I don't mind drone rules in principle. Wild west was fun while it lasted but we need to be aware we are in control of a flying chunk of metal going at high speed controlled by people who probably aren't experts and haven't practiced emergency avoidance maneuvers enough.
The annoying part right now though is that while we are figuring it all out, regulations are changing fast and often. It seems you could almost buy a drone and be in different legal framework by the time you fly it. Certainly inside one season the reasonably expensive (for us) dji my friend and I bought halvsies went from completely unencumbered to needing licensing because it was over 250g. In USA it seems they went through a few frameworks last few years as well. Which I understand, it's a new territory and moving fast... Just makes it a bit tricky to stay informed, legal and compliant.
> The low-risk category, which accounts for the majority of hobbyist drones, will be managed through the CE mark, which is a process for products sold in Europe to ensure they meet health, safety and environmental standards.
How does this work for home-made drones? You wouldn't have a CE mark.
That is up to the manufacturer. Anyway, you don't need to register the drone in this kind of case, only you as a pilot and even that is questionable in the case of Tiny Whoop which would be flown mostly inside (i believe that the regulation doesn't cover indoors).
Do CE markings apply to software like apps? Some quick searching seems to indicate it's mostly relevant to embedded software (and most search results are talking about medical devices embedded software).
That's exactly why I asked, since the parent said "I 'home-made' an iPhone app and gave it a CE mark myself." and I don't know what the CE mark would even mean in that context.
> That is a very simple take on the quite complex situation that still differs in different states of the EU.
How complicated did you expect me to get in a HN comment?
But I believe it's fact - medical software that measures or calculates on an iPhone gives you a medical device, and a medical device needs to be regulated in the UK, EU, and most other places. I was on the team that did among the first work on regulating this properly.
Yes, but you generally only need to CE mark something that you're selling. You can for the most part build and operate something yourself without needing to do it.
I have one and I’m in London. My understanding is these new rules actually free things up significantly for drones in that weight class. Previously, you couldn’t fly over ‘congested’ areas, near people, buildings, etc. So it was very difficult to fly fully legal around London. The new rules remove those restrictions.
All they require in exchange is registration for £9/year. The sub 250g drones don’t require you to do the online certification or get a flyer ID.
London still has a bunch of special security zones you can’t fly in, so you won’t be getting any nice shots of Canary Wharf, but it does open things up a lot. I’m concerned that the police won’t be up to date with the new regulations though, and apparently they can just seize your equipment and make it very painful to get back.
The sub 250g drones don’t require you to do the online certification or get a flyer ID.
I could very much be mistaken, but I thought the special rules regarding <250g drones only apply if the drone does not have a camera. The DJI Mini does.
There are two distinct things: an operator ID and a flyer ID. The first is basically just a register of ownership. No test or competency, unlike the latter, which does require you to show you know a little about the rules.
For sub 250g drones without a camera, you don’t need either of these. If it does have a camera, you need an operator ID but not a flyer ID. So you have to fill out a form with your name and address, and stick the ID to your drone, but there’s no certification element like there is when you have a heavier drone and need a flyer ID too.
under US hobbyist drone rules, you are required to maintain line of sight at all times. if you need a camera to fly the drone, you are probably breaking the rules.
The camera means it needs registered, but it’s not very onerous and there are no competency requirements. The new rules actually give you more freedom in terms of where you can fly, so it’s a good deal IMO.
You only need insurance for commercial operations.
Well, member states are free to go beyond the EU rules and add their own local ones, so it might be true in those countries. I don’t believe you need insurance for hobby activities in the UK, though I’m not an expert and open to being corrected.
I think its good that there are rules in place.
When I was visiting a bird nature reserve someone started flying a drone to film the birds. That obviously disturbers the birds since it was a nesting area. I think we should not trust self policing or regulation here and manufacturers should geo fence off such nature reserve areas as no fly zones. And I will be straight either they geo fence or they do not get to sell their products on the market and I think that there should be a hefty fine if you ignore the rules.
Our public spaces and the environment and nature is a shared space, and you cannot do whatever you feel like in a space we share if its disturbing, neither should and can I.
In most developed countries gun ownership is controlled enough that you don't really need to worry about that.
If we're talking about that one developed country where everybody and their grandmother carries a gun, I get the feeling geofencing them would not be a popular measure.
But yeah, in principle this is totally a thing we should do.
