CAA prosecutes flyer

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

My understanding would be that indoor flying does not break the law - provided the model is not equipped with a camera or other device that transmits data.

BEB

[Bearair]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 05/04/2014 18:28:23:

My understanding would be that indoor flying does not break the law - provided the model is not equipped with a camera or other device that transmits data.

BEB

I think you find it is the recording of that data that is the issue so a FPV would be perfectly legal but line of site with a key fob camera that records would not be. The camera, how you fly it FPV or LOS are not the issue only the recording there of.

[Bearair]

As outlined by Pete b here

Taken from that page:

"At first it would appear that FPV flying would fall under article 167 for small unmanned surveillance aircraft because the ANO definition of an unmanned surveillance aircraft is as above in 167(5). However in situations where a camera is used for the sole purpose of controlling the aircraft the flight is not considered surveillance or data acquisition. CAP 722 article 3.4 in Section 3 Chapter 1 page 2 refers to this, copied here: “The provision of image or other data solely for the use of controlling or monitoring the aircraft is not considered to be applicable to the meaning of ‘Surveillance or Data Acquisition’ covered at Article 167 for SUSA.”

However if the video is captured in some way and used for other purposes the CAA considers the flight to have been for data acquisition and article 167 does apply."

 

Edited By Bearair on 05/04/2014 18:41:51

[Andrew Russell 2]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 05/04/2014 18:28:23:

My understanding would be that indoor flying does not break the law - provided the model is not equipped with a camera or other device that transmits data.

BEB

It must be understood that a small indoor plane with a key fob camera or the little infra red Helis from Argos etc all will breech this rule . So technically are open to prosecution apart from commmon sense and let's face it the people higher up the food chain often do not posess this gift.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

My point is how many indoor planes have you come across flying indoors with a camera on them? Very, very few I would suggest. Therefore its all just a tiny bit academic don't we think?

BEB

[leccyflyer]

The indoor models fitted with cameras is a complete red herring and exactly the sort of smoke screen put up in order to excuse the inexcusable, by pretending that the law is not well founded, by reducing it to absurdities. The CAA will not be prosecuting anyone for flying an indoor model with a camera onboard. That is nothing like the breaches described in the case where they have prosecuted that individual for attempting, unsuccessfully, to make an autonomous UAV flight, in a sensitive location, and beyond visual range.

IMHO this hobby really ought to be distancing itself from those sort of operations. They are not model flying, they are something else entirely.

[Bearair]

Posted by Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 05/04/2014 19:13:24:

My point is how many indoor planes have you come across flying indoors with a camera on them? Very, very few I would suggest. Therefore its all just a tiny bit academic don't we think?

BEB

Dont know how many hundreds of these have been sold?

Here

[Pete B]

Couldn't see one of those worrying a passing sparrow, let alone anything bigger, Bearair...

Pete

[Braddock, VC]

Going back to the original post. Excellent; it's about time action was taken against these people who jeopardise our hobby. I've absolutely only praise for the CAA and only regret the fine wasn't at the top end of the scale.

[Rob Jones 2]

Posted by Braddock, VC on 05/04/2014 20:29:33:

Going back to the original post. Excellent; it's about time action was taken against these people who jeopardise our hobby. I've absolutely only praise for the CAA and only regret the fine wasn't at the top end of the scale.

I agree.Plus, if he can afford a 1k quad, he can afford a 4k fine without going bankrupt. It is always the irresponsible few who get the responsible many banned.

[Bearair]

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 05/04/2014 20:29:31:

Couldn't see one of those worrying a passing sparrow, let alone anything bigger, Bearair...

Pete

No not until some idiot of an journalist thinks he can fly one at Mr Mrs Football Stars wedding!

Now if I was the CAA I would be looking for some poor mug with a bit of an attitude to prosecute so I had set a precedent. Or would I wait to take on the idiot journalist backed by The Sun's legal department.

[PatMc]

Posted by Bearair on 04/04/2014 01:06:39:

Posted by PatMc on 04/04/2014 00:01:31:

Posted by Bearair on 03/04/2014 21:36:17:

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 03/04/2014 17:29:53:

The problem is that he pleaded guilty so cannot appeal against conviction, unless there were serious failings by others in the procedure. All he can appeal now is the sentence, AFAIK.

Pete

Yes I think that your right on that.

We shall see if it becomes a major issue for the whole modeling fraternity. The more I read about this the more I think non of the parties involved have exactly shone!

I don't know which other parties haven't shone.
From this report in the Westmorland Gazette he's the only one who wasn't at all bright. Because he'd left the building before the trial began a guilty plea would have had to be assumed, even though he'd previously pleaded not guilty. And he relinquished any chance to explain his loss of control story in person.

Have you read all the information on this or are you making your assumptions based on a local newspaper?

I've read several reports of the case, this one being the most detailed with no attempt to sensationalise or step outside of the presented facts.
Do you have more relevant information than the Westmorland Gazette ?
Apart from Knowles, which other parties does your comment "I think non of the parties involved have exactly shone!" refer to & why ?

