[quote=bbrown1664;9819435]Yeah, but I think the genie is well out of the bottle for the current generation of drones. So we change the rules for all drones sold after say 1 Jan 2018 and we just have to hope like most consumer electronics the current ones are all broken in 2-3 years.

Very few drones have this capability. DJI have however launched the Matrice 200 which includes an ADS-B receiver...

While a transponder seems like a sensible requirement, what would ATC do with all of these extra blips appearing at low height etc.?

I Could Kill You with a Consumer Drone
 

The NAP-LGW Easy flight diverted to STN squawking 7700 after a short hold over the south coast. Maybe due to fuel state?

Not sure I agree - a friend's son brought his "toy" drone on a ski trip earlier this year, and was quite happily flying it around at 3000m and above, taking video. From where I was watching it appeared to have plenty of power to spare, and endurance didn't seem to be an issue.

Whilst not all drone bomber footage is credible, LiveLeak is of the opinion this footage is...
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5db_1498777854

Note re cuts to vid: "...edited it down so it wasn't so slow and boring..."





.

A chap I know who lives in Germany, bought a decent consumer drone online to fly with his son. Each time they took it to an open space it flew only minimally and kept shutting down (fail-safe mode) which left them both confused and frustrated. After communicating with the manufacturer, it transpired that inbuilt in it's software was an ability to know when it was being used in the vicinity of an airport to ameliorate such problems as at LGW. Unfortunately for this owner the only unpopulated areas were in the vicinity ( but not close to) an airport, so they ended up selling it and have taken up another hobby. I wonder why such a system can't be included in consumer drones as standard ?

Speaking as one personally involved with the delays at LGW yesterday, might it be legally permissible to destroy a drone without warning and without risk of legal compensatory action by its owners if it were flying in an area that compromised the safety of those around it in the air and on the ground?

How do you know what it is going to fall on?

Possibly.

It all falls within the "Lawful Excuse" defence and would likely still need to be put before the courts/CPS.

From the Criminal Damage Act (1971):

"Section 5(2) provides that a person is to be treated as having a lawful excuse, whether or not he would be so treated apart from its provisions:

"(a) if at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed that the person or persons whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction or damage to the property in question had so consented or would have so consented to it if he or they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; or

(b) if he destroyed or damaged or threatened to destroy or damage the property in question ...in order to protect property belonging to himself or another or a right or interest in property which was or which he believed to be vested in himself or another, and at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed- (i) that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and (ii) that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances."

On the basis of s5(1), the s5(2) defence applies to ss 1(1), 2(a) and 3(a) only. Under s5(3) it is immaterial whether a belief is justified or not if it is honestly held. Section 5(5) makes it clear that these provisions operate without prejudice to any other defence available to a criminal charge."

This is a major issue. ADS-B is already very congested with new 'bright ideas' for its use being added almost daily. There is a probability that it will become unusable in the not too distant future. Remember air traffic agencies are likely to be mandating ADS-B IN for aircraft CDTI so it is not just ATC that will suffer.

Quite sure that if you were to destroy one with your left engine... you would be free from blame..... Just Saying

Wrt consumer drones such as that manufactured by DJI, the facility at an application level certainly has the ability to record the telemetry data from flights flown, admittedly this data would only be "logged" by said manufacturer at say, a firmware update....that said, if manufacturers mandated an update of some form each month and this involved a mandatory receipt of data for flights flown, then in theory there would be a method by which proof of a flight in a certain area could then be proven. This would afford a low cost solution other than transponders etc., and although it wouldn't necessarily preclude an incident, it would perhaps make the general population think a little more on where it's safe to operate the quads/drones etc. Of course, some proof of ownership and registration would also be required at time of purchase but if levelled at the manufacturer and owner level, it would minimise regulator and enforcement agencies efforts whilst satisfying the need for some control perhaps.....

Low altitude systems to disable drones.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X27-2WDIZR0

French Army Trains Eagles to Fight Drone Terrorism | Fortune.com

https://www.change.org/p/metropolita...o-catch-drones

You were doing OK until the part where you described it as a "low cost solution". It sounds anything but.

Well, okay - which part doesn't sound low cost - when compared to adding Tx, ADS-B etc. that others suggest? if its the telemetry data feedback that you think might be the costly part, well certainly with DJI, that already exists and is logged for every flight made - I know this only because I have two drones from aforementioned manufacturer (Mavic and Inspire 2), and both log Lat/Long, Altitude, Distance etc., etc. already (heck, even plots route flown on to Google Maps also as a plan view track breadcrumb!).