I assume axes need regulating, so you don't cut down the trees, matches so you can't burn them, poisons so you don't kill the birds, speakers because loud noise could disrupt them, etc. ?
Doing harmful things is what's punishable and regulated. Having the means to do them is not. e.g. I would be punished for chopping down a bird sanctuary, but not required to get a license to own an axe.
In most countries you can't carry a knife on you that's longer than a few centimeters in public. I have no idea what kind of axe legislation exists because I doubt it's ever been a major issue if someone somewhere in the forest swings an axe around, but it actually is perfectly common to regulate tools that are dangerous for other people or endangered animals, plants and so on.
If you could make an axe or a match that couldn’t hurt people, then obviously, yes, you’d do that.
We haven’t before now had the technology to do that in a way that wouldn’t violate other rights, but the technology is shifting in such a way that there are domains where we will have that ability and of course we should do it.
The only reason anybody objects to this is because, again, we used to live in a world where you’d have to do something objectionable to achieve these goals, but as that becomes less true the objections will seem increasingly absurd.
Yes, probably. And cars should be geofenced and speed regulated on public roads, too. Once you have the technology to make objects that can’t break the law it’s hard to think of an argument for allowing versions of them to be made that can. It really boils down to this: at the point of manufacture you have to choose between making a version of your product that can break the law and a version that can’t; I’d submit that this is an easy choice.
You also should be chipped when we have the technology so that you don't get the wrong thoughts... What you are suggesting is absolutely insane. Most things in this world can be used for unlawful things. By your suggestion we should also lock down computers, remove vpn or encryption etc.
Not only is what I’m suggesting not insane, it’s inevitable. As we gain more and more technological control over deadly machines like cars the insane thing will be not to install the tech that makes them far less deadly.
Geofencing a car on public roads doesn’t eliminate any legal uses of the car. It doesn’t violate any rights or freedoms. It doesn’t involve any interesting tradeoffs or compromises. It’s a commonsense banality.
This claim shocks people, but that’s just because we used to live in a world where you’d have to do something objectionable to achieve these kinds of goals. But that’s increasingly not true; our intuitions just haven’t caught up to this new reality.
(Obviously, by the way, that’s why your examples aren’t equivalent. I don’t want to chip your brain or your computer, because that would entail an objectionable limitation. Preventing you from speeding in your car on a public right-of-way does not require any objectionable limitation. It only seems like it might, because we’re used to thinking there’s no way you could prevent these kinds of things without doing something objectionable.)
You buy a small drone for fun. Next, you need to register it, then take some online test periodically, then pay yearly insurance fee, later you'll be required for the drone to register with a mobile network to track its use. All for a thing you might use 2-3 times a year on average. If you managed to buy a DJI drone, it might be confiscated upon entering the US. I'd say it's over for this hobby as well as for drone manufacturers.
DJI is on the "Entity List", which means that US companies are required to have a license to export certain controlled export items to them. It doesn't ban anyone from buying or possessing DJI products.
Were you genuinely confused by the title, or are you just pretending to be and actually you understood it just fine?
The article is from the UK, where 'Europe' colloquially means the rest of the continent distinct from the UK. Actually so does just 'continent' and 'continental' on its own. This isn't an ignorance thing, or a Brexit thing, it's been this way as long as I've been around, long before anyone was seriously suggesting we leave.
I was actually confused if it also applied to non-EU European countries. I find equivocating EU and Europe when talking about laws pretty weird since there are many non-EU countries in Europe with very different laws and treaties.
> the stupidity of using “Europe” to mean “EU” in Britain
It's just a contraction. People on both sides of the debate or with no opinion use it. I think you're making it out to be a bigger deal or something nefarious when it's just a short-hand of speech.
Nobody is confused by what the author means, except people pretending to be so.
I don’t think anyone is confused either. But language matters and my suspicion is that referring to “Europe” as something else (meaning continental Europe, the rest of Europe etc) for decades has contributed to the feeling among britons of not actually being fundamentally European in the same way e.g the French or Swedish do. You wouldn’t hear anyone else in the EU “go to Europe” or conflate the EU or Europe. And we make a point of not doing it.
Given that the UK's regulatory relationship with the rest of Europe fundamentally changes in a little over eight hours, it's hardly unreasonable for a UK news source to be extremely explicit about this, given the common shorthand of using the term "Europe" to refer to a mishmash of the EU/EEA/EFTA.
In the same way Canada and Mexico are technically both part of America despite not being part of the USA, this is a reasonably well understood linguistic shortcut.
