Instead of derailing the ISP blocked site thread, I thought I'd start another one to discuss this issue. I want to point out from the very beginning that whilst I understand the reason for the change in legislation (mostly in the USA for now) for FPV UAVs, the fact that it's been blown so far out of proportion and has basically exploded into a public outcry in many areas in recent months really frustrates me. Obviously in the past year or so, FPV aircraft and in particular multirotor UAVs have become much more advanced, very affordable and as a result, hugely popular with hobbyists. Fantastic aerial footage and exciting FPV flights from YouTube channels like alishanmao, rchacker, bonafidepirate and rctestflight to name but a few have fuelled this explosion in popularity, as has the rapid advancement in all areas of technology associated with the hobby. It seems to me that as the general public - that is, those who are not involved in the hobby in any way - have become more aware of "drones" and "flying cameras" the frequency of incidents where authorities have been contacted about hobby flights has also increased, to the point where multirotor radio controlled aircraft are being almost universally referred to as drones at the moment, which causes people who know no different to think of them as civilian versions of their armed military surveillance equivalents. I find it mind blowingly stupid that it’s becoming illegal to fly UAVs equipped with video equipment in some countries and US states. This all started out as a harmless hobby for RC enthusiasts, but has turned into a worldwide industry and a valuable tool for many occupations, all whilst remaining a very accessible, educational hobby. All this bad press is not only due to a careless few people flying where they shouldn’t have, but also because some members of the general public are paranoid beyond belief and assume anyone flying anything with a camera on it is up to no good. Radio controlled unmanned aerial vehicles equipped with first person view video equipment have unlimited potential. Their educational, creative, commercial, and most importantly of all fun applications know no bounds. It disturbs me that something which at its core is still a hobby driven industry which not only has the potential to do good, but is already providing positive experiences every single day with increasing frequency, can be given such a bad image that it requires government restrictions and bans in many parts of the world, making it impossible for countless people to enjoy it and use it for creative and educational purposes. I’m sorry if this post reads as being a bit “all over the place” - I find it hard to gather my many thoughts and opinions on this subject, but here are some interesting videos relating to the matter. I know some of our members fly UAVs and some have FPV capability, so I would love to know your thoughts on this, whether or not you have run into problems with any authority whilst out flying and whether local legislation has restricted or even banned you from flying. Side note: I got the word ”paedo” shouted at me by a kid no more than 9 years old on a bicycle whilst shooting some video of coastline, boats and the sea horizon from a beach car park the other day. Imagine what he’d have called me if I was flying a “spy drone” Side note 2: The word "drone" is generally reserved for AUAVs, that is unmanned aerial vehicles with autonomous capabilities. Hobby grade "FPV drones" are just video equipped multirotors, and only a very small percentage of them (mainly owned by those with the deepest pockets) have much if any robotic capability. Bigger and more expensive machines like those designed to fly DSLRs and cinema cameras are usually equipped with some robotic functions which can be activated from the ground by the operator, mostly for safety purposes with the use of "return to home" and GPS position hold modes.
As far as I know, the CAA don't plan on changing British law in the near future but are watching the recent change in US law with 'great interest'. It means that in the UK, if you're not using the camera gear for financial gain and are not on private land, normal photography rules apply. If you are using FPV gear you or a spotter need full visual contact at all times, your transmitter must be 25mw or less and must be within 5725 – 5875 MHz with a CE mark. My friends and I fly ours with a GoPro and no FPV gear here in rural Cornwall at times or locations where tourists are not about. I do find that some locals will wait for me to land and ask questions about the mulitrotor, but despite hugely negative press, they just seem inquisitive. The trouble is, bad news sells and media outlets are happy to bundle hobbyist RC multirotors in with Predator UAVs. Added to which it seems that British law is reactionary, changing to suit the vocal minority. I wonder how long it'll be before we'll all need a pilot's license and aerial photography certification just for multirotors. Perhaps it'll be better just to switch to a fixed wing or gas helicopter and use the same video equipment. I'm pretty sure nobody would care if I took out the balsa 2channel and ripped it over a crowded beach.
