Negative attitudes towards drones

I stumbled across an article on the Hastings Online Times (HOT) website about drones last week purely by accident which caught my eye. The author has written many interesting articles on local issues, however as I read this one and the comments people had left on the subject I became increasingly surprised by the negative attitudes and irrational hatred and distrust being expressed at these devices. I began to write a reply of my own to give an alternative viewpoint, however the more I wrote the more I realised a simple reply wouldn’t even begin to cover it, and so it’s in this context that this piece has been written. They’ve helpfully suggested I submit it as an article which I have done along with some video frame grabs from the morning mentioned. Below is my resulting article - probably far too long but being concise isn’t my strong-point! That said if I missed anything out, please let me know!!! :wink: What do you think? Is it a bit too strong? About right? Too wishy-washy?

You can read the original article here:

As a drone flier for the last two months after much saving and researching I’m amazed by the level of hate directed at these devices. I understand and respect that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but so much of it seems to be knee jerk reaction to media headlines and fear of being snooped on rather than based on reasoned thinking. The facts are the vast majority of drone fliers are responsible people who go out of their way to be considerate and not risk their own hobby by bringing it into disrepute. There’s always a few exceptions like the idiot who flew over Gatwick last year. But this is not the norm. Anyone can buy a car and drive it on the public highway. Some motorists break the law and speed, or drive whilst on their phones, or tailgate and are a nuisance or even a safety risk. Should we ban cars? Of course not. I’ll attempt to give a balanced view of the comments I read the most often about drones and which are cited in the replies to the article in question.

  1. ‘Drones are an invasion of privacy’. This seems to be the most common issue expressed. So let’s look at this logically. If I go walking on the hills and I see you, am I invading your privacy? No. If I use my phone or even a camera to take a picture of the landscape and you are in it (try taking a picture of almost any Sussex beauty spot with not a soul in it!) then am I invading your privacy? No. You are in a public place and as such are visible to any other member of the public. If I now use a drone to take that same scene from an elevated viewpoint to clear some trees and bins and other clutter, and for a more interesting perspective am I now invading your privacy any more than from ground level? Of course not. I have no interest in what you are doing. In the nicest possible way and with the greatest respect, do you really think you’re that interesting that anyone would want to spy on you? There seems to be a commonly held opinion that just because you might see a drone nearby it must be spying on you. Indeed even in the text of the original article the author states: ‘whoever was operating it, actually hovered it in the sky over our heads, presumably filming or viewing us’. Presumably? This is a huge assumption on which the whole article is based. And then to write about that in the public domain causing people to believe that that’s what it must have been doing is not right in my view. It may well have been watching the author, I’m not in a position to know. However it’s much more likely that it wasn’t. Even if one seems to be hovering nearby it’s most likely not looking at you but is more likely looking horizontally at the scene and the owner is likely checking exposure or focus before taking a picture you don’t feature in. I can promise you that almost all drone owners haven’t spent their good money just to go snooping on everyone they come across. They’ve spent it to further pursue their hobby and interest and open up new creative avenues. Modern life is filled with far more common examples of what could be perceived to be an invasion of privacy that we just don’t seem to notice anymore as they are so commonplace. Traffic enforcement cameras, the much more subtle traffic flow monitoring cameras, CCTV in almost all urban environments, availability of personal information including address details online from sites like Yet we don’t take issue or seem to have such strong opinions about many of these because they are commonplace and no longer catch our attention. The occasional low-flying microlight or paraglider only raises glances of admiration and interest, never do I read that the pilots must be spying on us. It seems that because drones are still not an everyday sight, we are not used to them and hence we notice them more when we do see one. We are more wary of it and it’s human nature to be wary of the unknown. But this doesn’t automatically mean that there is some shady reason for it being there.

  2. ‘They should all be shot down’. Why? I’ve overheard this one first hand last week when I was out flying - I’ll get to that in a minute. Do you really think it’s ok to destroy someone else’s property just because you don’t personally like it? You’re actually saying it’s ok to destroy someone’s things because you feel like it? If I didn’t like the colour of your car or thought it was too polluting with it’s big engine does this make it ok for me to smash it up or set fire to it? Of course it doesn’t. But using the ‘shoot it down’ logic this would be perfectly acceptable. And if you were to shoot it down, where’s it going to land? You would cause it to crash and possibly cause an accident.

  3. ‘Purchasers should show good reason to have one’. A hobby-grade drone weighs about 500g to 1kg for a really expensive one, usually less, typically flies around 35mph max and a battery lasts for 25 minutes at the most. A car weighs 1-2 tonnes, can go over 100mph and can travel for many hours on a tank. A car can do a lot more damage than a drone. Many people are killed every day on the roads. I don’t believe anyone has ever been killed or even injured by a hobby-grade drone. Should we therefore make sure all car purchasers can show a justifiable reason to own a car before they’re allowed to own one? If privacy is the concern then should ladders be banned from sale without good reason in case your neighbour can look over your garden fence? Or how about cameras? They can capture images of people out and about. Should we require anyone buying a camera – or even a phone with a camera – to provide proof of why they need it? For cameras, is a hobby of photography not a good enough reason? That’s usually what people buy drones for too. They’re just a camera that can reach more interesting angles.

