CAA prosecutes flyer

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

But the question I raised was who posted the video - to the best of my limited knowledge, GPS does not provide any video information and if it was simply linking to Google Earth information the traffic wouldn't have been moving on the bridge and the water immersion effect would have been unlikely!

Please note that my post was a question, not an opinion but I still wonder at the thought process of anyone posting a video returned to them with a pending prosecution - unless perhaps they were already in possession of a copy and had posted it before GMP and the CAA had seen fit to send him a copy/return his gear?

[PatMc]

Posted by Bearair on 05/04/2014 22:24:01:

I'm sorry I care not one jot about whether you think its a cop out as I'm sure you care not one jot that I think you are using a very poor debating tactic. I've said everyone now which part of everyone do you not understand?

Again if you have not read all the points I think of as relevant to this case or understood them in the thread then I do not feel I need to be repeating or you would understand their relevance a second time around.

If you want an answer be specific and don't ask someone to prove a negative!

I can spot your non sequitur if others cannot.

I think sticking to the substantiated, documented facts is a pretty good debating tactic. You haven’t challenged any of my summary of the reported legal proceedings.

I haven’t asked you to prove a negative only to provide a few examples of who you were referring to & examples of relevant facts that you think were omitted from the report I linked, both positive points. “Everyone” as an answer just doesn’t make sense to either question.

[Bearair]

Posted by Martin Harris on 05/04/2014 22:41:53:

But the question I raised was who posted the video - to the best of my limited knowledge, GPS does not provide any video information and if it was simply linking to Google Earth information the traffic wouldn't have been moving on the bridge and the water immersion effect would have been unlikely!

Please note that my post was a question, not an opinion but I still wonder at the thought process of anyone posting a video returned to them with a pending prosecution - unless perhaps they were already in possession of a copy and had posted it before GMP and the CAA had seen fit to send him a copy/return his gear?

Personally I think judging by his attitude and comments made, he posted the video after the CAA had returned them. Somewhere in all the info here and other links I think that his lawyer made a declaration that the aircraft was not fitted with video tramsiting device or something like that. Lawyers do not generally make such declarations without checking it cannot be disproved in my experience.

[PatMc]

Posted by Bearair on 05/04/2014 22:28:25:

Thanks for proving my point so quickly, the data being downloaded to his laptop was GPS location NOT video, if you had read the information provided in this thread you would of known that!

Sorry to disappoint but I don't think my mistake has proved any point you've made.

I haven't read all of this thread & only surmised that the laptop recorded video. However not being certain about this is the reason I said suggested that "Perhaps he posted on Youtube before he was notified or even before the model was found." The fact that he could only have posted the recovered on board video makes him even less sensible than I thought.

PS This isn't actually relevant to the outcome of the court case.

 

 

Edited By PatMc on 05/04/2014 23:13:41

[Bearair]

Posted by PatMc on 05/04/2014 23:08:11:

Posted by Bearair on 05/04/2014 22:28:25:

Thanks for proving my point so quickly, the data being downloaded to his laptop was GPS location NOT video, if you had read the information provided in this thread you would of known that!

Sorry to disappoint but I don't think my mistake has proved any point you've made.

I haven't read all of this thread & only surmised that the laptop recorded video. However not being certain about this is the reason I said suggested that "Perhaps he posted on Youtube before he was notified or even before the model was found." The fact that he could only have posted the recovered on board video makes him even less sensible than I thought.

 

 

Exactly proving that the West Moreland Gazette did not contain all the relevant information to the case. What you are asking me to do is go back over all the info to provide you with the evidence of what else is relevant but not reported. Go back over the info in the thread I'm not repeating myself or others.

And theres two people who have not exactly shone you and me!

You because you have not read all the information before commenting on the thread, and me because I wasn't aware that by fitting a keyfob camera I became the operator of an "surveillance" aircraft and subject to more stringent regulations.

Nothing actually wrong, but neither of us has exactly shone IMHO

Now I am sorry but if you want anymore examples you will just have to read all the information for yourself.

Goodnight

Edited By Bearair on 05/04/2014 23:32:39

[John Privett]

I think the probability of the video having been transmitted back from the model is close to zero. The video is of decent (picture) quality without any breakup or loss of signal at all - even at the point where it enters the water.

The flight appears to start just north-west of Lower Ormsgill Reservoir, about half a mile from the active Walney Island Airport, owned and run by BAE Systems. The bridge where the near-miss occurs is around a mile and a half from the point of launch, and the point of entry into the water probably closer to 2 miles away from the launch point.

Surely any video gear capable of transmitting video like that from zero feet altitude back to the launch point 2 miles away with buildings inbetween would earn him a second day in court as a guest of Ofcom...