I didn't even know what FPV meant until i got halfway through your post, so i guess i would be in the uninformed public category I get what you are saying about it being fun, educational and all that, but how else would you deal with the following scenarios ? 1) Someone using them to look into private properties, such as spying on someone in the shower, a child playing in their bedroom with no cloths on and publishing it to the net, spying on a couple being intimate, etc, etc. 2) Someone using them as a weapon, either by crashing into people or vehicles, or in a possible future development fitting one with a gun or similar objects meant to cause harm, explosives, chemicals. 3) Someone using one near an airport or over 400 feet and intentionally flying into an aircraft engine. I'm not saying you or any of the people you know would do any of the above, but well intentioned hobbyist are not the people we have to worry about. There are bad people in the world that will use them for nefarious means, if you can come up with a better solution than an outright ban I'm all ears. If i think of anymore I'll add them later
Urgh, really? I mean... Okay, I'll bite. 1) Most cameras mounted to multirotors (GoPro etc) have a ridiculously wide field of view and are suitable for landscape work. You would have to fly within about six to twelve feet of someone to record them with any clarity. It would be easier and more practical to use a DSLR with a long lens. Or a camera phone. Y'know, camera phones which everyone takes to the beach? 2) Max lift weight for my multirotor is 1Kg including the device itself. With the gimbal and GoPro it's actually at 1040g, so a little heavy. The weight of a loaded Colt M1911 handgun is 1.36Kg. I doubt a hobbyist multirotor could reliably lift a weapon much less aim and fire it accurately. You couldn't even use the blades themselves as a weapon. With SAFE, it shuts down if a prop meets resistance, like a human or as I found out, long grass. 3) Flying within 5 miles of an airport is illegal. Flying close enough to put one through a jet engine would require standing at the end of the runway. They would shut the runway while you are arrested. We can talk about hypothetical scenarios all day, but multirotors can never be as dangerous as a motor car or as invasive as a camera phone.
I don't fly these or anything for that matter. That said I'm pretty happy with the current CAA regs on these, especially Especially as the CAA appear to be enforcing their rules; http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2348 That said I can see a time when any spotty oik will be able to buy one for a couple of weeks worth of pocket money and potentially cause havoc, invade privacy and post their jolly little videos on youtube, when that times comes it's time to break out the air rifle and let rip
I'm going to ignore the gun bit as it's fairly irrelevant in this wee isle we inhabit Presently these UAV's are still quite pricey and out of the reach of the general populous, but as stated in my post above this won;t last long especially when trickle down through fleabay etc starts to take effect. So tell me, what's the kinetic energy going to be for 1Kg falling 400 feet? Long tall short of it, any and all users of these should at least have public liability insurance in my opinion.
They're no more or less dangerous than any other r/c thing, the danger comes from the idiot controlling it, and idiots will idiot regardless of the respective legalities... And if my [wolfram's] math is right, the kinetic energy of a 1kg thing falling at 11 m/s would be 60 ish Joules though having [what would amount to] a brick dropped on your head from any height would probably ruin your day...
Putting the condescending tone of your post aside for a moment, what is to stop someone flying it six to twelve feet from a bedroom, or bathroom window ? With double glazing i doubt the person would hear it, especially if they were in the shower, what's to stop someone modding one and fitting it with a better quality camera ? So everyone is only ever going to use small multirotor UAV's ? Here is an example of one that can lift 4Kg, what's to stop someone using that ? Or how about this one with a max liftoff weight of 10Kg, are you seriously saying no one can buy better multirotors than yours ? What's to stop people using them as drugs mules ? But i forget multirotors can't lift anything so that can't of happened, and Amazon must be lying when they say they have plans to use drones to make deliveries because they just can't carry any weight. Yea because everyone always obeys the law don't they ! Ohh wait no they don't What's to stop someone flying over the FAA approved 400 feet ? Or we can talk about real events that have already happened. Such as in June 2013, police officers apprehended a man who flew a multicopter outside the hospital that Nelson Mandela was in. Or how in April 2014, Robert Knowles of Barrow-in-Furness was prosecuted by the Civil Aviation Authority and pleaded guilty to flying a small UAV within 50 m of the Walney Bridge and the BAE Systems submarine testing facility. Or in August 2013, a UAV filming events at the Virginia Bull Run in Dinwiddie County, Virginia crashed into the crowd, causing minor injuries. Or in March 2013, an Alitalia pilot on final approach to runway 31 right at John F. Kennedy International Airport reported seeing a small UAV near his aircraft. Those are just some examples of the things that you say are impossible. Very true, it's down to the person in control. But with most other r/c vehicles the person has to have line of sight making it easier to identify someone if they are being an idiot, with a first person view UAV you don't (afaik). So for instance i could record outside the hospital that Nelson Mandela was in without anyone knowing it was me.