  4. ‘There should be gun-style licences for public ownership’. To liken a drone to a gun is completely irrational. A gun is designed purely to inflict damage and destruction on whatever you shoot it at. A drone is designed to bring harmless creative opportunities to it’s owner. However just like so many other things there is the potential for misuse if not used responsibly. In these cases it’s not the device that’s at fault, it’s down to the way it’s used. Of course there will always be a small minority who may not respect the rules or fly considerately. I do therefore agree with the need for there to be some form of registration and licensing in the same way as for cars. The CAA has now launched a drone registration service which is mandatory after the end of November 2019 for all drone pilots of drones weighing more than 250 grams in the UK. There are 20 questions to determine good knowledge of the rules you need to abide by as a pilot and you receive a Flyer ID and an Operator ID. The Flyer ID is your confirmation that you achieved a good level of competency and knowledge in the test and your Operator ID identifies you and must be displayed on all drones you fly. Hopefully this requirement will weed out many who may buy a drone casually and not abide by the rules. Rules which are now included in the packaging of almost all drones you can buy in this country and encourage even better practice by making pilots aware of their responsibilities whilst airborne. I have passed this test and have my IDs displayed on my drone as I’m a responsible pilot, just like the majority.

I was actually flying my drone in the hills near Hastings last week just as the sun was rising. It was a beautiful morning and I wanted to try to capture the beauty of the place in the best light. As I was setting up an elderly gentleman out walking his dog stopped and began chatting to me. He was really interested in my drone and watched fascinated as I took off and began to shoot some frosty landscape views. As we chatted and I let him see the controller screen so he could see the view for himself a couple of other elderly gents walking their dogs joined us, friends of the first chap it transpired. They were all interested and found it wonderful to be able to see the beauty of the cliffs by looking back at them from over the sea. As I brought the drone back closer three elderly ladies walked past. One of them noticed the drone hovering off to the side and as they walked away I heard her say to her friends ‘There’s one of those drones, they should all be shot down if you ask me’. The gents I was with were as surprised as I was. I was doing no harm, not invading anyone’s privacy and not causing a nuisance. Even the noise was minimal as you can only hear it when under 50 metres away and most of the time it’s over this and constantly moving, anyone would only ever hear it quietly and for a few seconds. Any passing car causes much more of a racket. I politely asked the lady why she thought this and she just said ‘They’re an invasion of privacy‘. I indicated that I wasn’t invading her privacy here in this public place, but she repeated ‘they’re an invasion of privacy, that’s my opinion and I won’t change it’. She seems to see the drone as the physical manifestation of the very concept of invasion of privacy. Yet we were in a public place and I could see her much better up close as she walked past than I could ever see with the tiny wide angle lens on my drone which is designed for taking in huge vistas. I left wondering to myself what had caused this lady to form her opinion and regard what is just a creative tool with such contempt…


Another thing I would add to the first paragraph is that a person is hardly distinguishable from the next at a range of 75m .
And to the issue of shooting them down. It’s a criminal offence to endanger an aircraft. Which a drone is.


On another note what about Google maps. I can see someone on the beach with a small grey dingy at Normans Bay, :rofl::rofl::rofl:


The click bait in the Hastings publication has obviously been penned to solicit hostile reactions. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the author made the whole thing up as the references are extremely generic and lacking any detail.

Comments about privacy issues, including those of the women that @nick.emmons encountered, are more likely to be projections. It’s these same people who demand to know what their neighbours are up to and spend an inordinate amount of time peeping from behind their net curtains.

Like all things proper unbiased information is needed but as “Drones” are not that prolific the only experience the general public have on the subject is badly written column inches that Nick has linked to.

I really hope that Nicks article is published in its entirety and not edited in some way to support the ill informed narrative of Zelly Rostorick’s original article.




I have an issue with your opening paragraph … you say:

There is no proof and none has ever been put forward so if going to get this published then , and, only if you need to keep the line in, then re-word to say alleged drone sighting.


In addition to the above I have issue with the speeds Of any of my quads went that slow they would go in the bin!

Average speeds for my stuff is between 70-90mph

1 Like

I thought there had been actual film of the drone over the airport? I know the police said at one point that there were even reports of two drones aloft simultaneously above the airport but that one of them may actually have been a police drone used to try to track down the first one. And that the case had been dropped as no progress had been made in identifying the culprit? I’m happy add the word ‘alleged’ if that’s true and even add a sentence confirming hat no drone has been proven to have ever been flown there if that’s actually the case. I didn’t know that was unproven. I’ll do some more Googling…


5th paragraph. Love the vehemence with which the Airport chief defends his staff - I applaud him for that but it doesn’t make him right and it doesn’t make him wrong. JUST there is no proof. Th police have given up, no evidence exists other than those with a self-serving interest.

