Drones.

[GudrunBrangwen]

Last week there was a large (probably about a foot across) drone flying over our garden, over the field behind us, over our neighbours' gardens and so on and it didn't appear to be particularly well controlled.

It made a hell of a racket too, and was really disturbing, particularly as it hovered above my head while I was hanging out the washing and I had to stop and go in, being afraid it was about to crash land on my head.

The sound is horrible, like a massive swarm of bees - I don't know if it had a camera, and I didn't know who was flying it.

Nasty feeling.

I'm afraid I stuck my finger up at it, knowing if it were filming me they would see that but if not, then no harm done... but I realised after a while that it was being flown by an old boy and probably his grandsons, so I felt bad about it then.

But honestly having one of those things above your head when you've no idea of its intentions is really, really scary.

Apparently people like Amazon and some other delivery services (Finnish Post Office!) are trialling them to deliver parcels.

I think it's an appalling idea but in the meantime, does anyone know what the rules are about flying them above other people's property and so on?

I think it's a problem that's going to get worse.

It's a definite problem, and one that isn't being dealt with very well by any government. There have been a number of horrible accidental fatalities from hobby drones in the last number of years - it's very easy to lose control of a small drone, even if you're very experienced- and they are lethal, if you get hit with one, you're very likely to be severely injured or killed. There is little or no legislation to cover them.

The delivery drone idea is thoroughly stupid and absolutely unworkable with current technology. You absolutely cannot have drones randomly appearing in residential areas and landing in gardens etc - it would absolutely terrify people and likely end in multiple deaths and injuries. Even with the relatively small number of drones out there at the moment the number of horrific injuries is high.

Shotgun licenses are available ....

Yes Lurking but you are not allowed to wave a loaded shotgun about on a housing estate.

Some chimps in a zoo brought one down (deliberately) with sticks. I think a cricket bat would do it.

A powerful water pistol would seem a good alternative.

I think they're kind of cool, though unfortunately there will always be some idiot who fails to realise that there could be a privacy issue when flying one over someone else's property.

cailindana Where are all these horrific injuries happening? I only remember seeing one case of a minor injury in a restaurant though I don't make a point of searching out reports of drone injuries.

And absolutely terrify people and likely end in multiple deaths and injuries? Really? Don't you think that's just a bit hyperbolic?

Thanks for the responses.

I haven't heard about any accidents involving them though there have ben some near misses I think with aircraft. There's a massive thread about this issue over on the other forum I frequent - aviation law is currently wrestling with the problem. If they haven't caused multiple deaths then they certainly have the potential to.

A friend of mine who works with drones is very concerned about their safety. 2013 was when the technology became most widely available and in that year there were cases of hobbyists being killed in Korea, Brazil and Texas. There have been hundreds of injuries and near misses. In Brazil a drone that came down in a stadium and narrowly missed the spectators, and in Virginia a drone at a motorsports show injured five people.

In that year there was also a horrible case in New York of a young man who flew drones as a hobby having the top of his head sliced off by his own drone in front of his poor father. He was very experienced but just lost control.

Since 2013 people seem to have got a bit of sense - they realise that a solid object flying through the air with spinning blades is quite dangerous.

My 12yo actually had a very tiny one (smaller than palm of your hand) which we tried and failed to do anything with last Christmas, but close up it was indeed very very dangerous - you could cut someone's face quite badly - and I made him take it outdoors, but one motor wasn't aligned so it wouldn't fly. And when it did, it was within reach - if he had let it anywhere near someone's garden I would have scragged him.

They really should not be messed with.

Mythbusters recently looked at the chances of injury from drones.

Just read a report that criminals are using them here in Ireland to case properties they want to rob.

x posts - that sounds really horrifying Cailin. Nasty stuff.

Even very experienced drone pilots who fly them for their job every day have come close to injury. Another guy I know used to fly them to do geographical surveys but stopped as he found it too stressful - he was always terrified one would come down on a member of the public.

I can't get that video to work Lurking, but I can't see how the possibility of being injured by a heavy piece of metal flying through the air could be a myth - it's just ordinary physics.

I don't think I should have googled RC drone injuries. It kind of brings it home how out of control they are and how scary that is when you can't get away and they're homing in on you!

If I see these guys flying it again I'll go and have a word - at least they could have the consideration to keep it away from gardens where there could be children playing, pets and so on.

