Unregistered drones BANNED in Thailand

[attrayant]

13 hours ago, billd766 said:

In any case what you and many others are saying is that no one has a right to privacy at all

 

I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth.  Nowhere did I say "no one has a right to privacy at all".  You added those last two words to demonize my position.

 

What I said was, no one has a right to privacy in public, or in any private place that can normally be viewed from public.  If I can see into your property simply by walking down the street, then there's no good reason why a drone shouldn't be able to do the same.

 

Quote

That is certainly not what is permitted in most western countries, and what the propsed law is all about in Thailand, and then you wonder why laws like that are brought in.

 

There are lots of stories about people getting themselves into legal trouble by shooting at drones:

 

Kentucky man arrested, charged with criminal mischief and wanton endangerment for shooting down drone.

 

Sorry, Gun Lovers. You Can’t Shoot Down a Drone Even if It’s On Your Property.

 

FAA: do not shoot at drones due to the possibility of collateral damage and danger of firing guns into the air.  (I find it amazing that people need to be told not to shoot their guns into the air.)

 

From Popular Mechanics:

 

Quote

In some states, you could face reckless endangerment charges or be prosecuted under laws relating to the discharge of firearms.  By destroying the drone, you may be liable for civil damages to its owner.  Although I have not seen it raised yet, there is also a federal crime in Title 18 relating to destruction of an aircraft that could apply, and that would involve very serious penalties.

 

What are your chances of hitting one?  Pretty poor, even if you're a professional sniper:

 

Quote

[Even fully trained] snipers only hit [drones] after five or six shots, and that was in a completely controlled environment. You can imagine a guy running out into his back yard with a .22 just taking potshots at the sky, he's never gonna hit it.

 

You further accused me of saying this, which I did not: "...any numbnut with a drone can do whatever they want with no comeback at all".

 

I agree than drone owners need to be responsible and not use drones to snoop by peering into people's windows, but such acts are already covered by peeping tom laws.  If a drone flies into your window and breaks it, the drone owner is absolutely on the hook for the damage.  No different than somebody throwing a stone at your window.  There is no need for an extra layer of laws specifically aimed at drones. 

 

You shouldn't do anything with a drone that you wouldn't normally do yourself.  But looking down into somebody's property from the air?  Come on.  From my 3rd floor window, I can see into my neighbor's back yard.  The residents of the nearby apartment building have a spectacular aerial view into the "private" property of every home around their building.  They can even take detailed pictures if they want to.  If they can do it, why can't a drone?

[billd766]

3 hours ago, JAFO said:

@Billd766,

We normally get on well in TV chats and I wanted to say I respect your opinion and personal sentiment about drones. I do want to say however that not all of us Drone owners are numbnuts. In fact the majority are not. Its those few that create this "Drones are an invasion of my Privacy" debate. I do believe that you should not be able to purchase a drone that is over 1KG and has a camera unless you have taken some sort of flying class and get a license (No different then driving a car). Insurance is absolutely idiotic for a drone 2kg's or less. 

 

There is a huge international debate going on about Drones. I am against the large ones due to the risk they pose to most whether it be from what they can carry to the weight if they should fall. The little ones are fun.

 

On your comment about privacy...Lets be realistic, Once you leave your house you have lost all privacy. In this day and age it should be assumed that someone is watching you with webcams, camera's sensors etc. Its the world these days. 

 

And FWIIW, In the states shooting down a drone is quite illegal. Drones are considered aircraft and the FAA is very clear that you cannot shoot down an aircraft.  Thailand is a long way off from that rule and debate. 

 

 

 

My apologies to you for the way it came out.

 

I get on my high horse every so often and in this case it is because some posters are complaining bitterly about the right to fly a drone where and when they want, and to photograph what they want without restriction. They are also trying to defend the drone operators who do this.

 

The bad drone operators are few in number compared to the amount of drones in use but they are the ones that cause the ristrictions and laws on everybody who flies a drone irrespective.

 

Yet in Europe government restrictions and regulations are far harsher than in Thailand.

 

http://www.techadvisor.co.uk/feature/gadget/where-fly-drone-in-uk-abroad-3620507/

 

Until their recent boom in popularity, drones were lumped in with ‘small unmanned aerial vehicles’ on the CAA's website and you had to try to figure out which rules applied to modern quadcopters.

