They are going to have to do something about drones

[Nearly Sane]

Something has been done, it's already illegal to fly a drone at over 400 feet. The next step will be to require them to be licensed because is looks like it is going to be very hard to find out who was nominally in control of this one.

looking at the other regulations, I am a bit baffled how it is possible to use one at all legally most of the time given the 50 metre rule about proximity to other people.

[floo]

I suspect policing drones is going to be difficult.

[Harrowby Hall]

Perhaps they could be fitted with some sort of identification device, perhaps like the chips inserted into cats and dogs. They could be in addition to other identification methods (serial numbers for airframes, motors etc) or built into the radio control systems. Of course, people will try to find ways of subverting them but if there is more than one this will be more difficult.

[floo]

I wonder if drones might be used as a terrorist weapon? If that is possible all the more reason for limiting the number of people permitted to own the things.

[Sebastian Toe]

I wonder if drones might be used as a terrorist weapon? If that is possible all the more reason for limiting the number of people permitted to own the things.

Cars and trucks are used as terrorist weapons currently.
Will you be calling for limitation of who can use  or own them?

[floo]

Cars and trucks are used as terrorist weapons currently.
Will you be calling for limitation of who can use  or own them?

Cars and trucks are necessary means of transport, drones in the hands of anyone, but professionals, are unnecessary, imo. 

I believe they are trying to ban Chinese lanterns too as they can be dangerous and cause fires.

[Sebastian Toe]

Cars and trucks are necessary means of transport,

Not neccessary for everyone who owns one. So you could restrict ownership to those for whom they are actually necessary?

[floo]

Not neccessary for everyone who owns one. So you could restrict ownership to those for whom they are actually necessary?

You are not comparing like with like.

[jeremyp]

Cars and trucks are necessary means of transport, drones in the hands of anyone, but professionals, are unnecessary, imo. 

The world would bet a boring place if we were only allowed to do what is necessary.

I believe they are trying to ban Chinese lanterns too as they can be dangerous and cause fires.

I'd be more sympathetic about that one. A paper bag on fire drifting through the air has obvious safety implications.

[Sebastian Toe]

You are not comparing like with like.

Something that you do all the time.........not.

[floo]

Something that you do all the time.........not.

Ehhhhhhhhhh?

[ekim]

I wonder if drones might be used as a terrorist weapon? If that is possible all the more reason for limiting the number of people permitted to own the things.

They probably could be used by terrorists or psychopaths.  It's just another technology which can be used for good or ill.  I doubt whether it could be regulated satisfactorily.  It might be possible to restrict its use to those above a certain age group, insist upon proper training, registration and insurance cover but I doubt whether that would deter a determined terrorist and like the Internet there would probably be ways around it.

[jeremyp]

I doubt whether it could be regulated satisfactorily.  It might be possible to restrict its use to those above a certain age group, insist upon proper training, registration and insurance cover but I doubt whether that would deter a determined terrorist and like the Internet there would probably be ways around it.

I think our gun laws provide a solid counter example to that argument.

Why did the guy who attacked the Palace of Westminster the other day not have a gun? Probably because he couldn't get hold of one.

[ekim]

I think our gun laws provide a solid counter example to that argument.

Why did the guy who attacked the Palace of Westminster the other day not have a gun? Probably because he couldn't get hold of one.

You may be right, but whether there would be a political will to increase taxes to pay for the policing  I don't know.

[Rhiannon]

Chinese lanterns are horribly dangerous because there is no control over where they land. Aside from the fire risk the wire frames have been known to kill animals. They are beautiful but they should be banned.

[Bubbles]

It might be, one day, that you will need a license of some sort and zones where you can fly them without getting in the way of plane flight paths and a height restriction depending on where it is.

You probably would have to abide by no fly zones around power stations and the like.

You could have some restrictions, but not a total ban, to make it safer and so people can enjoy flying them.

Some people like shooting rockets, and they go quite high.

IMO it's all about where you do it.

[Rhiannon]

You may be right, but whether there would be a political will to increase taxes to pay for the policing  I don't know.

I don't think it'd be a huge of resources. It might be unlikely to stop a terrorist but it would stop the muppets who just don't know what they are doing and who risk causing just as much devastation.

[Bubbles]

Yep they are definitely going to have to do something, a plane hit one coming into land ( British airways jet landing at Heathrow) and although the 132 passengers were fine, it's obviously dangerous, because people are silly to fly it that close to an airport.

Plus this article says some man got charged for losing control of one near some nuclear submarine base 

He was lucky they didn't charge him with spying, do that in some countries and that would be your lot.

The UK is quite tolerant, because I think he got off lightly. I'm surprised that's all he got 

I think they are going to have to do something about it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/04/18/drone-laws-in-the-uk--what-are-the-rules/

[Nearly Sane]

It might be, one day, that you will need a license of some sort and zones where you can fly them without getting in the way of plane flight paths and a height restriction depending on where it is.

You probably would have to abide by no fly zones around power stations and the like.

You could have some restrictions, but not a total ban, to make it safer and so people can enjoy flying them.

Some people like shooting rockets, and they go quite high.

IMO it's all about where you do it.

That there are restrictions was posted earlier.

[Bubbles]

That there are restrictions was posted earlier.

But they are obviously not enough, because they don't cater for domestic drones very well. The existing laws are probably more designed for remote control planes which don't go so high.

If they did what was intended , planes ( commercial jets )  coming into land wouldn't be encountering them.

[Nearly Sane]

But they are obviously not enough, because they don't cater for domestic drones very well.

If they did, planes coming into land wouldn't be encountering them.

Not sure what you mean by 'enough'? There are laws against murder but it still happens. You made a point that there should be regulations about height etc but there are.

So, in addition, we could make the penalties harsher, have some form of licensing system (though people drive cars without a licence every day), greater system controls on height (note the alleged 11000 feet was achieved by removing the existing controls), or an outright ban for private ownerships. What do you favour?

[Bubbles]

Not an outright ban, because the majority of hobbyists are responsible, but some training wouldn't hurt.

This is the sort of thing Ministers are looking at bringing in.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/21/drone-users-face-safety-test-new-uk-regulations