Illegal drone use in UK- Fined

[bronk33]

Bad news in the UK:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... aa-397734/

However, seems pretty dumb to fly over a nuclear sub facility and a bridge.

 

[gpauk]

Bad news in the UK:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... aa-397734/

However, seems pretty dumb to fly over a nuclear sub facility and a bridge.

Yes -- flying in restricted airspace is dumb.. So is losing the aircraft into the water!

 

[Stufft]

+1

Stupid to fly near the submarine base at all. Closest I got to being in trouble was scuba diving across the loch from faslane nuclear submarine base. Men in inflatable boats with machine guns soon told us to leave the area!

 

[shaun27]

what a dip **** I know the base and he is lucky he did not get in more **** then he as

 

[Studiowise]

bit more info here....

Looks like he's claiming he was flying it safely a mile away and then lost control. Article has youtube channel links etc

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/a ... conviction

video he was convicted on is now private

 

[Meluk]

Interesting!

Quoted "He pleaded guilty to flying a small unmanned surveillance aircraft within 50 metres of a structure". How many of use have flown within 50 metres to a 'structure' though.

 

[Pull_Up]

The law states not within 50m of a vehicle, vessel, building or structure "not under your control". Whilst you could say that standing blocking the entrance to a public monument for example while you fly close to it is arguably making it under your control, not sure that would work with an MoD establishment. There are plenty of YouTube videos showing people breaking the 150m rule with a camera-equipped uav for congested areas, too. Lots of evidence out there if they decide to stay enforcing the law that's been there for some time...

However I believe it was the nature of the area he was flying close to that dictated the official response to this one, rather than this marking a shift in attitude of the CAA.

So far...

 

[shaun27]

The law states not within 50m of a vehicle, vessel, building or structure "not under your control". Whilst you could say that standing blocking the entrance to a public monument for example while you fly close to it is arguably making it under your control, not sure that would work with an MoD establishment. There are plenty of YouTube videos showing people breaking the 150m rule with a camera-equipped uav for congested areas, too. Lots of evidence out there if they decide to stay enforcing the law that's been there for some time...

However I believe it was the nature of the area he was flying close to that dictated the official response to this one, rather than this marking a shift in attitude of the CAA.

So far...[/quot

simon you are right he his luck he just got a fine and not locked up

 

[chrisc]

I agree that this guy got his wrists slapped for what he did because of where he did it.

Without seeing the video we can only believe him that he "lost control" of his quad and that he was very unlucky about the retun home not working.

I think when you fly near restricted airspace you should accept the risks.

 

[Pull_Up]

Also it wasn't a quad but a fixed wing FPV rig. Some of those can fly for up to an hour so the scope for messing up or colliding with something is even greater.

 

[Bigbells]

I'll be the last person to have any criticism for the pilot. He was just plain unlucky. In retrospect, I would have argued that I was not violating any flying restriction because once the craft has escaped my control I am no longer "flying" it no matter how fervent my efforts to do so. In my opinion the guy got poor and unprofessional advice from the magistrate.

This is the only time I know of where the pilot would have been better off NOT to have his contact info on the craft.

 

[Meluk]

The video is online now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hriyv8WRHg4#t=43

He was very lucky to not crash into the bridge, how close did he get to the railings!

 

[BMEWS]

The video is online now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hriyv8WRHg4#t=43

He was very lucky to not crash into the bridge, how close did he get to the railings!

I think that was the bit that sealed the deal. Had he kept a reasonable alt, then i'm sure the authorities would have just had some stern words. But, section 167 - para 1 and 2(c) of ANO 2009 was the clincher.

Bmews

 

[Meluk]

The video is online now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hriyv8WRHg4#t=43

He was very lucky to not crash into the bridge, how close did he get to the railings!

I think that was the bit that sealed the deal. Had he kept a reasonable alt, then i'm sure the authorities would have just had some stern words. But, section 167 - para 1 and 2(c) of ANO 2009 was the clincher.

Bmews

Are FPV aerial vehicles used for recreational use classed as surveillance vehicles though?

 

[Pull_Up]

The video is online now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hriyv8WRHg4#t=43

He was very lucky to not crash into the bridge, how close did he get to the railings!

I think that was the bit that sealed the deal. Had he kept a reasonable alt, then i'm sure the authorities would have just had some stern words. But, section 167 - para 1 and 2(c) of ANO 2009 was the clincher.

Bmews

Are FPV aerial vehicles used for recreational use classed as surveillance vehicles though?

Yes. Anything with a camera that records (as opposed to just a live feed) is classed that way for the purposes of the ANO.

 

[Pull_Up]

Repeat post, sorry.

 

[Pull_Up]

Repeat post, sorry.

 

[BMEWS]

Are FPV aerial vehicles used for recreational use classed as surveillance vehicles though?

Yes. Anything with a camera that records (as opposed to just a live feed) is classed that way for the purposes of the ANO.

Section 167 para 5 In this article ‘a small unmanned surveillance aircraft’ means a small unmanned aircraft which
is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition.

Hope this helps

Bmews

 

[Meluk]

Are there any laws, guidelines for not flying over a nuclear facility for example? I know its common sense not to but just wondering.

DJI have not classed nuclear facilities as 'no fly zones' for waypoint flying, they have just put airports.

 

[Pull_Up]

Are there any laws, guidelines for not flying over a nuclear facility for example? I know its common sense not to but just wondering.

DJI have not classed nuclear facilities as 'no fly zones' for waypoint flying, they have just put airports.

Your best bet is to get a 1:250,000 CAA chart of your area. It lists all restricted and controlled airspace as well as other things like instrument approach paths, high intensity radio transmission areas, military low flying, etc. Available from aviation suppliers like AFE...