The updating requirement monthly would not be onerous upon a manufacturer, as firmware requires updating almost monthly anyway - make the drone a 'no fly' model if firmware isn't updated (can be easily done via the drone firmware) by adding a server timestamp limit/restriction or such like, and this then mandates people need to communicate with the manufacturer of said drone to enable flight.

If I'm missing the cost element here by comparison, standing by to be enlightened :ok:

OK, I take your point that giving the good guys the ability to prove they have only been flying where they should be probably wouldn't need much more in the way of infrastructure than currently exists.

But it's not the good guys we should be worrying about. Monitoring where the bad guys fly (bearing in mind that they may have hacked the firmware and/or geofencing, and not be reliant at all on manufacturer updates) is likely to require a whole new approach to system architecture and infrastructure.

I stand by my view that there would be a significant cost attached to that.

Equally, I take your point Dave that your not really ever perhaps going to stop the bad guys with the solution I suggest....if those types are determined to hack firmware and/or geo-fencing solutions built into drone firmware and software, then I would suggest that given a level of expertise needed to do as such, then they are really hell-bent on creating chaos akin to terrorists - fair comment?.

What I'm suggesting would merely be a solution to your average 'Joe Public' that would buy a consumer drone and then think it would be fun to throw it up to get close-ups of airliners at airports. That at the moment is where I see the problem being - and its a lack of accountability I suspect that makes these types feel they can get away with what currently happens by way of reported incidents.

The day that an individual with some form of desire to cause harm with a device and their ability to remove monitoring/flight restrictions appears, then sadly another method does need to be utilised - and this already exists in the form of opposing forces using shuttlecock bombs (Iraqi soldiers v ISIS). There is significant cost here agreed, but that could be true of anything involving the mitigation against acts of - well, bluntly its terrorism.

I would discount any reliance on the software in 'drones' as almost all of it is being hacked and I wouldn't be surprised to see totally jailbroken drones on the market.

So soft walls, altitude limits, range limits are all only in software and are actively being removed.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/0...rones_app_sec/

UK to bring in drone registration
 

All drones over 250g (8oz) apparently with safety tests for owners.

Sounds like a knee jerk reaction to me.

UK to bring in drone registration - BBC News

What about existing drones and those assembled from parts?

Most of what the government say that they are going to do comes from EASA NPA 2017-05 although you wouldn't know that from reading the government response to the DfT drone consultation (which is what prompted the various reports in the media yesterday).

Wondering when they will start calling RC planes "drones".

Perhaps that's answered early in the EU NPA where it says I confess I have not read all of the 128 pages of the NPA but it seems an all encompassing sledge hammer - no doubt without any means of enforcement

I have not read it all either, but I note that there is a reference to the good safety record of model aircraft flyers, and their culture of safety.
It has been suggested that buyers of drones will have to register ( bit like the old Poisons register ), but GCPTN refers to drones built from components.
I buy balsa wood, ply, glue, fabric, motors, batteries, radio gear etc., all from different suppliers. It would hardly be practical to keep a register of all these purchases just in case I used them to build a flying model.

UAV Collision report here

One of the most poorly researched and implemented set of tests I've seen in years. Badly thought out and biased.

An excellent appraisal here...

The strange thing about the website you refer to Nige 321 is that it contains no biographical information as to the qualifications of those involved. Their twitter account was also quite active in denouncing the report as well without any basis .The twitter accounts that agreed with the website twitter feed are all fake.
Having looked at your post here and the tweets I would suggest you are the same person.Balpa decided to ignore you on twitter and I suggest that Pprune users do likewise.
I struggle to see what you are trying to gain by denouncing the report and where is the bias, or are you one of these people who thinks rules relating to air vehicles shouldn't apply to you.

Hahaha... Very funny. I give you a 100% cast-iron guarantee I am not the same person. I don't even have a Twitter account...

I do have a PfCO and I do fly RC model aircraft as a hobby.

You can think what you like, I don't give a toss...

Oh, and others think it's biased. BBC report I assume you've actually read the report?

I have written to the Airprox Board, CAA & DfT asking for a clear definition of "drone".

To date the Airprox Board has responded to admit they have no definition. Yet they happily use the word in their reports.
The CAA has not responded since I wrote last year.
The DfT has about 14 days left of their promised response time.