In the UK, if someone flew it over your property without your pemission and you had an approriately licenced shotgun, would you be applow to shoot it down. Hightly hypothetical. I've never fired a shotgun in my life.
I'm not sure you are even allowed to fire an appropriately licensed shotgun outside of organised target events or game shoots, the UK law on firearms ownership is pretty strict AFAIK.
You can fire a shotgun on your own land at clays or birds (in-season). There are some provisions abotu firing near roads and footpaths, I believe but I have no idea what they are.
Restrictions and laws are fine, I understand there will always be civilians who try to use personal UAVs in a manner which puts the privacy and safety of others at risk. Unfortunately that's the way of the world and having laws to prevent that or at least prosecute those who attempt such idiocy is fine. Where it stops being acceptable for me is when the laws and restrictions become too stringent for the hobby to thrive. Note that I am only referring to the hobby market at the moment, not military, law enforcement or commercial UAVs. I wouldn't want to nor can I think of any good reason to fly a UAV over nuclear facilities, airports and other such installations. The grey areas for me as far as UK law goes is flying closer than 50m to structures and flying over "private property" for harmless purposes. As far as flying within 50m of a structire goes, I'm pretty sure that law has been broken many times by FPV pilots in this country and many others around the world. When it comes to private property, as long as the property your ground station is on either belongs to you or is public property, it's my opinion that you should be fine. Private land owners don't own the airspace over their property, and I think that as long as you aren't breaking any other laws by doing so, you should be permitted to fly over other people's property. Having outright bans on FPV flight in certain US states and countries is taking it much too far and demolishing the ability of this great hobby (and it is great when used for constructive purposes, as negative a tone as this thread seems to have taken) to bring enjoyment, education, creativity and usefulness to countless people. I haven't double checked this, but as far as I know discharging a firearm on your own land with the intent to cause damage to property which belongs to another person or the intent to cause harm is against the law in the UK, so no, it wouldn't be lawful to shoot one down if it was flying over your property.
Farmers in the UK are permitted to shoot dogs or I assume any animals that are harassing their livestock, living in Cornwall I know this does happen and local radio has discussed this problem and warned people to keep their dogs out of fields with livestock in. I'm sure most people that fly the vehicles mentioned are responsible and would not fly very near livestock, but as it might well spook the animals and knowing a few farmers I can assure you that they would not hesitate in blasting it out of the sky if they felt the need to, most people, myself included, know little about FPV & UAV's so I'm not surprised some people will question anyone using this equipment, especially if they see cameras mounted on them. Photography has been an interest of mine for a few years and I've been asked 'Why were you taking a picture of me' by someone who saw me holding up a camera when I was a few hundred feet away from them, I explained that the lens was an 18-55mm zoom and that from that distance they were just someone in the crowd, they weren't convinced so I showed them the pictures I had taken and they calmed down, again a case of someone not understanding the equipment. The issue with cameras is that when you are obviously taking pictures with a dedicated camera some people take offense and if something flew low overhead and I could see a camera I'd be curious, yet with so many people owning cameras phones they now understand that tech, so often don't take any notice of people taking pictures on their phones
Well I wouldn't be too surprised that he had a bit of snark in his response to you. Since, honestly the potential issues you raised are kinda rediculous. Yes, there exists the possability for them to exist. But not in a way that is either impractical, or already covered by a multitude of other devices. What you asked is kinda like being concerned about people using their PC's to electrocute people. Which is entirely possible, but there are more effective ways to hurt people. Yes you are correct, it is entirely possible to mod a quadcopter or a gopro and get a lens that i can use to spy on people with. I will also need a pretty nice stablization system for the camera since the more telephoto you make the lens the more suceptable it is to vibration. So I could spend around $5000 and take very nice video of you dancing around in your living room playing rockband in your mankini. Or, I could spend a much smaller portion of that, buy a tripod, and camera, and a 1600mm telephoto lens. Then take as many pictures of you as I want from the comfort of my own living room half a km away. With pretty much no risk of ever being caught, and no risk of my several thousand dollar setup crashing and catching on fire when a bit of moisture lands on the controller board. (happened to a freind of mine, not the spying bit, but his $4000 hexacopter crashing and smoldering itself to death while he was