There is no way the brexit crew will accept that fact. They think the island is moving west as we speak and will soon be over the continental divide...
Unfortunately for humanity, we get a lot of comments like this that miss the point. Laws exist, in a lot of cases, to help keep honest people honest. Yea, my car has a license plate and criminal's easily steal someone else's or even make their own (particularly in my US state where they're only printed, not stamped metal). But having the license plate still helps in most cases.
Have you read the regulations? They are safety measures. Drones over a certain weight can't be flown over people. A 1kg drone hitting you in the head has a lot of potential for injury (and is not that remote of a possibility).
The fact that they have to be registered is annoying and we could do without, but understandable. Most things that occupy the air have to be registered, since there's a high possibility of catastrophe.
They restrict what manufacturers can legally provide, reducing the availability of dangerous drones.
They also mean that a drone which is blatantly unsafe can now be legally confiscated.
Lastly they provide extra options for punishment when someone is injured because the regulations were ignored. Though an increase in punishment doesn't have much impact on the incidents of a crime, it does have some.
Some people get away with murder, so lets not make it a crime as these laws just give you a false sense of control! <- It's a silly argument.
Most people try to do the right thing and to follow laws and regulations.
Putting regulations in place removes most of the problems because most people and drone manufacturers will follow them. There is always a minority who does not, from idiots to criminals, and that's why we have the police to enforce the law.
License plates do make enforcement laws and regulations easier by the way, and thus do help protect everyone.
And as with cars, the real criminals will probably steal one for their nefarious uses, rather than buy and register their own. Or build one from parts that are now widely available.
You won't stop criminals using drones by forcing hobbyists to register even their ~30g 'Tiny Whoop' drones.
Not sure it'll even have much impact on careless/reckless flying, as the people doing that are the sort of people who probably won't even read the rules before playing with their shiny new toy right next to an airport on a windy day...
> You won't stop criminals using drones by forcing hobbyists to register
No, if criminals are going to steal drones because of registration requirements, what that does is add another crime, that will often be detected earlier than the major crime they intend to commit and which adds to the probability that there will be sufficient evidence to convict them of at least one crime.
License number on cars are not only for criminals and terrorists. There are also used to identify who hit your parked car, who hit a person and run , who is driving dangerously.
I figure if the operator is doing something illegal, they might also risk not running an ID.
I also wonder how the IDs will work, are they just written on the drone or do they need to have transponders like aircraft? I feel like transponders are the only way they could effectively enforce the rules.
>I figure if the operator is doing something illegal, they might also risk not running an ID.
I am thinking more at idiots or negligent people not criminals or terrorists. If you cause some damages with your toy drone you will have no choice but to admit and pay for them and hopefully you get less idiots risking other people health with their toy hobby or commercial stuff.
I gave a car as an example, you don't know you will cause an accident and kill someone so you will not have removed your licensed plates and erased the serial numbers from the car body.
Yeah, but when you have a witness or a camera you get something more then a color.
The scenario I see happening with drones is people crashing them by mistake on innocents heads or property causing damages, since the drone crashed police can read it's serial number and see who the owner is.
People who follow the rules and make a mistake are the most likely to be caught. They're probably also the least likely to cause trouble or run from the consequences of their actions.
> since the drone crashed police can read it's serial number and see who the owner is.
Not from the serial number -- but from the pilot's operator ID they received at registration, and then affixed to the side of their drone.
Those who are apathetic to the rules, or actively flout them may simply take their drone out of the box and fly it.
>People who follow the rules and make a mistake are the most likely to be caught. They're probably also the least likely to cause trouble or run from the consequences of their actions.
Do you refer to drones only or in general? If in general you think car license plates are useless?
> They're probably also the least likely to cause trouble or run from the consequences of their actions
Any data or is an opinion?
Btw most car related accidents are happening when people do not follow the rules like respecting the speed limit, or not using a phone so why would they follow the "accept the consequences of your actions" rule if they could get away?
The annoying part right now though is that while we are figuring it all out, regulations are changing fast and often. It seems you could almost buy a drone and be in different legal framework by the time you fly it. Certainly inside one season the reasonably expensive (for us) dji my friend and I bought halvsies went from completely unencumbered to needing licensing because it was over 250g. In USA it seems they went through a few frameworks last few years as well. Which I understand, it's a new territory and moving fast... Just makes it a bit tricky to stay informed, legal and compliant.