Wiki Link

At the workshop, Jamie mounted a multirotor propeller on a long pole, spun it up to flight speed, and was able to cut a deep gash in a plucked chicken carcass. Adam then built a neck analog from ballistic gelatin with embedded vinyl tubing “veins,” mounted it at a proper human height, and filled it with simulated blood. Jamie steered two different commercially available multirotors — four propellers, then six — toward the neck; in each case, the blades bent and the craft fell to the floor without causing any noticeable injury.
For a final test, Jamie had one of the camera operators pilot an eight-propeller craft he had built to hold a video camera. It fell to the floor upon striking the neck, but the blades (made of carbon-fiber instead of the plastic used in the store-bought models) cut into one of the veins. He and Adam declared the myth plausible, noting that while small store-bought models are designed with safety in mind, larger custom-built models can pose a real danger.

These come under Civil Aviation Authority, and there are actually regulations which should protect you!

www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1995&pageid=16012

For aircraft of 20 kg or less:
Article 166
A person shall not cause or permit any article or animal (whether or not attached to a parachute) to be dropped from a small aircraft so as to endanger persons or property.
The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fly the aircraft if reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made.
The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must maintain direct, unaided visual contact with the aircraft sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions.

GudrunBrangwen, was the drone out of line of sight of the flier, do you think? That should hopefully be enough to take the complaint to the police!

However, if there's a camera aboard, Article 167 applies:

Article 167

<span class="italic">The person in charge of a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not fly the aircraft in any of the circumstances described in paragraph (2) except in accordance with a permission issued by the CAA.</span>
<span class="italic">The circumstances referred to in paragraph (1) are:</span>

<span class="italic">a) over or within 150 metres of any congested area;</span>
<span class="italic">b) over or within 150 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons;</span>
<span class="italic">c) within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft; or</span>

d) subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), within 50 metres of any person.

<span class="italic">Subject to paragraph (4), during take-off or landing, a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not be flown within 30 metres of any person.</span> 
<span class="italic">Paragraphs (2)(d) and (3) do not apply to the person in charge of the small unmanned surveillance aircraft or a person under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft.</span>

From CAA regulations on drones

Summary

In essence therefore, provided the aircraft has a mass of 20 kg or less, the current regulations state:

The operation must not endanger anyone or anything.

The aircraft must be kept within the visual line of sight (normally taken to be within 500 m horizontally and 400 ft vertically) of its remote pilot (i.e. the ‘person in charge’ of it). Operations beyond these distances must be approved by the CAA (the basic premise being for the operator to prove that he/she can do this safely).

Small unmanned aircraft (irrespective of their mass) that are being used for surveillance purposes are subject to tighter restrictions with regard to the minimum distances that you can fly near people or properties that are not under your control. If you wish to fly within these minima, permission is required from the CAA before operations are commenced.

CAA permission is also required for all flights that are being conducted for aerial work (i.e. in very simple terms, you are getting paid for doing it).
The 'remote pilot' has the responsibility for satisfying him/herself that the flight can be conducted safely.

x-post

I'm afraid I stuck my finger up at it

I like you OP

So few people know about these regulations that it definitely bears repeating, LurkingHusband! I only learned about it from... er... Mumsnet, so social media platforms are clearly a good medium for spreading the news!

Small unmanned aircraft (irrespective of their mass) that are being used for surveillance purposes are subject to tighter restrictions with regard to the minimum distances that you can fly near people or properties that are not under your control. If you wish to fly within these minima, permission is required from the CAA before operations are commenced.

This is the key - camera drones require advance permission.

I saw a surveillance drone last year. It was being buzzed over a large earthworks for CrossRail in Woolwich. Very hi-viz - you really couldn't miss it.

In other news, I saw the Apple mapping van last week . Twice !

Being filmed or your children being filmed without your permission is surely a privacy concern as well?

Being filmed or your children being filmed without your permission is surely a privacy concern as well?

There's no law against filming in public.

I think people are confusing types of drones here. There are the big ones like this (which you actually see pretty rarely) www.cityam.com/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_article_body_image/public/main/blogposts/DroneGettyFull.jpg

The ones like this are large but mostly made out of foam rubber (?) and very light so you couldn't fly one very high or far as it would just get blown away: ardrone2.parrot.com/static-ar2elite/images/theme/old-intro/drone_sand.png

Then you get tiny ones like these: www.coolweirdo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/WorldsSmallestAutopilotDrone-1.jpg

This is what the Amazon one looked like: static6.businessinsider.com/image/54862bfb69bedd7b37e3dc4e-480/jeff-bezos-drone.jpg

The chances of a company using these for delivery is so remote it's not even worth getting worried about it.