Now, the site has a page dedicated to drones which outlines the most important rules. This is the basic Dronecode:

Keep your drone within your line of sight and at a maximum height of 400ft (122m)

Make sure your drone is within 500m from you horizontally

Always fly your drone well away from aircraft, helicopters, airports and airfields

If fitted with a camera, a drone must be flown at last 50m away from a person, vehicle, building or structure not owned or controlled by the pilot.

Camera-equipped drones must not be flown within 150m of a congested area or large group of people, such as a sporting event or concert

Many quadcopters, including DJI’s Phantom 4, are capable of flying much higher than the limit, so it’s easy to unwittingly break the law. The reason for choosing 400 feet, according to the CAA, is because this is generally what is measured as the limit of normal, unaided sight.

Horizontally, the limit on flying is 500 metres from you – considerably further than 400ft. In practice, it's easy to lose track of a drone at around 200-250m away from you. The important thing is to make sure you can see the drone you're controlling as you're responsible for it.

 

http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/uk-drone-laws-3146402

 

Here are the outcomes of the recently concluded consultation on the ‘Benefits of drones to the UK economy’:

The government will implement a registration scheme and mandatory competency tests for all users of drones weighing 250 grams and above.

Work to create an authoritative source of UK airspace data will be “brought forward”. This source will “facilitate the implementation of geo-fencing and build greater awareness of airspace restrictions amongst drone users.”

The government will also explore further measures such as increasing penalties, creating new offences and reviewing the powers available to law enforcement agencies to enforce relevant law

Read more at http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/uk-drone-laws-3146402#3RjMLEgHByOFFUQm.99

 

Where can and can’t I fly my drone in the UK?

 

Seen some of that snazzy airborne footage on YouTube? Well, it’s probably illegal, as according to UK laws regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority, consumer drones (classed as those that weigh under 20kg) must be flown no higher than 120 metres, and kept at least 50 metres away from people and private property, and 150 metres from “crowds and built up areas.”

 

Sign up for the newsletter

Get news, competitions and special offers direct to your inbox

Your email address:

Read more at http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/uk-drone-laws-3146402#3RjMLEgHByOFFUQm.99

 

http://dronesafe.uk/

 

You can learn more over on the CAA-backed Drone Safe website, where the handy Drone Assist app is also available. If you’re looking for more information on filming while using a drone, check out The Video Mode’s guide.

 

And this is only the UK.

[attrayant]

3 minutes ago, billd766 said:

I get on my high horse every so often and in this case it is because some posters are complaining bitterly about the right to fly a drone where and when they want, and to photograph what they want without restriction.

 

Then why don't you quote these specific posts where people are arguing for the right to operate drones "without restriction"?  Most people, me included, understand that we need some restrictions.  My point is these restrictions already exist.  You can't use a drone for peeping into windows and a drone owner is obviously liable for damage cause by their drone.

 

[billd766]

7 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Then why don't you quote these specific posts where people are arguing for the right to operate drones "without restriction"?  Most people, me included, understand that we need some restrictions.  My point is these restrictions already exist.  You can't use a drone for peeping into windows and a drone owner is obviously liable for damage cause by their drone.

 

 

Why don't YOU get off my back and do some research yourself?

 

The irresponsible drone operators are the ones that are causing the problem and not me. Find them and bitch to them and not me.

 

You are complaining about not using a drone for peeping in windows but seem quite happy with that numbnut filming the lady sunbathing topless. Was he closer than 50 metres to her? It looks to me as though he was but YOU don't seem to think that is a problem.

 

I DO.

[MaeJoMTB]

50 minutes ago, attrayant said:

FAA: do not shoot at drones due to the possibility of collateral damage and danger of firing guns into the air.  (I find it amazing that people need to be told not to shoot their guns into the air.)

 

What are your chances of hitting one?  Pretty poor, even if you're a professional sniper:

I always fire my gun in the air  when I'm hunting ducks.

 

And my chances of bagging a drone, pretty damn good, drones are way easier than ducks ....... slower and lower.

[attrayant]

31 minutes ago, billd766 said:

You are complaining about not using a drone for peeping in windows but seem quite happy with that numbnut filming the lady sunbathing topless.

 

While she might have been on semi-private property, she was plainly visible from public airspace, and could easily be seen had there been any other buildings of the same height around.  

 

33 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Why don't YOU get off my back and do some research yourself?