[PatMc]

Bearair, I only commented & drew conclusions from the legal proceedings. IMO the summary I gave a couple of posts back covers everything relevant on why Mr Knowles was prosecuted, how the case proceeded & why it concluded the way it did. Anything not stated or presented to the court is irrelevant.
As far as I'm concerned the judge, prosecutor, CAA & defence lawyer did exactly what they had to do. Knowles, OTOH, did nothing to help himself.

Also as I stated earlier, I don't think carrying a camera makes a model subject to more stringent regulations or it would surely have resulted in another charge against Mr Knowles.
I've been using a Flycam since they first appeared & look forward to getting better results soon with a Mobius.

[Ian Jones]

Mr Knowles had the opportunity to put the record straight a good number of times and not least at the hearing at which he was convicted.

Ultimately whether the flight finished as expected or not he bears the responsibility for it just as we all do for our flights. He has cast a shadow on RC aircraft in the public eye and whether FPV or not that's not a good thing.

So we can argue one thing or another because we like or don't like this or that, misuse one term or another but when it comes down to it we should distance ourselves from Mr Knowles because he has brought our pastime into disrepute and he does not demonstrate the normal good character of RC pilots.

Be aware also that various representatives at law may be looking in.

[leccyflyer]

Spot On Ian.

[Dave Bran]

Has anyone commented on the Transmitter shown in the papers picture of him, particularly relative to the claims with regards model costs, and the suitability for purpose. Conversely, if he allowed a photo to be taken with a Transmitter other than that used, what does that say?

[Bearair]

Posted by PatMc on 06/04/2014 00:08:19:

Bearair, I only commented & drew conclusions from the legal proceedings. IMO the summary I gave a couple of posts back covers everything relevant on why Mr Knowles was prosecuted, how the case proceeded & why it concluded the way it did. Anything not stated or presented to the court is irrelevant.
As far as I'm concerned the judge, prosecutor, CAA & defence lawyer did exactly what they had to do. Knowles, OTOH, did nothing to help himself.

Also as I stated earlier, I don't think carrying a camera makes a model subject to more stringent regulations or it would surely have resulted in another charge against Mr Knowles.
I've been using a Flycam since they first appeared & look forward to getting better results soon with a Mobius.

And that's the problem with coming into a thread without having read it! If you go back through the thread you can find the information on why your Flycam equipped model is subject to more stringent regulations if you are recording video data! I would read it if I was you , ignorance is no defence in law as others have pointed out.

[ken anderson.]

here's some more info on the particular case.......it says that the model aircraft cost £2000.00 and was decorated with Mr Knowles company name/and it was found in the water by a bae employee ...

 

ken Anderson ne..1 ...... info dept.

 

Edited By ken anderson. on 06/04/2014 09:50:34

[PatMc]

Posted by Bearair on 06/04/2014 09:45:31:

Posted by PatMc on 06/04/2014 00:08:19:

Bearair, I only commented & drew conclusions from the legal proceedings. IMO the summary I gave a couple of posts back covers everything relevant on why Mr Knowles was prosecuted, how the case proceeded & why it concluded the way it did. Anything not stated or presented to the court is irrelevant.
As far as I'm concerned the judge, prosecutor, CAA & defence lawyer did exactly what they had to do. Knowles, OTOH, did nothing to help himself.

Also as I stated earlier, I don't think carrying a camera makes a model subject to more stringent regulations or it would surely have resulted in another charge against Mr Knowles.
I've been using a Flycam since they first appeared & look forward to getting better results soon with a Mobius.

And that's the problem with coming into a thread without having read it! If you go back through the thread you can find the information on why your Flycam equipped model is subject to more stringent regulations if you are recording video data! I would read it if I was you , ignorance is no defence in law as others have pointed out.

If you are refering to this , I have read it, in fact I commented on it here :

Posted by PatMc on 05/04/2014 21:23:46:

Re the comments on videoing from models - I don't think the actual taking of pictures from a model aircraft breaks the law technicaly or otherwise when it's not being done on a commercial basis. I think the "Notes to Editors" in the CAA report on the prosecution is misleading in several respects.

PS the fact that using a camera in the illegal flight wasn't one of the charges against Mr Knowles seems to back this opinion up.

 

 

 

Edited By PatMc on 06/04/2014 09:55:46

[Bearair]

Posted by Ian Jones on 06/04/2014 00:12:39:

Mr Knowles had the opportunity to put the record straight a good number of times and not least at the hearing at which he was convicted.

Ultimately whether the flight finished as expected or not he bears the responsibility for it just as we all do for our flights. He has cast a shadow on RC aircraft in the public eye and whether FPV or not that's not a good thing.

So we can argue one thing or another because we like or don't like this or that, misuse one term or another but when it comes down to it we should distance ourselves from Mr Knowles because he has brought our pastime into disrepute and he does not demonstrate the normal good character of RC pilots.

