Dear Readers:
Continuing with our story about the Russian government’s attempt to deal with the problems presented by civilians owning or operating drones for their own amusement. We saw that the Russian government have implemented certain regulations to license drone owners as well as register the devices that they own. For Americans, the analogy would be: You need a driver’s license to prove that you know how to drive a car (abstractly, any car), and you also need to register every particular car that you own.
In the current situation, in Russia, owning or using a drone for non-military purposes (for example, photography) is not necessarily illegal except in those Oblasts that border Ukraine (for obvious reasons).
Before we left off, we met a man named Denis Fetudinov, who is an expert in this field; he edits a publication called Unmanned Aviation. The reporters turned to him to help explain the various issues involved in this very contemporary problem. Fetudinov: The current situation, connected with the ongoing Special Military Operation (SMO) and the necessity of intensifying efforts to develop new technologies for use at the front, has led to the situation in which a substantial number of physical and juridical persons have been pulled into this work.
Rule #1, according to Fetudinov: Let us not kid ourselves. Unmanned systems, a priori, are systems and technologies that lend themselves to dual use. Hundreds of examples can be extracted from the SMO itself: “Very small civilian quadrocopters are used for surveillance and observation. Heavier systems, which were first designed for use in the agricultural sphere, work just as well when dropping bombs. I can cite hundreds of examples.”
Fetudinov urges [the government] to change its whole approach in regard to these devices. “We have no way of knowing, a priori, how these persons and companies, who have entered this sphere of technology, intend to use their products. Perhaps these are patriotically inclined citizens who sincerely want to help their country. Or perhaps they could be entities having the exactly opposite motivation.”
Fetudinov proposes a licensing system akin to already existing laws which regulate scientific research – научно-исследовательских работ (НИР); and construction/technology work – опытно-конструкторских и технологических работ (ОКР). In other words, the wheel does not have to be re-invented, since Russian legislation already has agreements and contracts in place to license these types of products and labor. “No doubt this idea will be unpopular, but do people really think we are inclined to allow anybody, without any controls, to achieve technical aims when it comes to developing weapons?”
Gusarov Disagrees
A different point of view is expressed by Roman Gusarov, Chief Editor of the portal avia.ru. Gusarov believes that Russia already has a sufficiently effective system of registering unmanned drones:
“The registration of drones into RosAviatsia, anything above those toys that weigh less than 150 grams, we already have that system in an online regime. If you are controlling a tiny little drone, then you don’t need any written permissions or even special training, the only restrictions are on certain locations and heights.”
In cases where drones were used for illegal photography or videography, a person might become a person of interest in a legal case involving treason, espionage, revealing a state secret, illegal acquisition of information involving a state secret, or breaking rules involving access to state secrets.
Gusarov alludes to Statute 11.4 of the Codex of the Russian Federation regarding Administrative Violations. This statute concerns “Violations of the Rules of the Use of Air Space”. The operator of a drone which is unregistered, or which does not have a serial number, can be fined up to 2,500 rubles [around $27 American], or lose their rights to operate a drone for one year. Physical persons who violate the air space can accrue fines from 20 to 50 thousand rubles [$200 – $500]. An individual might be fined 100-150 thousand rubles [$1000 – $1500]. For an organization the equivalent fine might be 250-300 thousand rubles [$2600 – $3100]. Also, according to Statute 271.1, if the unauthorized use of the drone caused physical harm or death to a person, then the drone operator might be imprisoned for up to 7 years.
Having rattled off these existing laws and regulations, Gusarov concedes that: “If we are talking about the really serious drones, which are the size of a small 2-seater plane, then of course only qualified specialists should be allowed to operate such apparatus. And this question may well require supplemental regulations.”
Next: The issue of training drone operators…
[to be continued]
Awful Avalanche 
Since drones are clearly part of the future, basic training classes in drones at about 10 years of age with the restriction of adult supervision, advanced classes at 16 with the possibility of license. Free adult classes, basic, advanced and license with the proviso of criminal background check.
Specific training areas for the unlicensed to learn…not the tiny local park, not the neighborhood. Reasonable restrictions imposed on weight/altitude/distance/speed/noise. Then for those licensed, maps of restricted areas in which it is required to have both a license and time sensitive permit to fly if at all.
I would think Russia might want to impose severe criminal penalties for non-citizens and citizens of less than 10 years to operate a drone…at least until, whichever comes first, a) DC/London call off this war to break-up Russia…which could be b) when hell freezes over or, c) until DC politicians drive this empire off a cliff.