I applaud your stance with this but do not add any fuel to the fire when it isn’t necessary to do so. By all means address the bits you do but make any reference to rule breaking less specific.

1 Like

Nick, this is an excellent piece of writing, and presents superb arguments in a polite tone. (I like the point about cars, and could even extend it quite easily to dogs - they injure people daily, whereas drones do not).
The overall effect is neither too wishy-washy nor too strong - you have been conciliatory and reasoned throughout.

(If you wanted improvement suggestions, mine would be:

  1. cut, cut and cut again - even if it were published, the length might be off-putting to the people who most need to read it. A maximum of five lines per point…?
  2. reduce the use of the word “I” - the reader knows it is your piece - it is your arguments rather than the personalisation of them that are important. For example,

I can promise you that almost all drone owners haven’t spent their good money just to go snooping on everyone they come across


Drone owners haven’t spent their good money just to go snooping on everyone they come across

or instead of

As I brought the drone back closer three elderly ladies walked past. One of them noticed the drone hovering off to the side and as they walked away I heard her say to her friends ‘There’s one of those drones, they should all be shot down if you ask me’"


Three elderly ladies noticed the drone hovering and one said, ‘There’s one of those drones; they should all be shot down’.

But feel free to ignore this!)

In any case, nice work!


in a way, I can see why some people have the issue with privacy, but, only if from first hand experience. I value my own privacy, and the privacy of others.

If, like myself, someone as a drone hovering 20’ over their garden and obviously having a look about on a regular basis, then yes, they are going to be negative towards drones. Having a drone myself and also have a bad flier somewhere nearby, tends to push me to the side of caution when / where I fly, which means I do not fly anywhere near as often as I would like to

however, if they haven’t experienced any issues, then they should be open to drones until they make their own decision, shouldn’t be based on media / press


Hear Hear! :+1:

1 Like

It will be interesting to see if the final piece is published in its entirety, or even at all.

If it’s not published or heavily edited then the papers editorial neutrality should be challenged.

It’s a very balanced and respectful piece and you should be congratulated on preparing it.

Please let us know what, if any, the outcome is.

Take care and catch you later. Peter


That is a very well written article @nick.emmons but I’m afraid it is too long. People will, in the main, become bored unless the original item and your response is of particular interest to them. And worse still, if the editor starts to mess about with it, as they invariably do, then it will become less precise, accurate, and erudite. I don’t know what the answer is but it is always well to remember that editors, like TV and radio producers, have slots to fill and they all cut to suit their requirements. Good luck anyway. It’s a good piece well written.

Just too much of this negativity about, just read this chaps latest post. Must be one of the quickest Mavic Mini turnovers : (poor guy!)

I’ve just heard back from the Hastings Online Times - they have now published!

They’ve even put up some pictures I sent them - frames taken from the video I shot on the morning I mentioned in the article.

After the general tone of the replies to the original article that motivated me to write this in the first place it’ll be interesting to see what replies I get if any!


That is just fantastic. Well done!

1 Like

Well done! I hope a Celebrity badge is on its way to you from the GADC team!

1 Like

I enjoyed that read, and I haven’t had my 1st flight yet…might pop to south Redcar beach now… not near the gare as I see it has a no fly zone

1 Like

well I had my 1st flight and it was in a park not Redcar as time wasn’t on my side… within minutes a woman and her young grandchild were near me and watching… I waited for some comment and it was positive. She said, she is mesmerised by is and so am I!.. strike 1, nerves out of the way for now :slight_smile:


Thank you, @nick.emmons, for a well written counter argument to the original OpEd.

It’s a tough road to travel and is still being marred by inaccurate articles in the mainstream media. I’ve just done a quick search of recent news articles (2 to 3 days old) using drone registration as the subject. Every returned article is still citing Gatwick as though it is set in stone that drones closed the airport rather than possible disgruntled employees who made false reports.

Some of the editorials are claiming that 1000’s of drone owners are going to be fined because only approximately 50,000 registrations have been filed out of the expected 180,000. Obviously they are unaware of the exemptions that have been granted to members of the BMFA, FPVUK, and similar organisations, where the registration deadline is the end of January 2020.

The BMFA currently has around 32,000 members for 2019-2020, 2000 members down from the 2018-2019 time period. The BMFA have cited this reduction in membership numbers due to the registration proposals made in the first quarter of 2018 provoked members to give up the hobby of model aircraft flying. I think there is some truth in that but a percentage of those non-renewals could be attributed to some members departing for the big airfield in the sky.



1 Like