SINGAPORE: I remember my first drone crash vividly.
Before that flight, I was meticulous about preparation. I had clocked several hours of simulator flights, carefully inspected my equipment including radio transmitter and batteries, and walked two laps around the Toa Payoh field I’d chosen to familiarise myself with potential obstacles and ensure it was devoid of people.
Crucially, I checked government mapping tool OneMap to confirm I was not within one of Singapore's densely marked no-fly zones.
Known among RC (radio control) enthusiasts as a “tiny whoop”, my miniscule drone was barely the size of my palm and is meant for newcomers to the hobby to practise their skills. Despite this and the extensive precautions I took, my drone clipped a tree branch mid-flight, spiralled dramatically and crashed onto the field.
Thankfully, no one was around to be injured – though my drone's expensive camera system was destroyed, leaving behind only the memory captured in high-definition footage.
Across Singapore, drones have surged in popularity, especially remote-controlled quadcopters, now frequently seen buzzing above permitted fields like those at Pandan Reservoir and Dover Road. Last year, more than 2,300 drone users registered their unmanned aircraft (UA) with the authorities.
Unsurprisingly, there have been notable mishaps over recent years: drones causing disruptions at Changi Airport, landing on MRT tracks, and even being struck by moving trains. In the last year, incidents at a condominium in one-north and Methodist Girls’ School (MGS) have elevated public concerns significantly.
The MGS incident gained particular attention, with court documents describing how windy conditions led a remotely controlled plane to crash dangerously close to people, leaving craters upon impact. The pilot was fined S$7,000 under the Air Navigation Act.
Collectively, these events portray public drone usage as something of a ticking time bomb. In that light, do we need stricter drone regulations?
On one side, proponents argue that drones are too risky in Singapore’s crowded skies and suggest banning their usage near schools, parks and residential areas to prevent accidents.
On the other, drone enthusiasts and innovators highlight the significant benefits drones offer, arguing that excessive restrictions could stifle valuable technological advancements.
Outside of just recreational flight, drones have transformed sectors such as agriculture, logistics and surveillance. They offer immense potential benefits – for instance, they enable delivery of critical supplies to remote areas and support vital disaster relief operations.
Here, the work has already started on developing guidelines for electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft – air taxis, for example, as well as greater applications for unmanned drones that can transform the way we work, live and commute.
Another distinct possibility: aerial food deliveries via unmanned drones, as what I witnessed on a recent trip to Shenzhen, China.
The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) in April called for feedback on such industry guidelines to be submitted to the International Civil Aviation Organization in September.
Drone tech is still relatively nascent. Crashes are inevitable – whether due to novice errors, unforeseen mishaps or, occasionally, negligence.
Even drones as small as my “tiny whoop” are powerful and agile machines that require careful management and accountability. However, how can Singapore deter reckless operators without inadvertently punishing responsible pilots?
This dilemma is notably playing out in the United States with the implementation of Remote ID, a transponder or module installed on drones above 250g, so that people on the ground – the authorities, in particular – know whose drone is in the air and where its operator is located.
This accountability measure has seen some pushback from drone advocates in the US who say that Remote ID unfairly increases scrutiny on compliant users who want to stay on the right side of the law, which they would have to do at a significant personal cost. (Types vary, but the modules can run up to US$300, and some users may need to further modify their drones to add GPS capability.)
Non-compliant users can simply disregard Remote ID and keep flying their drones without any modules, and there would be limited ways for the authorities to find out.
Some also cite privacy concerns, claiming that members of the public will be able to find out who is flying, track down the location of the drone pilot and harass them – simply by using a smartphone app.
The resulting acrimony between drone users and regulators has even prompted some in the community to urge fellow pilots to falsely broadcast RemoteID signals via decoy modules to confuse enforcers and the public.
File photo of a drone in Singapore. (File photo: AFP/Roslan Rahman)
Clearly, what’s needed are regulations that specifically target irresponsible users without unfairly penalising those who follow safety guidelines meticulously.
Singapore already maintains strict zonal restrictions around sensitive areas, including airports and military facilities. Based on mapping data on OneMap, I estimate that these restricted areas cover about two-thirds of Singapore’s over-land airspace.
Some advocate expanding these restrictions to areas near schools and densely populated neighbourhoods. However, overly restrictive measures may unintentionally inhibit beneficial drone innovations without significantly improving safety.
