PDA

View Full Version : Sweden bans drones with cameras


DroneDog
24th Oct 2016, 15:49
Sweden has now decided that it will become illegal to fly a drone if it has a camera, no camera no problem. I do admire this stance on upholding law and order meanwhile Sweden rates no 2 in the rape areas of the world stakes and has an increasing number of car arson incidents.

It good to see the important issues being addressed.

Sweden and Denmark have highest number of sexual assaults in Europe | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-and-denmark-have-highest-number-of-sexual-assaults-in-europe-a6800901.html)


https://www.rt.com/news/355645-sweden-malmo-cars-burning/

finfly1
24th Oct 2016, 16:56
Funny, but it struck me when drones were a novelty that mounting a camera on them for inspections etc was about the most useful purpose to which they could be put.

ExXB
24th Oct 2016, 17:50
Good for them.

meadowrun
24th Oct 2016, 21:07
I've seen some nice shots done from drones. Kind of an airbourne steadi-cam. Can be used to replace helicopter cameras and crane shots in a lot of cases - cheaper. I also thought that was the best use for them (that and limited SAR), otherwise as they get cheaper and cheaper it will be mostly the yobs bothering aircraft with them.


I bet they will be on many a Christmas list from 8 year olds.

ian16th
24th Oct 2016, 21:26
Funny, but it struck me when drones were a novelty that mounting a camera on them for inspections etc was about the most useful purpose to which they could be put. Yes. Just about 4 weeks ago I saw some civil engineer types, feet firmly on terra firma, using a drone to inspect this 'in progress' building RVN Properties - The Mall @ Pearls of Umhlanga (http://rvnproperties.co.za/current-developments/138-pearls-of-umhlanga) using a camera fitted drone, while they looked at what seemed like an IPad.
I thought at the time, at last a sensible use for one of these toys.

Blues&twos
24th Oct 2016, 21:33
A friend of mine, an engineering contractor, recently spent over a thousand quid on a reasonably large drone with camera specifically for doing aerial building surveys. A much quicker, easier and more importantly safer way of doing this type of survey than having to kit up and clamber about on a dodgy roof.

John Hill
24th Oct 2016, 22:24
"We don't need no stinkin' drones!"

http://www.fulbright.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/1405-andrewfladeboe3.jpg

This fellow's job is to run over mountains and valleys looking for the elusive Shrek and his companions, he does not need drones.

david1300
25th Oct 2016, 07:54
Drone usage in Australia is growing at a rapid rate, with various regulations and restrictions. Anecdotally (from a friend who is a commercial operator doing drone video photography for many clients) he had to qualify for the same radio communications licence as a pilot as he is licensed to fly in quite extended rages for his profession. He has a formal certification as UAV Controller as a commercial drone operator.

Commercial Flight

Any flights for commercial gain require certification of both the pilot (or UAV Controller) flying the actual drone, and the business which is conducting the operation. The pilot must have a UAV Controller’s Certificate (formerly called Remote Pilot Certificate) and the business must have a UAV Operator’s Certificate (or UOC).

From 25th September 2016 the term UAV will generally be replaced with RPA in official documents and the UAV Controller’s Certificate will be replaced by the Remote Pilot Licence. For full details of the changes see https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016L00400.

Recreational users need to follow:

As of today, 29 September 2016 it is now legal to fly certain – no any, Drone for commercial gain WITHOUT certification. Download our Android and iOS apps to get a better understanding of the areas that are restricted for hobby flying too.

What does this translate to? Real Estate photographers will usually NOT be able to conform with ALL these conditions and will therefore require a UAV Operator Certificate (UOC) which is the CASA certificate to operate legally.

If you are not making any commercial gain from your flying, then you may fly your UAV without requiring certification (please note however that “commercial gain” can include flights for advertising purposes or even uploading videos to YouTube – there does not have to be a direct payment involved). The following restrictions apply for uncertified flying:

Below 400 ft (120 m)
In uncontrolled (Class G) airspace
More than 3 nm (5.5 km) from an aerodrome or helipad listed on the VTC
More than 30 m away from other people
Not in a Populous Area
Within Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) – this means no FPV unless you have a spotter who can take control at any time

MG23
25th Oct 2016, 14:40
Funny, but it struck me when drones were a novelty that mounting a camera on them for inspections etc was about the most useful purpose to which they could be put.

Indeed. If this story is true, it's simply retarded.