Be aware also that various representatives at law may be looking in.

Define ourselves?

If we are going to distance this guy, then I would of thought excluding him from the BMFA might be a start.

However does the BMFA has the right within its constitution to expel members?

Who makes that decision?

If the power to refuse membership does not exist does the BMFA need to change its constitution to do so if another person breaks the rules?

What other ways should "ourselves" distance him?

[Bearair]

Posted by PatMc on 06/04/2014 09:51:35:

Posted by Bearair on 06/04/2014 09:45:31:

Posted by PatMc on 06/04/2014 00:08:19:

Bearair, I only commented & drew conclusions from the legal proceedings. IMO the summary I gave a couple of posts back covers everything relevant on why Mr Knowles was prosecuted, how the case proceeded & why it concluded the way it did. Anything not stated or presented to the court is irrelevant.
As far as I'm concerned the judge, prosecutor, CAA & defence lawyer did exactly what they had to do. Knowles, OTOH, did nothing to help himself.

Also as I stated earlier, I don't think carrying a camera makes a model subject to more stringent regulations or it would surely have resulted in another charge against Mr Knowles.
I've been using a Flycam since they first appeared & look forward to getting better results soon with a Mobius.

And that's the problem with coming into a thread without having read it! If you go back through the thread you can find the information on why your Flycam equipped model is subject to more stringent regulations if you are recording video data! I would read it if I was you , ignorance is no defence in law as others have pointed out.

If you are refering to this , I have read it, in fact I commented on it here :

Posted by PatMc on 05/04/2014 21:23:46:

Re the comments on videoing from models - I don't think the actual taking of pictures from a model aircraft breaks the law technicaly or otherwise when it's not being done on a commercial basis. I think the "Notes to Editors" in the CAA report on the prosecution is misleading in several respects.

PS the fact that using a camera in the illegal flight wasn't one of the charges against Mr Knowles seems to back this opinion up.

Edited By PatMc on 06/04/2014 09:55:46

Nope

[leccyflyer]

Just watched the video. That was a remarkably accurate flight just over the bridge, for a flyaway. It looked a lot more, given the descent down from altitude to very close to the bridge, to be an attempt to fly under the bridge, which did not come off. There were certainly plenty of very delicate apparent course corrections on the approach to the bridge.

Is that how the return to home function would have been programmed, with the bridge as a waypoint?

[Bearair]

Posted by leccyflyer on 06/04/2014 10:04:51:

Just watched the video. That was a remarkably accurate flight just over the bridge, for a flyaway. It looked a lot more, given the descent down from altitude to very close to the bridge, to be an attempt to fly under the bridge, which did not come off. There were certainly plenty of very delicate apparent course corrections on the approach to the bridge.

Is that how the return to home function would have been programmed, with the bridge as a waypoint?

I think the only one who could say for sure is the miscreant himself and to say he has been evasive in an understatement. The more I read the more I think he might of just been stupid enough to do that!

[Pete B]

For my sins, I've trawled through both threads on FPVHub devoted to this sorry episode and, with a bit of effort, it is possible to extract some detail.

It would seems that he was provided with a 27Mhz Tx by the newspaper for the purpose of the photograph. At the start of the video, the Tx has an extended aerial, about a foot in length. He states it is UHF but he doesn't know the frequency.

Apparently the model was initially recovered and handed to the Police, who passed it to the CAA for investigation. Whether they subsequently retained the equipment or returned it to him is unclear. If they returned it before Court proceedings, I'd be very surprised. It's an exhibit which should be made available to the Court, where a decision would be made as to forfeiture or return. I haven't been able to establish when his video was originally uploaded to Youtube. It may have been when he had the equipment returned to him before the hearing or he may have received a copy as part of the pre-trial disclosure

The County Court would not have entered into this in any shape or form as it is a summary criminal offence and could only be dealt with in a Magistrates Court. The sequence of Court hearings seems to be that he made a first appearance at which he pleaded not guilty. The case was then adjourned to 1st April for a hearing. He suggests that, at the first hearing, the magistrate suggested he plead guilty. I wonder if, in his confusion, it might have been the Magistrates Clerk explaining the situation to him?

On 8th March, three weeks before the hearing, he uploaded some of the disclosure documents sent to him by the prosecution, providing a link on that forum. Not the wisest of moves. I'd have thought. He has even published the e-mail correspondence between him and Manny Williamson of BMFA.

On the day of the hearing, as a result of the not guilty plea he'd earlier entered, prosecution witnesses would have travelled to the Court. Before the hearing, he was given three options by his solicitor - plead not guilty and have a trial; plead guilty and have his say, and thirdly, leave the Court and let them hear it in his absence. He chose the third option.