The CAAS-approved designated drone area in Dover Road, for example, is a stone’s throw away from Singapore Polytechnic, UWC South East Asia Dover and a preparatory school. Should flight restrictions be expanded to areas home to educational institutions, the drone community may just lose one of two dedicated flying areas with amenities catered to pilots.
Instead, Singapore is wisely pursuing a more nuanced approach.
From Dec 1, 2025, the CAAS will introduce “digital licence plates” for UA in the form of Broadcast Remote Identification (B-RID) as part of a broader air traffic management system. Like the Remote ID, B-RID transmits similar data about the pilot’s identification details and location, among others.
However, unlike the Remote ID, the full details released by CAAS on Jun 9, 2025, seem to position B-RID as a more effective measure for enhancing accountability without unduly restricting drone use.
Drones sold in Singapore will come pre-installed with B-RID, allowing authorities to swiftly detect and penalise operators who flout regulations by flying dangerously or in unauthorised zones. This measure not only makes clear to pilots that their drone activity is being monitored, it also refrains from burdening them financially. Moreover, eligible drone pilots who register their drones early can install B-RID at no additional cost.
Regardless of how likely it is that drone users in the US will indeed face hassle from other members of the public tracking down their locations, it's even less likely in Singapore, where the habit of ordinary citizens taking the law into their own hands isn't particularly widespread or entrenched.
With B-RID, drone users who broadcast intentionally misleading remote identification data will also face heavy penalties and possible jail time.
As a whole, B-RID practically and prudently facilitates safer skies – essential for managing future complex operations such as drone deliveries and unmanned air taxis.
Of course, bad actors may circumvent these rules, and some may continue to fly their drones dangerously in restricted areas or altitude despite ample warnings. Addressing these individuals requires separate targeted enforcement strategies, distinct from broad-based regulations designed to encourage responsible flying.
Ultimately, cultivating a culture of responsible drone operation through community education and proactive engagement is likely more effective than reactionary, restrictive policies.
Responsible innovation strikes the optimal balance – allowing drone technology to thrive safely and sustainably, benefiting all of society.
Ng Jun Sen is a senior editor at CNA Digital.
Continue reading...
Before that flight, I was meticulous about preparation. I had clocked several hours of simulator flights, carefully inspected my equipment including radio transmitter and batteries, and walked two laps around the Toa Payoh field I’d chosen to familiarise myself with potential obstacles and ensure it was devoid of people.
Crucially, I checked government mapping tool OneMap to confirm I was not within one of Singapore's densely marked no-fly zones.
Known among RC (radio control) enthusiasts as a “tiny whoop”, my miniscule drone was barely the size of my palm and is meant for newcomers to the hobby to practise their skills. Despite this and the extensive precautions I took, my drone clipped a tree branch mid-flight, spiralled dramatically and crashed onto the field.
Thankfully, no one was around to be injured – though my drone's expensive camera system was destroyed, leaving behind only the memory captured in high-definition footage.
Across Singapore, drones have surged in popularity, especially remote-controlled quadcopters, now frequently seen buzzing above permitted fields like those at Pandan Reservoir and Dover Road. Last year, more than 2,300 drone users registered their unmanned aircraft (UA) with the authorities.
Unsurprisingly, there have been notable mishaps over recent years: drones causing disruptions at Changi Airport, landing on MRT tracks, and even being struck by moving trains. In the last year, incidents at a condominium in one-north and Methodist Girls’ School (MGS) have elevated public concerns significantly.
The MGS incident gained particular attention, with court documents describing how windy conditions led a remotely controlled plane to crash dangerously close to people, leaving craters upon impact. The pilot was fined S$7,000 under the Air Navigation Act.
Collectively, these events portray public drone usage as something of a ticking time bomb. In that light, do we need stricter drone regulations?
PUBLIC SAFETY VS TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION
On one side, proponents argue that drones are too risky in Singapore’s crowded skies and suggest banning their usage near schools, parks and residential areas to prevent accidents.
On the other, drone enthusiasts and innovators highlight the significant benefits drones offer, arguing that excessive restrictions could stifle valuable technological advancements.
Outside of just recreational flight, drones have transformed sectors such as agriculture, logistics and surveillance. They offer immense potential benefits – for instance, they enable delivery of critical supplies to remote areas and support vital disaster relief operations.
Here, the work has already started on developing guidelines for electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft – air taxis, for example, as well as greater applications for unmanned drones that can transform the way we work, live and commute.
