Article: The legal turbulence hindering drones in the UK

[Hands0n]

Source Article: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-02/20/shoot-down-drones

I was sent the above link to a compelling read in Wired today.  Usually I don';t take too much interest but this article caught my attention entirely, mostly because of my passion for this hobby and also the future of UAV in general, and I believe that it has an almost unimaginable future yet to become reality.

It is easy to be mesmerised by the footage of the floods shot by the drones, or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV), of the major news organisations. The seductive close-up insight into the private grief of the many King Canutes is hard to turn away from. It is surprising that no disgruntled farmer has yet taken a shot at one of the UAVs.

Yet these drones are flying into an area of the law that is confused and complex, and a debate about UAVs that has barely got started in the UK. It is a debate that is only going to increase in intensity as the numbers of drones licensed for commercial flights by the nation';s Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which regulates the use of unmanned flying aircraft, shoots up -- from 30 in January 2013 to more than 300 today -- and as the popularity of DIY drones sold over the counter grows.

I am quite surprised at the low number of licenced UAVs (I hate the term "drone") and would have thought it to be a significantly higher number.  But given the process to become licensed that is possibly not surprising - good intentions soon turn to dust when the reality becomes apparent to all but the most keen (all credit to them).  And perhaps that is the way things should be.  As a daily road user, a long time trainer of both basic and advanced driving and riding, I do not look forward optimistically to the time when UAV flying is as commonplace as driving.  Given the nature of the paradigm I can';t see that it ever would come to be.  But I can envisage significantly more use of UAV technology in short time to come.

Sooner or later there will inevitably be a case when the privacy of a celebrity is invaded, a drone crashes and kills someone, or a householder takes the law into their own hands and shoots a drone down.

We must hope that the incumbent government of the day does not over-react as it did with so-called "dangerous dogs" (all dogs are potentially dangerous), gun law (that caused the ruination of many businesses and sport/hobby use) and other similar knee jerk reactive legislation.  Almost all, if not many, of the above is bound to happen over a period of time.  Irresponsible people exist, but that does not mean we should legislate for the lowest common denominator, otherwise we may as well all pack up and go home now.

"I saw footage taken from over one of the flooded areas; it must have been licensed by the CAA, but I would suspect it was in violation of the licence as it was very close to the flood waters so was not flying at the permissible height (50m from individual buildings or people and 150m from large events)," says McKenna.

He adds that he doesn';t believe "the CAA is geared up to dealing with the wider use of drones". How on earth can they police the widespread use of small machines, he asks. Even the hobbyist who wants to have a bit of fun can cause distress "in a variety of ways".

Lord spare us from academic lawyers (remembering that old adage: Those that can, do. Those that can';t, teach). It is hard to know where to even begin to dissect his comment. But it is these same academics that are advising the law-givers.  Although in mitigation, there is broader and more sane comment from practising lawyers (those who can).

Anyone who is using a drone under 20kg for commercial purposes has to be licensed to ensure that they are sufficiently trained to fly the plane and have the appropriate insurance in place.

Richard Taylor, though, balks at the word "licence" and instead prefers "permission", as it is not really as "complicated as a licensing process and it';s just about making sure the paperwork is in place".

"A lot is going on trust, but that is no different from helicopter operators."

I';ll leave it to our BNUC qualified pilots on this forum to pass knowledgeable comment. But for my own part, I do not believe that it is quite as dumbed down as Richard Taylor suggests.  From what I';ve read on here about qualifying, the paperwork is an essential part and no less complex than anything else. The actual flying, practical, is only a small part of controlling a UAV or pretty much any vehicle for that matter. If you want truly skilled operators then they need to be able to demonstrate theory, knowledge as well as practice.

Peter Lee is supportive of the approach that the CAA has taken in regulating unmanned aerial vehicles. Lee is a solicitor specialising in commercial and technology law with law firm Taylor Vinters LLP and one of Europe';s top drone lawyers.

"The US announced their plans for civil drone integration with fanfare and set themselves a deadline in part because the lawmakers have been heavily lobbied by the industry," he says. "In contrast, the UK and many European countries began the incremental and refreshingly pragmatic integration of drones into civilian airspace as far back as 2006."

Despite this progress, Lee points out that the CAA is under pressure from industry to move as fast as possible in removing the regulations that prevent drones over 20kg from flying in civilian airspace. The military has much less money to spend on UAVs and these "defence cuts bite", he says. The more non-military business that industry can generate, the better.

The UK can be refreshingly pragmatic at times, even if it can appear to be draconian and unresponsive. The CAA approach to UAV thus far seems to be reasonable and balanced. It may well be onerous, and I often feel that its permissible distances are unreasonably high - but then again we are flying potentially lethal vehicles. Unguarded propellers, even ABS, will inflict severe injury if they strike a person.

I don';t feel that the legal turbulence is hindering hobbyist use of UAVs in the UK - but clearly it is constraining commercial use right now.  I don';t think that I am too bent out of shape about that really, although I might feel differently if I had a vested commercial interest [which I do not].   Do we really want hordes of these things buzzing overhead endlessly as they go about their various business? What will that [new] world be like?

"The CAA has got to balance the established rights of model aircraft enthusiasts and those using drones for work without impeding the growth of an industry."

I';d go along with that, and have confidence that the CAA and the EU also will likely get that balance about right.

[Jumpy07]

Interesting article..  however there is only a little over 100 Bnuc';s in UK.. 300 have done Part 1.. but only 100 or so have full permission..


Some other points not quite accurate re: legal flight over floods...  its all about risk assessments..  50m separation from anyone or anything not under your control.. or likely to intrude into that area.. most of the footage I have seen was quite legal from what I saw..   obviously spotters would warn pilots of anyone getting into the flying area etc..


Shooting down or damaging a multi that is being flown within the the law would amount to "endangering an aircraft".. so pretty serious offence..


I have no doubt there will be a serious accident.. its just a matter of time..  but I also think that as there has not been one yet.. that it proves multis are pretty safe and reliable.. especially if operated safely...


I do think the explosion of cheap and accessible kit will mean further restrictions on hobby users.. I also think further restrictions to protect privacy are inevitable.


Through time I hope there will be relaxation on commercial use  restrictions..for those suitably qualified and insured... such as separation, flying over people  etc etc