 

I'm "on your back" because twice you have accused me of holding absolute positions that I have not expressed.  And what kind of "research" are you suggesting needs to be done?  We're debating responsible drone ownership and the lunacy of the people who think they have the right to shoot them out of the air.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, attrayant said:

 

While she might have been on semi-private property, she was plainly visible from public airspace, and could easily be seen had there been any other buildings of the same height around.  

 

 

I'm "on your back" because twice you have accused me of holding absolute positions that I have not expressed.  And what kind of "research" are you suggesting needs to be done?  We're debating responsible drone ownership and the lunacy of the people who think they have the right to shoot them out of the air.

 

No, you are not debating responsible drone ownership.

 

The lady was in a semi private property, (why only semi?) not overlooked by other buildings and only seen from "public", whatever that means, airspace, yet you do not condemn the drone operator.

 

If I see a drone over my house in what you describe as "public airspace" that is invading my privacy I will attempt to shoot it.

 

BTW under research try looking at public airspace and see what it says.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

 

New technologies have again raised questions about ownership of "space" and the upward bounds of national sovereignty. With the advent of space travel above earth's atmosphere, the height at which national sovereignty extends and therefore nations can regulate transit is often debated. Also, flight by drones at lower altitudes interferes with property interests associated with existing land grants and deeds.

 

In the USA A landowner's domain extends up to at least 365 feet above the ground. see Causby v US (1946).

 

There are many more links if you wish to research them.

[JAFO]

You know I have been tinkering with Drones for about 6 years. Bought a cheap one and flew for fun.  Then bought a used DJI P3.  Had a blast flying and vid recording rivers, wine fields and in some cases, lakes.  Then I bought the Mavic Pro.  Fun little thing loaded with some real technology.  I am one that respects other people's perceived privacy.  I never fly in neighborhoods or in the city.  Just don't see the point.  I don't want to fly over some naked chick on a roof top and vid her then post on YouTube.  It's those people that really bring a bad name to the hobby. Like the pervs that use telephoto lenses on cameras or telescopes to look in people's windows.  There will always be someone doing this. People are strange.

 

As I see it, this hobby will soon be so overgoverned that the hobby will be limited to Drone parks in which case no one will buy one.  It's just a matter of time.  

 

For me, I live up country where nude people on roofs and whingers on beaches do not exist.  I laugh at beach go'ers here in Thailand. Some of those foreigner  fatties that complain should realize us drone flyers don't want their fat asses in our vid and get quickly edited out.  Honestly in 99% of my Videos I edit people out.  

 

@Billd766. Being an avid RC flyer and Drone user I have read all that info on rules. That said they should have drone classes before you can buy one.  Kind of like the hunter safety course you have to take before you can get a hunting license in the states.  I also think all drones should be registered and if some idiot breaks the code of drone ethics they should lose their drone and not be able to buy another one.  

 

And to your point many drones can fly way beyond the limit rules.  I have tested my Mavic Pro and it's amazing how high up and far away one can fly.

[JAFO]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

In the USA A landowner's domain extends up to at least 365 feet above the ground. see Causby v US (1946).

Actually this isn't quite true.  Airspace below your fence height limit is technically the owners. After that all air space is managed and controlled by the FAA(albeit this has been a long standing debate for years). 

 

Some drone owner just won a case in Nevada I believe where he flew his drone over a neighbors land and he shot it down.  He not only got fined for discharging a weapon into the air by the Sheriffs dept but he also got a severe warning for shooting down an aircraft in FAA Airspace. He also had to replace the Drone. All in all probably cost him $5k plus now had a record.  Not worth it.  The drone owner was flying over his and the neighbors open land at about 175 feet up and wasn't even recording.  He probably thought it was funny to shoot it down until the sheriff showed up and arrested him.  

[attrayant]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

The lady was in a semi private property, (why only semi?)

 

Because if she has access to the roof, then presumably other residents of the building do also.  Depending on how secure the building is, anyone could walk in off the street and go up there.  She could easily be violating indecency laws.  Even on her own personal private property she could be at fault:

 

Nudity and Public Decency Laws in America:
 

Generally, in America, nudity is against the law in public places. Moreover, nudity is also generally illegal on a person’s own property if the nude person is visible to the public, such as through an open window or sunbathing nude in someone's yard. 

 

Clearly, she was visible to the public because a member of the public saw her, as well as potentially visible to anyone who just happened to walk out onto the same roof.

