtually nothing in place to punish careless and reckless behavior, or to protect the personal privacy John Q. Public is so alarmed about. The public has little in the way of recourse. Truth be told, as our governments start using drones in public airspace, personal privacy and freedoms will be impacted, if not severely restricted or eliminated, for that region the moment they appear and an increase in government control of the public's activities will soon become apparent. Examples of what happens in a surveillance state are easily found in China and the U.K., where everything the public does is monitored by the government. That surveillance is not for the exclusive purpose of combating crime, the primary purpose is for use in social engineering by forcing the public to conduct their daily lives in a manner that meets government approval. What has been taking place has been nothing more than a disinformation and false flag action intended to dupe the general public into thinking and believing exactly the opposite as they should be.
In closing I will repeat my earlier statement that, as a group, we have stood by and done nothing to refute, dispel, or correct the media disinformation campaign. In fact, we've been so busy arguing among ourselves that we haven't bothered to form a group. As individuals we have little impact on our public servants. As a large group we demonstrate the strength of numbers. We've engaged in many social media forums to argue, debate, discuss methods and products, and provide self help but not one of them exists as a focal point to educate the general public and news media. United we can flourish but divided cannot hope to stand.
The actions you and a few others have taken to better educate the public and civil organizations is why I stated "stood by as a group" instead of stating we've ignored the issue entirely. Some have done much, some have done something but not as much, but most have done nothing. They've been too distracted arguing which brand or model is best, which worked great from a brand recognition perspective but has been a disaster where future and continued use opportunities are concerned.
The problem going forward is that the public has been bombarded by media stories of how dangerous drones are in the hands of private users, how passenger aircraft will be falling from the sky in droves due to collisions with drones, killing untold thousands in the air and on the ground, how personal privacy (the little there is remaining) will be destroyed through the private use of drones, noise pollution, and ecological disruption. That much of that disinformation was derived from government sources without being questioned matters not, it was published therefore it must be true from the average person perspective. What's unfortunate is that people at our level have still failed to come together as a focused group to dispel all the blatant lies and misrepresentations, while larger focus groups like the AUVSI, Small UAV Coalition (of which DJI, Yuneec, 3DR, Go Pro, and Amazon are/have been members) used that hysteria to better serve their corporate interests at our (casual hobbyist, low level commercial operator) expense.
While all that has been taking place large corporate and government interests have created a near endless stream or press releases favoring their unmanned products and how they will benefit John Q. Public in order to alter the public perception to favor larger, more specialized UAS. Those actions have been well designed to cause the public to believe corporate/government drones are good but consumer drones are bad. Not mentioned is that only government or military sponsored drones have been extensively used to kill people allover the world, have been extensively used since the early 2000's through the present to secretly spy on people, track and record their movements and activities, and collect other personal data, and are currently in use in numerous U.S. cities without the public's authorization for civil agency community over watch. For quite some time makers of military drones for every size class have become more focused on expanded development of long distance, high resolution, wide data collection capability surveillance equipment for use in drones being submitted for use in U.S. airspace. As far as danger to the public is concerned, the government/corporate drone poses a far greater risk to the public than consumer drones if for no other reason than their much larger size, mass, and speed. If Freedom of Information requests were submitted by the public demanding the incident history of corporate/government drones they would provide data that established they have crashed uncontrollably or "flown away" in vast numbers all over the world, and that they have experienced collisions with manned aircraft both in the air and on the ground more times than anyone could be comfortable with. Those collisions may not always have been the direct fault of the drone or drone operator but the fact they have occurred remains the same and shows that further education of manned aviation pilots is just as important as educating unmanned operators. Perhaps more so as the mind set of manned aviation is one of "we were there first so it's not our problem" and "drones should be banned because they will take our jobs". To date there has been only one confirmed collision of a consumer drone with a manned aircraft, due entirely to a private individual violating LOS operating rules and failing to observe and comply with published temporary flight restrictions for the area. I'm personally aware of at least 5 instances involving military hardware in military controlled environments.