But then, it is Swedenistan. They've spent the last few decades trying to send the country back to the Middle Ages.

racedo
25th Oct 2016, 18:05
But then, it is Swedenistan. They've spent the last few decades trying to send the country back to the Middle Ages.


Vikings would be crying in their long boats about how they have feminised the country.

Ancient Mariner
25th Oct 2016, 20:11
Vikings would be crying in their long boats about how they have feminised the country.
Us real Vikings have always considered the Swedes to be rather feminine. Then..
and now.:E
Per

mgahan
25th Oct 2016, 21:14
David 13,
All very well for the distributors to tell the purchasers of small UAS about the rules but the rules are not understood by Joe Public.

A couple of weeks ago there was a guy operating a drone up and down the footpath outside the apartment. It was clearly less than 2kg but it was very well equipped with cameras and other sophisticated gismos. I approached him, mainly to tell him to stop pointing the cameras into my 2nd floor apartment, and asked what certification he had. “None required,” he told me, “it’s under 2kg.” I then asked him how he accessed information on RAs, NOTAMS etc. “Not required” and he said again, “it’s under 2kg, don’t you know that there’s no regulations for them.” Therein lies the problem: these people have been led to believe, incorrectly, that they have carte blanche.

MJG

Flight_Idle
25th Oct 2016, 21:34
I think that the UK citizens should have the same protection as the Swedes.

I can't imagine drones being allowed over 'Buck house' & Downing street without being 'Disabled' in some way. Over one's back garden looking in? What's good for the goose in good for the gander.

Camera drones should be strictly controlled.

rotornut
26th Oct 2016, 00:07
Food for thought: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernstein_of_Leigh_v_Skyviews_%26_General_Ltd
The case established that the rights of a land owner over his land extend only to a height necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land.

meadowrun
26th Oct 2016, 00:32
They are not toys....regardless of what business aimed at children wants to think. Control is needed for security, aviation interference and peepers reasons but there are many legitimate and valuable purposes.

ExSp33db1rd
26th Oct 2016, 00:57
Where did I recently see and advert. for a canister containing a net that one could fire from the ground and "smother" a drone, causing it to crash to the ground. I want one. Trouble is even 2Kg - if that is a true factor - could give someone a headache, and a crashing drone on to the windscreen of a moving vehicle could be a problem - who would be liable ? Field days for Lawyers maybe ?

david1300
26th Oct 2016, 08:06
David 13,
All very well for the distributors to tell the purchasers of small UAS about the rules but the rules are not understood by Joe Public.

A couple of weeks ago there was a guy operating a drone up and down the footpath outside the apartment. It was clearly less than 2kg but it was very well equipped with cameras and other sophisticated gismos. I approached him, mainly to tell him to stop pointing the cameras into my 2nd floor apartment, and asked what certification he had. “None required,” he told me, “it’s under 2kg.” I then asked him how he accessed information on RAs, NOTAMS etc. “Not required” and he said again, “it’s under 2kg, don’t you know that there’s no regulations for them.” Therein lies the problem: these people have been led to believe, incorrectly, that they have carte blanche.

MJG

If you see the guy again film him, then tell him he is wrong and that you are reporting him to the Police & CASA. The following is a summary of the relevant portion of the legislation (my emphasis in bold blue):

If you are not making any commercial gain from your flying, then you may fly your UAV without requiring certification (please note however that “commercial gain” can include flights for advertising purposes or even uploading videos to YouTube – there does not have to be a direct payment involved). The following restrictions apply for uncertified flying:

Below 400 ft (120 m)
In uncontrolled (Class G) airspace
More than 3 nm (5.5 km) from an aerodrome or helipad listed on the VTC
More than 30 m away from other people
Not in a Populous Area
Within Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) – this means no FPV unless you have a spotter who can take control at any time

More info here:
https://www.rpastraining.com.au/casr-101-uav-drone-legal-or-illegal


Or this from CASA itself:

The standard RPA operating conditions will be:

You must only fly during the day and keep your RPA within visual line-of sight.
You must not fly your RPA higher than 120 metres (400ft) AGL.
You must keep your RPA at least 30 metres away from other people.
You must keep your RPA at least 5.5km away from controlled aerodromes.
You must not fly your RPA over any populous areas. These can include: beaches, parks and sporting ovals.
You must not fly your RPA over or near an area affecting public safety or where emergency operations are underway (without prior approval). This could include situations such as a car crash, police operations, a fire and associated firefighting efforts and search and rescue.
You can only fly one RPA at a time.
https://www.casa.gov.au/aircraft/standard-page/part-101-amendments-cutting-red-tape-remotely-piloted-aircraft