 

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

not overlooked by other buildings and only seen from "public", whatever that means, airspace, yet you do not condemn the drone operator.

 

"Public" space has a pretty clear legal definition.  Fine, I'll condemn the drone operator: he was being a creep.  The same as if he had been leering at her through a telescope.  Do we need to register our telescopes too?  I don't think he was doing anything illegal, although that will be up to the courts in each jurisdiction to decide.

 

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

If I see a drone over my house in what you describe as "public airspace" that is invading my privacy I will attempt to shoot it.

 

You misunderstand what I mean by 'public space'.  I'm talking about a drone operating wherever a person could legally walk or a car could legally drive, such as the street in front of a house or an empty lot next to a house.  But to switch to your situation of "directly over my private property", I still disagree that you would be within your rights to shoot at it.  I've cited examples of people who were arrested for doing precisely that.

 

If you think the airspace over a private home is also your property, what about condominiums?  The entire concept of condominiums is that "blocks" of air can be deeded and sold to people.  The person on the top floor does not own all the airspace above their unit.  Whether or not you own the airspace immediately above your free-standing house is probably a matter of local zoning laws.

 

 

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

BTW under research try looking at public airspace and see what it says.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights

 

New technologies have again raised questions about ownership of "space" and the upward bounds of national sovereignty. With the advent of space travel above earth's atmosphere, the height at which national sovereignty extends and therefore nations can regulate transit is often debated. Also, flight by drones at lower altitudes interferes with property interests associated with existing land grants and deeds.

 

In the USA A landowner's domain extends up to at least 365 feet above the ground. see Causby v US (1946).

 

I went to the actual text of the decision but did not see the figure "365" anywhere in it.  I did find this:

 

The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he can occupy or use in connection with the land.

 

That decision cites an earlier ruling from the 9th circuit, which states:
 

Without limiting said altitude or defining the upward extent of said stratum of airspace or of plaintiff's ownership, utilization and possession thereof, plaintiffs allege that they may reasonably expect now and hereafter to utilize, use and occupy said airspace and each and every portion thereof to an altitude of not less than 150 feet above the surface of the land.

 

But all this bickering about whether it's 365 feet or 50 feet is beside the point.  You do not have the absolute right to destroy somebody else's property simply because it has entered your fiefdom.  I have already cited numerous examples of people who have been arrested and charged for doing exactly that.

[attrayant]

3 minutes ago, JAFO said:

Some drone owner just won a case in Nevada I believe where he flew his drone over a neighbors land and he shot it down.  He not only got fined for discharging a weapon into the air by the Sheriffs dept but he also got a severe warning for shooting down an aircraft in FAA Airspace. He also had to replace the Drone. All in all probably cost him $5k plus now had a record.  Not worth it.  The drone owner was flying over his and the neighbors open land at about 175 feet up and wasn't even recording.  He probably thought it was funny to shoot it down until the sheriff showed up and arrested him.  

 

And putting aside legalities and people's perceived rights for a moment, the questions remains why anyone would even want to shoot one down.  Do some people just get their kicks by destroying things?  I would no sooner shoot down a drone flying over my house than I would a large bird.  I have no idea what either one of them are up to, but why does that mean I need to blast them out of the sky?

[JAFO]

48 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

And putting aside legalities and people's perceived rights for a moment, the questions remains why anyone would even want to shoot one down.  Do some people just get their kicks by destroying things?  I would no sooner shoot down a drone flying over my house than I would a large bird.  I have no idea what either one of them are up to, but why does that mean I need to blast them out of the sky?

I agree.  People are really on this privacy kick and feel like they are being violated.  Shit if some person wants to vid me mowing my lawn, BBQing, walking on a beach or swimming more power to them.  Whatever floats their boat.  The people that seem to take offense are people who want to walk around naked in their backyard (which is offensive all by itself LOL) or are hiding something.  Shooting down a Drone would be no different then walking up to a webcam in a store or someone's house and swatting off the wall with a bat.  All silly to me.  

[DrTuner]

Junta rule, hammer, problem, nails, ban. Rinse and repeat.

[JAFO]

http://www.dronethaiinsurance.com/plan.html

 

Came across this a few moments ago.for all interested 

 

 

[Ular]

1 hour ago, JAFO said:

Came across this a few moments ago.for all interested 

Great link you provided, thanks for sharing this information

[glider]

I fly hobby <2kg "race" drones which only use a "monitor" to navigate a track around trees and under gates.