With every new drone regulation passed there has been alarming consistency with exclusionary terminology in those regulations. Government agencies are always exempted from having to comply, leaving them to act based upon whim of the moment with no controlling oversight and virtually nothing in place to punish careless and reckless behavior, or to protect the personal privacy John Q. Public is so alarmed about. The public has little in the way of recourse. Truth be told, as our governments start using drones in public airspace, personal privacy and freedoms will be impacted, if not severely restricted or eliminated, for that region the moment they appear and an increase in government control of the public's activities will soon become apparent. Examples of what happens in a surveillance state are easily found in China and the U.K., where everything the public does is monitored by the government. That surveillance is not for the exclusive purpose of combating crime, the primary purpose is for use in social engineering by forcing the public to conduct their daily lives in a manner that meets government approval. What has been taking place has been nothing more than a disinformation and false flag action intended to dupe the general public into thinking and believing exactly the opposite as they should be.
In closing I will repeat my earlier statement that, as a group, we have stood by and done nothing to refute, dispel, or correct the media disinformation campaign. In fact, we've been so busy arguing among ourselves that we haven't bothered to form a group. As individuals we have little impact on our public servants. As a large group we demonstrate the strength of numbers. We've engaged in many social media forums to argue, debate, discuss methods and products, and provide self help but not one of them exists as a focal point to educate the general public and news media. United we can flourish but divided cannot hope to stand.
Last edited:
rdonson
Premium Pilot
@PatR You might consider using your writing skills to create a petition on https://www.change.org
Its limited to the US but I'm certain that if you let people know about the petition here in this community word of it would spread to all drone communities. We've all got friends who fly other brands than Yuneec and I think they would be interested in your desire to move our interests forward.
I really think it’s a way to get the ball rolling.
Its limited to the US but I'm certain that if you let people know about the petition here in this community word of it would spread to all drone communities. We've all got friends who fly other brands than Yuneec and I think they would be interested in your desire to move our interests forward.
I really think it’s a way to get the ball rolling.
Last edited:
PatR
Premium Pilot
I think I seriously need to review my motivational writing skills. That wasn’t quite the result I was hoping for[emoji848]
Couple years ago, before the introduction of the 107 NPRM, I was one of three managing members of a site called ACUAS.org., dedicated to the organization of commercial UAS operators during a time nobody was giving them the time of day. We found most that joined the site were eager to find ways to make $$ from the site or have someone else do all the legwork as long as it didn’t cost them in any way.
As for a petition, I’m not quite creative enough to decide what it would need to say all by myself.
Last edited:
Step 1 would be to set clear objectives. Would you want to persuade…
a) the general public that drones are a good thing and should be welcomed;
b) drone owners that they should fly safely, responsibly and with consideration for others; or
c) politicians, regulators and other authorities that safety restrictions do not need to be built into every drone at the factory?
These are distinct missions and each is a big ask, requiring a big team and a big budget. A local campaign might be more affordable and deliverable but it wouldn't have any impact nationally - or internationally.
After a hot, dry summer some years ago which saw hosepipe bans enforced across the UK, my PR company was once commissioned by the UK garden centre industry and the manufacturers/importers of garden irrigation equipment to mount a campaign to persuade the water utility companies, the state environment ministry and regional authorities that hosepipe bans were inappropriate and ineffectual in conserving water supplies and should not be the first line of defence against impending drought as they caused £3bn of damage to the horticultural trade. We had also to persuade the general public that garden hosepipes were not the spawn of the devil when water supplies were low.
Over two years, this campaign cost almost £500k and was only partially successful. Logic and common sense were largely beaten by the overriding need of the water utilities to generate widespread publicity about the need to use water wisely - and the imposition of hosepipe bans, whether needed or not, was the only way to generate the level of awareness that they wanted. We did have some victories but, to this day, the hosepipe ban remains the blunt weapon of choice to promote the need to use water wisely. And the media have always loved hosepipe ban stories.
a) the general public that drones are a good thing and should be welcomed;
b) drone owners that they should fly safely, responsibly and with consideration for others; or
c) politicians, regulators and other authorities that safety restrictions do not need to be built into every drone at the factory?
These are distinct missions and each is a big ask, requiring a big team and a big budget. A local campaign might be more affordable and deliverable but it wouldn't have any impact nationally - or internationally.