In view of that decision, he lost his opportunity to offer any mitigation. By changing his plea on the day of the hearing and not before, it is probable that he substantially increased the costs awarded against him due to witness expenses and solicitors fees etc.

A sorry saga indeed - and I think I'm losing the will to live now......

Pete

[PatMc]

Bearair, using a illegal use of a camera in a model doesn't figure in the prosecution which is the topic under discussion. I ain't going to play "hunt the thimble" with this thread looking for references to it. So unless anyone can point out documented proof of restrictions using a camera (in a different thread) that cover the type of flying I do I'm not interested.

[leccyflyer]

Posted by Bearair on 06/04/2014 10:13:07:

Posted by leccyflyer on 06/04/2014 10:04:51:

Just watched the video. That was a remarkably accurate flight just over the bridge, for a flyaway. It looked a lot more, given the descent down from altitude to very close to the bridge, to be an attempt to fly under the bridge, which did not come off. There were certainly plenty of very delicate apparent course corrections on the approach to the bridge.

Is that how the return to home function would have been programmed, with the bridge as a waypoint?

I think the only one who could say for sure is the miscreant himself and to say he has been evasive in an understatement. The more I read the more I think he might of just been stupid enough to do that!

Yet there have been all sorts of bold declarations claiming that the aircraft was not being flown by FPV, and even claiming it was a normal LOS flight terminating in an unfortunate uncontrolled fly-away. In other attempting to deflect from the fact that the aircraft was equipped for both FPV and UAV flight, whilst expecting the reader to believe that neither system was actually in operation during the ill fated flight. It certainly did not look that way from the video.

[Pete B]

Gents, you've spent two pages of this thread throwing cut and pasted quotes at each other, which is making it difficult to follow and, I'm sure, very tedious for everyone to read. It's also taking up a fair bit of mods' time in monitoring what is going on.

If you want to carry on this spat, please do so by PM. Otherwise, I'll have no choice but to lock the thread and you'll have denied other members the opportunity to discuss it rationally and without trying to score points off each other.

Please take note.

Pete

[leccyflyer]

Pete

With all due respect. In a discussion, where several different points are being discussed, it greatly aids understanding, to quote the point which is being discussed. To not do so would be making the erroneous conclusion that threads are completely linear, with each post following directly in response to the previous response.

[Pete B]

Not to the stage where the point that is being made is overwhelmed by the desire to out-quote the other or just win an argument, leccyflyer. This matter can be discussed without raised voices, I'm sure.

The warning stands.

Pete

[Bearair]

Posted by leccyflyer on 06/04/2014 10:17:27:

Posted by Bearair on 06/04/2014 10:13:07:

Posted by leccyflyer on 06/04/2014 10:04:51:

Just watched the video. That was a remarkably accurate flight just over the bridge, for a flyaway. It looked a lot more, given the descent down from altitude to very close to the bridge, to be an attempt to fly under the bridge, which did not come off. There were certainly plenty of very delicate apparent course corrections on the approach to the bridge.

Is that how the return to home function would have been programmed, with the bridge as a waypoint?

I think the only one who could say for sure is the miscreant himself and to say he has been evasive in an understatement. The more I read the more I think he might of just been stupid enough to do that!

Yet there have been all sorts of bold declarations claiming that the aircraft was not being flown by FPV, and even claiming it was a normal LOS flight terminating in an unfortunate uncontrolled fly-away. In other attempting to deflect from the fact that the aircraft was equipped for both FPV and UAV flight, whilst expecting the reader to believe that neither system was actually in operation during the ill fated flight. It certainly did not look that way from the video.

FPV is a way piloting the model we now the model was not fitted with a video transmitter so it is a fact it was not being piloted by FPV.

He claims he was not flying by waypoint but by normal LOS, but the court must of considered otherwise. Rightly in my opinion.

What I am concerned about is the other technology involved in this that I and plenty of other modelers did not even know existed.

I am even more concerned about the definition of a Small unmanned surveillance aircraft, which as far as I can see is any model equipped with video or picture capture. And therefore includes a flycam equipped model.

I would like to know how we are going to try to stop another incident like this because it damages all model flying IMHO. Or if we are going to distance "ourselves" how are we going to do it. In my mind distancing ourselves is much easier said than done. Especially when there is a massive public and press awareness of "drones" but virtually no knowledge of what a "drone" is.

[ken anderson.]

don't you think that this thread is going around in circles at the moment....the bottom line is Mr Knowles broke the existing rules as set out by the CAA and got caught and punished .....and as Pete(Mod) say's that really two people on the thread should consider using the pm function to agree/disagree and a couple of points that they want to discuss............. and so save the thread getting close.....

ken Anderson ne...1 ...save the thread dept.