Reading the Announcement-of-the-Ministry-of-Transport.pdf it seems this is a Article 4 type 1 drone, and the "Minister of Transport" grants permission to use this type of drone without requiring registration/insurance (based on my reading).

There is confusion partly because a government graphic say all drones with "cameras" must be registered. However, a reading of the MOT release indicates "camera" means a device that taking "photographs, does filming, or is for television programs". So many hobby drones with cameras would not fall under this category and require registration. To further clarify this is the case the MOT specifies their general permission to fly type 1 drones including they must be operated within line of sight and not rely on "the monitor" (Article 5 (2-d). So the MOT defines cameras as those that record video, and separately defines live unrecorded video feed for control purposes as a "monitor".

 

This is of course much more logical, as the government is interested in controlling media information, but that wont stop those naive about drones in general, such as news journalists or government workers carrying out the laws, from not understanding the regulations. What is bad in general is that the government rules over drones are so broad and so vague that they might allow for the arrest of any drone operator at any time, such that equal justice is not legislated. For example, Article 5 (2-l) provides a very subjective rule "must not cause a nuisance to others", or Article 5 (2-i) "must not fly over villages/cities (what is difference between fly in city vs over city?).

[Langsuan Man]

Well,  I filled out the application form and the consent for record check form and scanned them and emailed them as an attachment to the email addresses on the form and the email address that I was finally able to find for NTC. Left the insurance block blank 

 

I have a email tracking program and all three emails were read :

 

Quote

UAV Registration Application and Consent to the Disclosure of Personal Information  Your email has been read 11 seconds after it was sent Recipients [email protected]  [email protected]

Quote

UAV Registration Application and Consent to the Disclosure of Personal Information form [email protected] read your email 7 minutes after it was sent

 

[Xaos]

Well,  I filled out the application form and the consent for record check form and scanned them and emailed them as an attachment to the email addresses on the form and the email address that I was finally able to find for NTC. Left the insurance block blank 
 
I have a email tracking program and all three emails were read :
 

UAV Registration Application and Consent to the Disclosure of Personal Information  Your email has been read 11 seconds after it was sent Recipients [email protected]  [email protected]

UAV Registration Application and Consent to the Disclosure of Personal Information form [email protected] read your email 7 minutes after it was sent

 
Let us know if any reply

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[Langsuan Man]

Will do,

but it was sent more in jest, since I can just imagine the <deleted> moment when Monday morning comes and no one knows what to do about another half baked plan

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[RetroGTAndrew]

23 hours ago, JAFO said:

I agree.  People are really on this privacy kick and feel like they are being violated.  Shit if some person wants to vid me mowing my lawn, BBQing, walking on a beach or swimming more power to them.  Whatever floats their boat.  The people that seem to take offense are people who want to walk around naked in their backyard (which is offensive all by itself LOL) or are hiding something.  Shooting down a Drone would be no different then walking up to a webcam in a store or someone's house and swatting off the wall with a bat.  All silly to me.  

Hey JAFO ,

I actually wonder if all these people that get all bent out of shape over 'privacy' have ever seen the view (attached pic is from 150~200 feet up approaching the model club strip at Prakasa) you get from a 'drone' at 2~300 feet with it's typical GoPro style wide angle lens? And my DSLR with a 300mm lens is a damn sight quieter and less noticeable than a 'drone'

Andrew

[JAFO]

1 hour ago, RetroGTAndrew said:

Hey JAFO ,

I actually wonder if all these people that get all bent out of shape over 'privacy' have ever seen the view (attached pic is from 150~200 feet up approaching the model club strip at Prakasa) you get from a 'drone' at 2~300 feet with it's typical GoPro style wide angle lens? And my DSLR with a 300mm lens is a damn sight quieter and less noticeable than a 'drone'

Andrew

Honestly at 200 to 300 feet up even in 2.7k you would have a hard time distinguishing people and some objects. I did an experiment at 100,200,300 and 500ft.  Shot straight down holding up 3 fingers.  After 200 feet you really cannot tell. 

 

Now arguably at 50 to 75ft at 2.7k images are crystal clear if lighting is right.  But in all my time flying seldom have I ever seen people fly at 50ft about people.