And
Report unsafe drone/RPA operations

Complete the on-line unsafe drone operations complaint form to notify CASA of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) operations you believe may have breached civil aviation safety regulations. Please note, safety breaches can only be investigated where there is sufficient evidence, such as photos or video recordings of the breach and the person controlling the drone/RPA at the time.
https://www.casa.gov.au/webform/unsafe-drone-operations-complaint-form


You might also print out one of these and insert in his rectal orifice:
CASR Part 101 Overview (http://services.casa.gov.au/elearning/casa_101/)

Evanelpus
26th Oct 2016, 11:55
I suppose as a pilot I'd feel a whole lot happier knowing that the drone that bought down my aircraft was considered legal by the Swedish authorities.

Apart from the bleedin' obvious, can anyone tell me why the banning of drones with cameras is considered in isolation to those that don't have cameras, surely a drone's a drone's a drone?

MG23
26th Oct 2016, 14:57
Camera drones should be strictly controlled.

Smash the Spinning Jenny! Burn the Rolling Rosalind! Destroy the Going-up-and-down-a-bit-and-then-moving-along Gertrude!

Back in the real world, how do you plan to 'strictly control' something anyone can make with a 3D printer and some basic electronics? The whole idea is laughable.

And, in twenty years, you'll be wondering why the Chinese are making so much money selling drones, and why the industry didn't develop in the West, instead?

MrSnuggles
26th Oct 2016, 16:27
The drone ban is not regarding your own property. On your own property you may take your camera for a ride on the drone.

Commercial drones have been regulated for a while, only more so now.

This is to stop peeping toms from spying on you, personal integrity etc.

The rape stuff is only somewhat true - Swedish laws are different from many other countries, what many other countries regard as "aggravated sexual offence" is very often classified as "rape" here.

I know there are some men complaining about Sweden being "too much woman". OTOH here you can be just as silly as you want and noone is judging you. Man OR woman.

I know about the muslimification. It is rather scary that our second largest minority language is Arabic. This started in the 1990's with the Balkan wars, when we accepted lots of Balkan people, the rumours spread and now lots of ISIS member shouts allah akhbar in Swedish. Good thing is that the gouvernment has stopped ALL new immigration, unless they already have a job/studies to attend. Right now I hope they are trying to come up with plans how to reverse this worrying trend. To be honest, the most problems are not with refugees, it is with those sneaky lone boys who come here and claim they are 16 even when they are 20+. Those guys are very likely to commit crimes and I wish we'd just ban them all. Would like us to take in some girls instead, they are probably more happy about being freed from their medieval male relatives.

Pontius Navigator
26th Oct 2016, 16:51
Where did I recently see and advert. for a canister containing a net that one could fire from the ground and "smother" a drone, causing it to crash to the ground. I want one. Trouble is even 2Kg - if that is a true factor - could give someone a headache, and a crashing drone on to the windscreen of a moving vehicle could be a problem - who would be liable ? Field days for Lawyers maybe ?
My son-in-law demonstrating his micro drone weighing a few grams managed to lose control and the twin rotor drone, flying without its rotor cage dropped vertically hitting his 4 year old daughter it face.

It is not the weight that matters but what it hits.

DroneDog
26th Oct 2016, 18:09
When you say snooping a drone camera is not ideal, you have no zoom (bar the inspire pro which has X 3) but it's not exactly snooping.

Now this is snooping:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHR4i_kc0R8

?v=yHR4i_kc0R8

So ban all super zoom cameras next.

MG23
26th Oct 2016, 18:54
This is to stop peeping toms from spying on you, personal integrity etc.You do realize that everyone now has a phone with one or more cameras built in, right?

And that cameras don't actually steal your soul?

MrSnuggles
26th Oct 2016, 19:00
MG23

Yes I do, thankyou very much. :-)

It is, however, the reasoning behind this law.

Flight_Idle
26th Oct 2016, 21:45
The press are intrusive enough with their telephoto lenses, true, one cannot uninvent them. Other countries may make electrical 'Stun guns' etc & one cannot uninvent them, but no reason to have them legally on British streets.

Same with camera drones really. If we accept camera drones as being legal to 'Snoop' into ordinary houses, then it should be the same for grand country houses. The cameras will get far more advanced in time, the price coming down & available to every school kid.

Gone the twitching net curtains, we are getting to the 'Age of the drones' & it's going to take off in a big way.