testing it after a small amount of rain hit it.) You are correct, people don't follow laws if they don't want to. So what do you think making more laws is going to do for you? The things you are concerned about are already illegal, and have been illegal pretty much since large numbers of people starting doing RC stuff. So the only people you are going to hurt with more regulations are the people who bother to follow the regulations. Not the people who are already performing illegal actions. As for drug mules, there is nothing. Absolutely nothing that can possibly be done regulations wise to prevent people from using them as drug mules. Perhaps flying around in Apache helicopters gunning down people with RC vehicles might lower the numbers a bit. But seriously, They cant even stop people from using other people as drug mules, or even making their own dang submarines. So if you have some magical way that can prevent drug lords from getting their hands on some electric motors some bits of aluminum and a microcontroller. Please call the DEA and let them know. Seriously drug smugglers use literally everything imaginable. Posing this as a potential reason boggles my mind. Honestly the most effective way to prevent this kind of stuff for the vast majority of cases is local hobby groups that are a part of national organizations. These folks can usually help people who are starting out, teach them things about it, and steer them away from doing illegal things. These groups are far more effective in regulating an industry than getting draconian government regulations to handle it.
So dropping drugs of to the local prison is covered by what exactly ? How about recording video of a young child having a bath in a private property, what device currently covers that? What device enables you to record what is happening on the 20th floor of a building that you are not allowed to enter, or private land ? True, but it's far more effective to use a drone... Or you could video people taking a shower, sunbathing nude on private property, children in the bath, or get close up video of Kate Middleton topless instead of those blurry photos taken using a telephoto lens and then sell them to pay for your $5000 UAV. Well as long as there's no obstacles between your living room and the target then yes you could, fortunately that works both ways, if someone can see your living room window they would know there's a possibility that someone could be watching them. A UAV removes all the obstacles that block line of sight privacy, are you suggesting that anyone with windows should draw the curtains even though they know no one has direct line of sight ? Or that someone shouldn't sun bath nude even though they know no one can look into their garden ? Well if they pass a law banning the sale of UAV's people wouldn't be able to use them to break the law, just like there are strict gun control laws in the UK and we have a lot less gun crime than the US. Then again it's not down to me, or the uninformed public to come up with laws, regulations, or controls that enable the hobbyist to carry on enjoying their hobby while preventing the less benign people from misusing it, it's easier for us to just slap an outright ban on them, problem solved for us. Drug smugglers are very different than taking drugs over a prison wall. That all works well in theory, but what do you do about those people who have no intention of using them in a benign fashion ? For TPTB it's easier to just ban them. The hard part is for the local hobby groups and national organizations to come up with better alternatives that allows them to carry on enjoying their hobby while reassuring TPTB and the general public that it's less likely to be abused.
Dropping Drugs into a prison lets see... Possession of a controlled substance, possession with intent to distribute, a few transport related laws, and a few related specifically to prisons. It doesn't matter if you use a stick, a catapult, a UAV, a rocket, or your arm. They are all still very illegal. It's not a question of needing laws the police just need to come up with a clever way to stop it. Recording a child on someones property, harassment, assault, possession of child pornography, again doesn't matter what you used to record it. Devices to let your record things on high buildings... cameras on similarly high buildings, lasers, wireless bugs. If you are talking about something that others shouldn't see or hear you probably shouldn't be doing it in a conference room with windows, or at least ones you can see in. All that said, it is much, much easier to stop UAV's from going where they are not supposed to. All the prison needs to do is have a directional antenna blast out some 2.4 Ghz and maybe 900 Mhz for good measure and the UAV will drop out of the sky. I see this more as the prison needs to find a solution to deal with a new technology, not we should ban it to make things easier. Or you know, use your hand. Much easier to steer your wrist than it is a finicky helicopter through two 1 inch sticks. Paparattzi are like drug dealers, I don't measure their actions and methods with the same kind of stick as everyone else. They will get their pictures one way or another. A small camera on a stick also removes most of those barriers, and is probably much less intrusive than a UAV buzzing over your house. The UK also has a similar land area as Oregon so I suspect there might be just a couple more factors in play in that