After a hot, dry summer some years ago which saw hosepipe bans enforced across the UK, my PR company was once commissioned by the UK garden centre industry and the manufacturers/importers of garden irrigation equipment to mount a campaign to persuade the water utility companies, the state environment ministry and regional authorities that hosepipe bans were inappropriate and ineffectual in conserving water supplies and should not be the first line of defence against impending drought as they caused £3bn of damage to the horticultural trade. We had also to persuade the general public that garden hosepipes were not the spawn of the devil when water supplies were low.
Over two years, this campaign cost almost £500k and was only partially successful. Logic and common sense were largely beaten by the overriding need of the water utilities to generate widespread publicity about the need to use water wisely - and the imposition of hosepipe bans, whether needed or not, was the only way to generate the level of awareness that they wanted. We did have some victories but, to this day, the hosepipe ban remains the blunt weapon of choice to promote the need to use water wisely. And the media have always loved hosepipe ban stories.
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2018
- Messages
- 247
- Reaction score
- 119
- Age
- 76
A YouTube vid pertinent to this discussion: The end of recreational drone and RC model flying in the USA?
rdonson
Premium Pilot
PatR
Premium Pilot
If we look at the members of the FAA’s Drone Advisory Council it would be quickly apparent it’s those people that are formulating the drone regulations for the FAA to adopt. Law is being crafted to serve their interests, requiring compulsory methodology only very deep pockets and large staffs can achieve.
As one that was employed by a company that has been part of that group since the first ARC committee was commissioned in 2007 I followed as much of the the internal planning and progress discussion as available for commercial drone law, system and operator certifications, documentation requirements, certifications, process improvement, training, and scope of industries to be served very closely. They want it all and the hobby or light commercial operators are expendable. Many of them believe we lack the qualifications they deem necessary to operate RPV’s. When BLOS operations become widely approved we will for all intents and purposes end up very limited. Just for laughs I’ll predict BLOS ops will be widely approved for them very close to when we pull back from Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Those three countries are the primary cash cows for the commercial/industrial UAV manufacturers. They pull an hourly rate in the mid 4 figures for a small UAV, with hourly rates rising to the high 5 figures for large UAV’s. They aren’t going to stand by and wave that money good bye.
What most don’t know is that once adopted here similar regulations will spread to E.U. and U.K. markets as both those military/government markets are already being served by the same outfits driving regulatory development here. There’s already and international format for service and operations documentation.
As for the FAA, they’ve already made it clear they believe they own all the outside airspace in the U.S. from above a blade of grass to 60,000’.
As one that was employed by a company that has been part of that group since the first ARC committee was commissioned in 2007 I followed as much of the the internal planning and progress discussion as available for commercial drone law, system and operator certifications, documentation requirements, certifications, process improvement, training, and scope of industries to be served very closely. They want it all and the hobby or light commercial operators are expendable. Many of them believe we lack the qualifications they deem necessary to operate RPV’s. When BLOS operations become widely approved we will for all intents and purposes end up very limited. Just for laughs I’ll predict BLOS ops will be widely approved for them very close to when we pull back from Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Those three countries are the primary cash cows for the commercial/industrial UAV manufacturers. They pull an hourly rate in the mid 4 figures for a small UAV, with hourly rates rising to the high 5 figures for large UAV’s. They aren’t going to stand by and wave that money good bye.
What most don’t know is that once adopted here similar regulations will spread to E.U. and U.K. markets as both those military/government markets are already being served by the same outfits driving regulatory development here. There’s already and international format for service and operations documentation.
As for the FAA, they’ve already made it clear they believe they own all the outside airspace in the U.S. from above a blade of grass to 60,000’.
Last edited:
FWIW, there are several online petitions (sponsored by vested interests) seeking hobbyist views on the proposal to amend/scrap Section 336, eg:
AMA petition
DJI (indirectly) petition
This insider analysis of the Section 336 "conundrum" may be useful background information.
AMA petition
DJI (indirectly) petition
This insider analysis of the Section 336 "conundrum" may be useful background information.
Last edited:
Similar threads