Until such a defintion exists the proposed legislation is meaningless.

While EASA do use the word drone on their website and in some documents, the draft regulation in NPA 2017-05 doesn't use the word drone, it uses UAS and gives a definition.
UK regulations that are based on this will presumably do the same.

The UK DfT give a definition of 'drone' in their consultation document
although they didn't always follow it.

I have also complained to the Airprox board about their use of the term. They came back saying that they default to the term drone as UAS is too technical for the general public and press.

They gave me pretty much the same answer. Obviously some people couldn't be expected to cope with the highly technical nature of long words such as "Unmanned", "Aerial" & "Systems". Continuing this dumbing down I think we should start calling all road vehicles "broom brooms" and all shipping "boaties".

The Dft has pointed me to a document which was published last year and from which the definition that you give is taken, I suspect. (See page 10).

What is a drone?
1.1 A drone is an unmanned aircraft, normally flown by a pilot from a distance, using a remote control station that communicates instructions to the drone. Drones are also known as Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) or Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). Those using drones are referred to as drone users, operators or pilots.
1.2 Drones come in a variety of sizes – they can be as small as your hand, weighing less than 250g or as big as a small plane, weighing several tonnes. As they increase in size, they are able to travel further. Smaller drones tend to use electric motors for propulsion, whereas larger drones tend to use combustion engines like other conventional aircraft.

https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...-of-drones.pdf

So there we have it. My interpretation is all radio control, wi-fi or bluetooth controlled models, regardless of type. This will no doubt upset many model flyers who have been flying their > 250g models safely for years and who consider drones to be something other than what they fly. There will be rioting on the streets for sure.

Not sure about the rioting but the BMFA has been looking out for the model flyers for a long time on this subject. Trying to persuade EASA and the CAA that 'traditional' R/C flyers are different from the nutter with a drone at the end of Gatwicks runway is an uphill task - they are all 'drones' as far as the lawyers are concerned. (Exactly the same argument is happening in Germany with their DMFV)

Having said that, a couple of CAA officials I've spoken to understand that BMFA members aren't the problem - one of them was a member himself...:D

It was unfortunate that the original consultation on 'drones' was not well advertised or understood either amongst the radio control model fraternity or the light aviation world. I am surprised at the difficulty EASA and the CAA are having with the definition, though I suspect this is down to lawyers wanting precise statements- which they will then spend fortunes picking apart if given the chance!

To me 'Line of Sight' is the obvious criterion; if outside that it's a 'drone'. Inside it can be a radio control model. The slope soaring r/c folk have the greatest problem there - LoS can be a fair distance.

While drones around large airports are an obvious danger, I'm also concerned about any spread of drone use generally at low level. While we ought to be able to define the main commercial use low level areas adequately, I doubt that the many light aircraft and microlight strips around the country will be well enough surveyed to ensure drones stay clear of active circuits. Will they have adequate avoidance mechanisms? I doubt it.

I think another snag here is that the CAA no longer have enough people left to carry out all the tasks they are assigned, especially practically experienced and knowledgeable ones.

EU governments want more commercial drone use. That is the main driver behind NPA 2017-05 and the coming unmanned traffic management system / U-Space.

See the Riga declaration, the Warsaw declaration and SESAR drone outlook study.

I know. Worrying, given the level of ignorance our politicians show about aviation. (Well, about just about anything in any sense technical! )

Buster11 - I agree. I felt it wasn't well advertised either in the model world or the light aviation world in the UK.

Did you actually try to plough your way through the consultation document? As someone used to the complexities of aviation regulation I found it a pain. Also it seemed more biased towards commercial operations NOT model flying.Those 241 were brave souls.

There are several model flying organisations, representing the interests of their members, which are recognised by and meet with the CAA who have evolved CAP 658 over the years to be the guidance material for the relevant articles within the ANO. Model flying in the UK is well regulated and generally adhered to by responsible flyers. There will always be nutters however.

Electrotor, I agree the consultation document was certainly pretty dense and obviously biassed heavily towards commercial operations, but that was surely the very reason model flyers did need to comment. I think BMFA News referred to the paragraphs relevant to model flying well ahead of the response deadline. Trouble is, a lot of BMFA members say there's nothing in the magazine of interest to them and just bin it. Blinkered or what? I certainly didn't read every word and just focussed on the sections that affected 'orthodox' model flying before responding.