Another distinct possibility: aerial food deliveries via unmanned drones, as what I witnessed on a recent trip to Shenzhen, China.
The Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS) in April called for feedback on such industry guidelines to be submitted to the International Civil Aviation Organization in September.
PENALISING THE RESPONSIBLE
Drone tech is still relatively nascent. Crashes are inevitable – whether due to novice errors, unforeseen mishaps or, occasionally, negligence.
Even drones as small as my “tiny whoop” are powerful and agile machines that require careful management and accountability. However, how can Singapore deter reckless operators without inadvertently punishing responsible pilots?
This dilemma is notably playing out in the United States with the implementation of Remote ID, a transponder or module installed on drones above 250g, so that people on the ground – the authorities, in particular – know whose drone is in the air and where its operator is located.
This accountability measure has seen some pushback from drone advocates in the US who say that Remote ID unfairly increases scrutiny on compliant users who want to stay on the right side of the law, which they would have to do at a significant personal cost. (Types vary, but the modules can run up to US$300, and some users may need to further modify their drones to add GPS capability.)
Non-compliant users can simply disregard Remote ID and keep flying their drones without any modules, and there would be limited ways for the authorities to find out.
Some also cite privacy concerns, claiming that members of the public will be able to find out who is flying, track down the location of the drone pilot and harass them – simply by using a smartphone app.
The resulting acrimony between drone users and regulators has even prompted some in the community to urge fellow pilots to falsely broadcast RemoteID signals via decoy modules to confuse enforcers and the public.
File photo of a drone in Singapore. (File photo: AFP/Roslan Rahman)
THE FUTURE: INNOVATION WITH RESPONSIBILITY
Clearly, what’s needed are regulations that specifically target irresponsible users without unfairly penalising those who follow safety guidelines meticulously.
Singapore already maintains strict zonal restrictions around sensitive areas, including airports and military facilities. Based on mapping data on OneMap, I estimate that these restricted areas cover about two-thirds of Singapore’s over-land airspace.
Some advocate expanding these restrictions to areas near schools and densely populated neighbourhoods. However, overly restrictive measures may unintentionally inhibit beneficial drone innovations without significantly improving safety.
The CAAS-approved designated drone area in Dover Road, for example, is a stone’s throw away from Singapore Polytechnic, UWC South East Asia Dover and a preparatory school. Should flight restrictions be expanded to areas home to educational institutions, the drone community may just lose one of two dedicated flying areas with amenities catered to pilots.
Instead, Singapore is wisely pursuing a more nuanced approach.
From Dec 1, 2025, the CAAS will introduce “digital licence plates” for UA in the form of Broadcast Remote Identification (B-RID) as part of a broader air traffic management system. Like the Remote ID, B-RID transmits similar data about the pilot’s identification details and location, among others.
However, unlike the Remote ID, the full details released by CAAS on Jun 9, 2025, seem to position B-RID as a more effective measure for enhancing accountability without unduly restricting drone use.
Drones sold in Singapore will come pre-installed with B-RID, allowing authorities to swiftly detect and penalise operators who flout regulations by flying dangerously or in unauthorised zones. This measure not only makes clear to pilots that their drone activity is being monitored, it also refrains from burdening them financially. Moreover, eligible drone pilots who register their drones early can install B-RID at no additional cost.
Regardless of how likely it is that drone users in the US will indeed face hassle from other members of the public tracking down their locations, it's even less likely in Singapore, where the habit of ordinary citizens taking the law into their own hands isn't particularly widespread or entrenched.
With B-RID, drone users who broadcast intentionally misleading remote identification data will also face heavy penalties and possible jail time.
As a whole, B-RID practically and prudently facilitates safer skies – essential for managing future complex operations such as drone deliveries and unmanned air taxis.
Of course, bad actors may circumvent these rules, and some may continue to fly their drones dangerously in restricted areas or altitude despite ample warnings. Addressing these individuals requires separate targeted enforcement strategies, distinct from broad-based regulations designed to encourage responsible flying.
Ultimately, cultivating a culture of responsible drone operation through community education and proactive engagement is likely more effective than reactionary, restrictive policies.
Responsible innovation strikes the optimal balance – allowing drone technology to thrive safely and sustainably, benefiting all of society.
Ng Jun Sen is a senior editor at CNA Digital.
Continue reading...