Yeehåw, We Have Drone Cowboys in Sweden Too
And they're not holding their horses anytime soon.
A news piece made its way through various channels within the Swedish drone community this week, if you want to practice your Swedish or translate it you can find it here. It’s about a man caught by police officers operating a drone within a no-fly-zone, but the man ends up being released from charges. Why? Because the argument that regulations were not clear and simple enough to access, interpret, and understand held up in court, not once - but apparently twice, also for another drone operator this year.
I had to read the headline ten times, and even after the 11th time it still makes no sense to me how this situation can appear, repeatedly, in 2024. The case is highlighted and further detailed in a post by local professional drone operator Peter Wemmert. I hold theories on why this happens and probably will continue to happen, and ideas on what can be done to change that.
In 2014, I began my commercial drone journey in the US. Most will agree it was a time of the drone Wild West, regulations were generous and drones were easily accessible by volumes. Regulations changed more than a few times until a regulatory framework was introduced to help enable drone technology's advancement while mitigating the risk of drone cowboys flying wild. Same thing happened in other countries, regulatory framework went through a series of phases, changes, and new adaptations as we figure out what recipe works best. It’s still a work in progress.
Nevertheless, drone regulations are for the most part easily accessible online. Most operators must familiarize themselves with the rules and links to information, unless flying a toy. But that’s the key word where we still find confusion… professionals in the drone industry see drones as tools, whereas non-professionals tend to view them as toys - mistakenly misunderstanding this is often considered a piece of aviation subject to similar principles as the aircraft that takes your family on holiday. The mini-quadcopter you buy for $30 might not be subject to regulation, but the slightly bigger drone on sale for $300 might be. Heck, you might even have been spontaneously gifted a new drone and been eager to try it out, so how would you know that you may or may not be subject to certain regulation?
Allegedly, the man arrested in Sweden argued that he was unable to understand the NOTAM posted for the area the drone was operated in. NOTAMs are provided in English as that is the aviation standard internationally. The man claimed the NOTAM would’ve been easier to read if it had been written in Swedish. There was no signage on the street indicating the area was a no-drone-zone, hence information was not sufficient for him as an operator to know about the rules. Somehow - this argument fell in his favor and let him off the hook. Not only did it get him off the hook, it got another operator flying a drone in the area also off the hook.
This is unacceptable. I don’t know what types of drones were involved, or if the operators considered themselves a professional, hobbyist or toy-enthusiast. Regardless - it is an unacceptable situation.
We live in the times of having much of the world’s information in our pocket. I doubt anyone with a drone does not hold a smartphone with internet access, or is incapable of doing a 2 minute Google search to learn about rules and airspace restrictions. Sure, regulations can be intimidating to learn if you are just starting out, but they are there and it’s your duty to figure it out before flying.
Here are some words to live by if you ever intend to launch a drone: if ever in doubt, take a time out. Never proceed on assumption and hope, only with knowledge and a solid scope.
It’s easy to shrug off a mistake or misunderstanding as long as nothing and nobody came in harms way, but without consequence the door remains open for future mistakes. The next one might not come without harm, even at the best of intentions. It is our joint duty to ensure luck is not the only factor in risk mitigation when operators decide not to do their own homework.
So what can we do to make sure this doesn’t happen again?
Acknowledge that we have undefined tiers of operators. Sure, you can categorize operators in EU by A1/A3 and A2 certification vs non-certified, but within those categories you find a range of experience and professionalism. The toy-fliers are in a gray zone. With drones still widely more accessible to buy easily and affordably, not all users will jump to check regulation before unpacking the box of a shiny new toy. Like it or not, this is still considered new technology and people need to be constantly reminded of the less-exciting but most important facts of flying a drone, especially as new users join the drone industry and take part in operating an aircraft in national airspace. If people don’t take the responsibility to look up rules, we need to slap a copy of the rules in their face on the box, in the box, on the drone, or wherever necessary to make sure they are unarguably presented with these before that drone reaches the air.
Info-hubs can help users stay informed by one source of truth. If you are operating a drone in Sweden, Transportstyrelsen is the place for drone regulation information. They have done a good job of providing this information in both Swedish and English. However - there is room for improvement to make this information even more clear, centralized, and easily presented. Most drone users are not rehearsed in regulatory text, it’s considered boring and often only gets a quick skim-read. It’s a lot like drinking water, a flavorless but critical function we all must consume in one way or another. Adding flavor helps ensure more people opt in. Help drone users digest regulation and crucial information by transforming texts to visual, relatable, and easily ingestible facts.
Wheels don’t need to be reinvented, just like the issues of drone cowboys and uninformed operators did not start in Sweden. Many countries have dealt with this issue and continue to deal with it, so why not enable lessons learned to be shared across nations for easier collaboration and adoption of tried-and-tested solutions? Australia is considered a leader in drone regulatory framework,
often emphasizes this and advocates for a collective approach for more countries to tackle questions which are being discussed individually, at scale, in several countries.Ignorance is not bliss in anything that comes with a propeller and motor attached. If a lack of knowledge is legally ruled as a power rather than a consequence, we can throw away our certifications today and triple our commercial drone activities tomorrow. We need to look at eliminating the risk of ignorance to protect not only the drone industry but the people, places, and things that can come in harms way. I see several drone users practice ignorance without shame, as well as non-drone users playing key-roles in society linked to drones make poor decisions affecting the industry negatively. It’s not done in ill-intent, but it is done without realizing there even is a lack of knowledge. We need to look at how we can help ensure a stronger baseline of knowledge across drone users and non-drone users. Can something be improved in the way we certify drone users, or in the criteria of who needs to endure a mandatory course? How can we help our legal system outside of drones take informed decisions regarding drones? This job is not up to one person, one entity, or one nation, but for all of us working towards a functional standard in utilizing drone technology.
One thing that should not be done is posting no-drone-zone banners on every street affected by a NOTAM. It’s fine to put this type of signade at permanent areas such as sensitive infrastructure where drones are by no means welcome unless specifically requested by the respective authority. No-drone-zone signs are notoriously discussed in many places in regards to who has a right to declare an area a no-drone-zone, Kara Murphy covered a great piece on this topic here. Anyone can put up a no-drone-zone sign, and some people even in Sweden have done this in an attempt to minimize drone cowboys, but this is not the solution that’s needed. If no-drone-zone signs are to be considered, they should at least be approved, regulated, and marked by the national authority for legitimacy.
Lastly, another thing that should not be done is considering to change the way aviation has functioned through its own journey of standardization. Introducing drones means integrating something new with something old, there will be bumps along that merge. Anyone asking for NOTAMs to be posted in multiple languages is not understanding that this is a hurdle local to their own lack of knowledge, not an industry hurdle in need of mass reform. On a ratio of manned aviators vs unmanned aviators, is it fair to ask the majority to reshape a functioning standard to cater to a minority? Or is it more fair to require a minority to align with existing standards. One might argue that someday drones could become the majority ratio where updates to the existing standard might be necessary, but that ratio is far away from becoming reality as long as drone cowboys are enabled to keep practicing ignorance and we continue to provide affordable off-the-shelf drones to the masses without the needed knowledge to go with it.
Drop a comment and tell me what you think about the ruling of Sweden’s recent drone cowboys, and how we can position ourselves to improve the drone industry for all drone users whether it’s used as a tool, hobby, or toy!
PS. If you find yourself in Sweden and need to know where to fly your drone, LFV has recently launched a fantastic new feature to the drone map where it now includes NOTAMs. You can find it here.