 

Regardless there are drone owners that will fly by windows in big condo buildings just like there are people with telephoto lenses and telescopes doing the same crap.  The technology is out there that if one wants to vid or take pics of anyone anywhere it can be done. 

[Xaos]

Silly me went to CAT, they said its CAAT. There is no CAAT in Pattaya so whats my options? I cant be bothered todrive to Bangkok just for that.

Can it be done by mail or some other office in Pattaya?

Thx

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[KhunBENQ]

2 hours ago, Xaos said:

Silly me went to CAT, they said its CAAT. There is no CAAT in Pattaya

Sounds like currently there is no other option than going to Bangkok.

 

Blogger Richard Barrow is currently in the process of registering and getting permission from NBTC and CAAT.

All forms/instructions in Thai language.

He promised to translate it.

See his last two blog entries about the topic:

https://twitter.com/RichardBarrow/status/919758911468474369

https://twitter.com/RichardBarrow/status/919778430912102401

 

NBTC: National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission

CAAT: Civil Aviation Authority of Thailand

 

Sounds to me like NBTC is just for the wireless/radiotraffic part while CAAT handles the actual air traffic/flying part.

And to make it perfect there seems to be a third step at the police?

[stanleycoin]

On 10/15/2017 at 9:03 AM, glider said:

I fly hobby <2kg "race" drones which only use a "monitor" to navigate a track around trees and under gates.

Reading the Announcement-of-the-Ministry-of-Transport.pdf it seems this is a Article 4 type 1 drone, and the "Minister of Transport" grants permission to use this type of drone without requiring registration/insurance (based on my reading).

There is confusion partly because a government graphic say all drones with "cameras" must be registered. However, a reading of the MOT release indicates "camera" means a device that taking "photographs, does filming, or is for television programs". So many hobby drones with cameras would not fall under this category and require registration. To further clarify this is the case the MOT specifies their general permission to fly type 1 drones including they must be operated within line of sight and not rely on "the monitor" (Article 5 (2-d). So the MOT defines cameras as those that record video, and separately defines live unrecorded video feed for control purposes as a "monitor".

 

This is of course much more logical, as the government is interested in controlling media information, but that wont stop those naive about drones in general, such as news journalists or government workers carrying out the laws, from not understanding the regulations. What is bad in general is that the government rules over drones are so broad and so vague that they might allow for the arrest of any drone operator at any time, such that equal justice is not legislated. For example, Article 5 (2-l) provides a very subjective rule "must not cause a nuisance to others", or Article 5 (2-i) "must not fly over villages/cities (what is difference between fly in city vs over city?).

I don't think you do any flying with these things

you just steer them,  they fly themselves. 

 

[glider]

"I don't think you do any flying with these things

you just steer them,  they fly themselves"

 

Your thinking of DJI type quads for photography/video. Waypoints, return to home, barometers, programmed flight, high res cameras etc. Race drones have none of that stuff. Largely just use a gyro with no accelerometer, and go where you fly them, which is the same as many RC hobby planes these days. Tuning the handling has been more difficult than my analog RC planes.

[KhunBENQ]

Richard Barrow has now put together a guideline about drone registering.

Don't ask me about the topics (I have no clue about drones).

 

http://www.richardbarrow.com/2017/10/how-to-register-your-drone-in-thailand/

 

[Xaos]

So its 2 separate permissions/registrations?

Sent from my SM-G955F using Tapatalk

[Ular]

I followed the instructions of Richard Barrow's mentioned paperwork and went to the local Police station of our Tamboon.

They were not able to do the registration process, I had to go the Amphoe in Wichian Buri.

Obviously I was the very first one showing up at the Police station with all the documents, hence they struggled a bit, last but not least I got my AC registered.

Not to mention it took a bit more time than Richard Barrow spent at NBTC office.

 

 

 

[katana]

Hi Ular,

The photos of the drone that Richard said they required, is that hard copy photos ie on photographic paper, or will bringing down some jpgs on a memory stick for them to copy to their computer suffice?

[Ular]

10 hours ago, katana said:

Hi Ular,

The photos of the drone that Richard said they required, is that hard copy photos ie on photographic paper ...?

I printed some photos and and glued them on a piece of paper, a memory stick would have been useless in my case, they have done everything manually, no computer was involved.
However they looked at the photos but returned the paper and the copy of my passport to me and just kept their own piece of paper of registration and my application form.