Across from where I worked last year there was a large open park that attracted wealthy aviation-[both glider & powered]/rocketry/drone enthusiasts 98% were responsible, however, some…flew high-altitude/long-distance where they could not maintain visual contact with their aerial vehicle and did not have a clear idea where their vehicle was ! This park was very near a busy flight path for commercial aircraft and not far from a general aviation airport.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let me add, I don’t like yearly fees as that’s just regressive taxation on those technically inclined. Entry to higher-end remotely controlled aerial vehicles should be restricted by competency and ethics, not income.
LikeLike
BTW, since many here were discussing Iran’s Missile Attack on Israel’s military assets, Larry Johnson has posted an interesting analysis by Ted Post that is must reading for those so inclined.
I did not know that visual recognition was being used today. In the pre-GPS 1970’s it was used to guide cruise missiles because IG systems built up errors in nap of the earth flight paths and the Iranians clearly see it as an alternative to GPS, at least near target. Very interesting.
Another factoid from that article was, the use of AIM missiles to shoot down drones for a $500,000 : ~ $15,000 cost ratio which is not sustainable. Any interceptor is bound to cost many times more that it’s target !
Analysis of Iran’s Missile Attack on Israel:
https://sonar21.com/ted-postols-analysis-of-irans-missile-attack-on-israel/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, very sensible suggestions. When you mentioned people playing around in parks, I suddenly started thinking about kites. I wonder if kites could act as drone interceptors? I mean, they could tangle it up in their strings, maybe…
LikeLike
That’s what these Barrage-Balloons do…I am shocked that the technology has not re-emerged in DC & London’s war against Russia in Ukrainia.
The update being the balloon should deploy if a hostile drone is detected and dangle steel wires designed entangle the props the same manner that lines entangle power boats* or sailboats* with engines. It doesn’t take much. The thrust imbalance will cause the quad-copter to lose control and most likely crash. High torque rototillers can be stopped by an ivy vine, quads are high rpm and low torque…easy to foul.
It’s a good idea Y but, a little late to file for a patent.
*
https://www.alloutdoor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Prop-with-line.jpg
LikeLike
The British also deployed a system called “parachute and cable” in which a small rocket fired a cable with a parachute deployed when the rocket reached a certain height, so that the cable would obstruct low-flying aircraft. Sometimes the parachute also carried a small explosive charge to detonate if anything ran into it (such as an aircraft snagged by the cable). It was used for defending airfields and ports.
Sometimes the old ways are quite sensible — I doubt that either the balloons or the cable had much real impact, but they must have had the Luftwaffe looking out for itself and generally annoyed .
LikeLike
Sometimes old ways are better, and low-tech is better. That’s some of the things we are learning from this war. Do you remember how, at the beginning of the war, the Russophile crowd was laughing their heads off at the Ukie story about the grandma who brought down a Russian drone by throwing a pickle jar at it?
I’m not so sure now, and I wasn’t even sure at the time that the story was total b.s. If the drone is flying low enough, why not toss or hurl something at it? Like maybe a stone from a slingshot or catapult. They could set up a squadron of teenage boys who are good at slingshot.
LikeLike
Registration only works on controlling the law-abiding citizens. It has no impact on the criminal intent on using a drone for criminal purposes. As such, no one should delude themselves that registration will eliminate the threat posed by a drone in the wrong hands. That kind of thinking can lead to a false sense of security and merely impose a high social cost on honest citizens while doing nothing to stop the hardcore criminal. These kinds of programs are primarily designed to make politicians look like they are doing something useful. As a practical matter from experience in the SMO, soldiers have found that a shotgun is quite useful as a drone remedy. Just like duck hunting.
LikeLike
I think “controlling [mostly] law-abiding citizens” from engaging in behavior that reasonably could endanger life/lives of others is not an infringement of natural rights.
For example, though I am a 2nd Amendment supporter, asking law abiding citizens to practice their shooting at a designated gun-range whilst in built-up-urban/suburban areas is reasonable. Yes, criminals will probably not avail themselves to such facilities, never-the-less, it is a reasonable ask of local governments to not have “law-abiding-citizens” discharging their weapons at the neighborhood park…no matter how “safety-conscious” they may be…yes?
Hours of discharge is another restriction that should not have to be codified but, because of a tiny percentage of “[mostly] law-abiding citizens” acting like rude idiots it often is. I add, it does make it a lot easier on law-enforcement if they know a weapons discharge at 1:30 AM is likely perpetrated by a criminal or a “law-abiding citizen” defending his life and not some inebriated yahoo exercising his “God-given-rights”on his own property”…yes?
And to be absolutely clear, every physically/mentally capable law-abiding citizen in the US has the right to bear arms for self-defense…I only ask they practice to the point of proficiency and do so during reasonable daylight hours set forth by their local community. Obviously, indoor ranges excluded.
LikeLike
Again, sounds very sensible to me.
LikeLike