equation than just the laws. It's also easier to kill any suspected criminals whether they are guilty or not. Even though your capital punishment rate would be sky high, as least your crime rate is near 0! Success right? Just because something is easy doesn't make it the correct way to go. It might not be solely down to you, but you and the rest of the public play a very very large role in how regulations pan out. They are both smuggling drugs? I know there is a bit of a difference between the Colombian cartel, and jimbo from your gang getting you some drugs, but they are both going to be similarly resourceful, one just has more money behind them. Well, there happens to be a pretty long list of hobbiest groups in reality that have been sucessful in managing significantly more dangerous hobbies than UAV's. A club I am a part of is a great example, the National Association of Rocketry. Our hobby involves fairly large heavy rockets with explosives, and with some examples traveling at speeds in excess of mach 4. Yet there has never been a fatal incident in the hobbies history. Most of the serious injuries that I can recall involve people running through fields looking up for their rocket and tripping into a hole. The NAR and Tripoli rocketry clubs through agreements with the rocket motor manufacturers control the distribution of rocket motors. There is no government involvement in this system at all. They have a certification system in place with tests and practical demonstrations that allow you to build up to buying bigger rocket motors. I currently carry the highest level of certification in the program, which allows me to purchase O and higher sized rocket motors (about 50 lbs of rocket propellant). Aside from guidance and setting safety standards the clubs also provide 3 million dollars in individual liability insurance if you follow the safety guidelines. Which is a pretty big incentive to be a part of the club. So there are examples that have long histories of success around that can provide a decent model for managing UAV's.
Sorry, didn't you say "or already covered by a multitude of other devices" ? Since when did it become about what law covers what ? If you really want to make it about laws, then fine. But don't claim that it is impractical or that other devices exist when there are no other devices (afaik) that enable the person piloting the devices to see what the device sees, as per the title of the OT FPV & UAV, First person view & Unmanned Ariel Vehicle. If you want to talk about the laws covering criminal uses then fine, how would you solve the obvious problem people have with FPV UAV's in that if the UAV is committing a crime how do you find the person piloting it ? In the end you can come up with excuses all you want, like you shouldn't be walking around in your own property naked even if you are on the 20th floor, or that prisons should invest thousands to jam the signal from UAV's, but at the end of the day TPTB and the general public just have to say ban UAV's and problem solved, we don't have to bother with those types of impracticable and expensive "solutions" just so a few people can enjoy a hobby. And when you don't want to be identified as the person who fired it ? You may raise peoples suspicions if you walked around with a mask and a taser, let alone being caught after you fired it. Use a FPV UAV and now someone could do that without ever being identified, or risk being caught, and you don't even need to learn how to fly it as you can just use one with an app to make it nice and simple. Yet now anyone can be a Paparattzi, or drop some drugs of to a mate that is behind bars, you don't even have to risk being caught in the act. A small stick that is 1km long Killing a criminal is very different than banning something, but hey if you want to ignore the concerns of TPTB and the general public then fine, but don't be surprised when they ignore the concerns of the UAV hobbyists and just call for an outright ban, the simple and cheap solution. And both are dealt with in very different ways, for instance we stop Jimbo throwing drugs over the wall by building high walls, we search him when he pays a visit. TPTB call for a ban of UAV's the nice quick, cheap, simple solution. And i dare say there are guide line, rules and laws governing the use of the hobbyist rocketeer, the buying and use of the motors. I would guess in the early days of the hobbyist rocketeer there were similar calls to just ban them, i would also guess that groups like the National Association of Rocketry proposed what guide lines, laws and rules should govern their hobby so that they could continue to enjoy it without the need for TPTB to ban them outright. And this is the type of thing that is needed IMHO for UAV's with or without FPV capabilitys, like i said it's a quick, cheap, simple solution for the general public and TPTB to just call for them to be banned. It's down to the people who want to continue using them to come up with an alternative to just banning them that will reassure TPTB that they can be used safely and lessening the chance that they maybe used for malicious use.
Many long and scripted replies in this thread, not yet fully read this thread guys, so apologies. Will do when I can but I guess the root concern or issue is related to "privacy"? to which reference has been made but as Corky42 has already said, TBH, I would most likely have fallen into the "uninformed public" on this matter.