The camera drone in snooping into every one's back garden will cause a backlash eventually, Chinese made or not!

G-CPTN
26th Oct 2016, 23:32
Back in December 2015, our local community was overwhelmed by floodwater from the river which runs through the valley - with dozens of houses flooded to a depth of 5 feet.

A local publican took aerial photographs (video) using his four rotor drone.

These photographs proved very useful in determining the weakness of the flood defences and explained the development of the overtopping and the subsequent damage to property.

meadowrun
27th Oct 2016, 01:34
A bit knee-jerk.
Anything can be mis-used or not used for their original purpose. Think [email protected] pointers.
Drones are in a learning curve i.e. we are finding out just what they can be useful for.
Screwdrivers and cast iron frying pans have been used to murder people.

evansb
27th Oct 2016, 02:08
Humanity some how progressed to near our present state without private remote controlled drones. In the global perspective, they are not really needed. Medicine and telecommunications are generally thought to be needed. Drones are not yet in the same category, even if a drone delivered life-saving medicine. Away with remote controlled drones/vehicles.

david1300
27th Oct 2016, 03:05
Humanity some how progressed to near our present state without private remote controlled drones. In the global perspective, they are not really needed. Medicine and telecommunications are generally thought to be needed. Drones are not yet in the same category, even if a drone delivered life-saving medicine. Away with remote controlled drones/vehicles.

Humanity some how progressed to near our present state without flying machines. In our narrow-minded perspective, they are not really needed. Medicine and telecommunications are generally thought to be needed. Drones are not yet in the same category, even though a drone is already used to drop life saving equipment to drowning people. Away with progress.

There you are evansb - corrected your post for you :p:p

DroneDog
27th Oct 2016, 10:44
So the next step would be to licence what you can see out on the street with your own MkI eyeballs, some sort of active sunglasses that go opaque when you look at something without permission.

Sallyann1234
27th Oct 2016, 16:30
This guy had the right idea:
LiveLeak.com - Angry Farmer Shoots Drone Hovering His Garden

DroneDog
27th Oct 2016, 18:01
Well.. is it a fake video? You see the farmer throw off his cap, then during the drone crash as it spins he has his hat on again??? Go to the slow motion bit and pause it to see.

Katamarino
27th Oct 2016, 21:52
No doubt thousands of years ago an ancestor of evansb was sitting in his cave complaining that humanity had made it this far without this stupid new fangled "wheel", it would never be of any use for anything, and we should do away with it.

clark y
28th Oct 2016, 01:40
I think there are 3 main problems with drones.
1. Hitting things. Planes(oops sorry, aeroplanes), property and of course people.
2. Noise. Having one hover nearby can be quite annoying as they sit there buzzing.
3. Privacy. I value mine but it gets less every day.

On the plus side, the aerial footage that we now see is awesome and I would really like to have a go at drone racing.

Blacksheep
28th Oct 2016, 13:55
I think there are three main things wrong with cars:
1. Hitting things - other cars, buildings and of course, people
2. Noise - the constant roar of traffic keeping our babies awake. Not to mention frightening the dogs
3. Pollution - all the ghastly noxious gases they pour into the atmosphere, causing hurricanes, rising sea levels and such.

On the plus side, they're very handy for getting around - and I'd really like to have a go at Formula 1 racing.

Blacksheep
28th Oct 2016, 13:58
I think there are three main things wrong with aeroplanes:
1. Hitting things - other aeroplanes, buildings and of course, the ground
2. Noise - the constant roar keeping our babies awake. Not to mention sonic booms frightening the dogs and stopping the hens laying.
3. Pollution - all the ghastly noxious gases they pour into the atmosphere, causing hurricanes, rising sea levels and such.

On the plus side, they're very handy for getting around - and I'd really like to have a go at low level, fast jet flying.

RAFish
28th Oct 2016, 15:34
I think that clark y and Blacksheep are right on all counts.
No one wants to experience a collision so operators of all three should have extensive training and licensing with age requirements, insurance, and registration for the vehicle.
Noise regulations already apply to both cars and aeroplanes so the same should be applied to drones.
Pollution is already being addressed by governments in the case of cars and aeroplanes.
Cars have extremely limited privacy concerns as breaching it involves trespass.
Aeroplanes can cause privacy issues by overflights but their registrations can be identified from the ground and the operators apprehended.
If drones were digitally signed by transponders that identified the operators then the playing ground would be equal.
That should please everyone!

On the plus side I've always wanted to have an anti-aircraft battery of my own! ;)