[PatMc]

Posted by ken anderson. on 05/04/2014 09:38:04:

Robert Knowles...would have got away with it all-if he hadn't put his killer vid on u-tube(don't you think) ...... I also think that there are many more flying around using FPV /drone type of model aircraft than we or the CAA know about......I've seen video's posted on here that are questionable.....and once someone points out the possible pitfalls...they are taken off......did we not have someone once saying they had been visited by the police...who had been alerted by the CAA ...... he was told to mend his ways or else......and then he published on here that he was going to hide all his stuff so as it couldn't be confiscated! ........ so me personally-I think that RK shot himself in the foot to be honest....but he is not alone........

PS -note-that this is my personal opinion......and not posted to start arguments etc.....

ken Anderson ne...1 ....... reply dept.

Ken, AFAICS he was identified & prosecuted on evidence taken from his recovered model, not by what he posted on Youtube.

[PatMc]

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 05/04/2014 21:29:03

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by PatMc on 05/04/2014 21:11:04:

Posted by ken anderson. on 05/04/2014 09:38:04:

Robert Knowles...would have got away with it all-if he hadn't put his killer vid on u-tube(don't you think) ...... I also think that there are many more flying around using FPV /drone type of model aircraft than we or the CAA know about......I've seen video's posted on here that are questionable.....and once someone points out the possible pitfalls...they are taken off......did we not have someone once saying they had been visited by the police...who had been alerted by the CAA ...... he was told to mend his ways or else......and then he published on here that he was going to hide all his stuff so as it couldn't be confiscated! ........ so me personally-I think that RK shot himself in the foot to be honest....but he is not alone........

PS -note-that this is my personal opinion......and not posted to start arguments etc.....

ken Anderson ne...1 ....... reply dept.

Ken, AFAICS he was identified & prosecuted on evidence taken from his recovered model, not by what he posted on Youtube.

It does raise the question that if that's the case, who posted it on Youtube?

[PatMc]

Posted by Martin Harris on 05/04/2014 21:26:28:

Posted by PatMc on 05/04/2014 21:11:04:

Ken, AFAICS he was identified & prosecuted on evidence taken from his recovered model, not by what he posted on Youtube.

It does raise the question that if that's the case, who posted it on Youtube?

Presumably Knowles himself posted it. Not sure why this is raises question, Martin ?

[Bearair]

Posted by PatMc on 05/04/2014 21:07:38:

Posted by Bearair on 04/04/2014 01:06:39:

Posted by PatMc on 04/04/2014 00:01:31:

Posted by Bearair on 03/04/2014 21:36:17:

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 03/04/2014 17:29:53:

The problem is that he pleaded guilty so cannot appeal against conviction, unless there were serious failings by others in the procedure. All he can appeal now is the sentence, AFAIK.

Pete

Yes I think that your right on that.

We shall see if it becomes a major issue for the whole modeling fraternity. The more I read about this the more I think non of the parties involved have exactly shone!

I don't know which other parties haven't shone.
From this report in the Westmorland Gazette he's the only one who wasn't at all bright. Because he'd left the building before the trial began a guilty plea would have had to be assumed, even though he'd previously pleaded not guilty. And he relinquished any chance to explain his loss of control story in person.

Have you read all the information on this or are you making your assumptions based on a local newspaper?

I've read several reports of the case, this one being the most detailed with no attempt to sensationalise or step outside of the presented facts.
Do you have more relevant information than the Westmorland Gazette ?
Apart from Knowles, which other parties does your comment "I think non of the parties involved have exactly shone!" refer to & why ?

I have lots more information than the Westmorland Gazette on this case, they are not all reports and most deal with facts written about aspects of the case not covered by Westmorland Gazette it is on this thread. Have you read all this thread and info provided by the links?

There are so many parties involved in this who have not shone I wouldnt no where to start, maybe with me. Perhaps you would name some of the parties involved and I tell you why I do Not think they have exactly shone.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Posted by PatMc on 05/04/2014 21:32:53:

Posted by Martin Harris on 05/04/2014 21:26:28:

Posted by PatMc on 05/04/2014 21:11:04:

Ken, AFAICS he was identified & prosecuted on evidence taken from his recovered model, not by what he posted on Youtube.

It does raise the question that if that's the case, who posted it on Youtube?

Presumably Knowles himself posted it. Not sure why this is raises question, Martin ?

If the authorities retrieved the model and camera and presumably notified the owner that a prosecution was being considered, would it be entirely sensible to post a copy on Youtube?

[PatMc]

Sorry Bearair I think that's a complete cop out. You were the one who suggested that other parties hadn't shone, name a few.

The CAA provided the prosecution evidence at previous magistrates hearings, Knowles pleaded not guilty thus the case went to a higher court where there was a risk of higher levels of fines & costs.
The prosecutors acting for the CAA presented the evidence at the county court, no one presented any defence evidence, the judge had no other option than to bring a guilty verdict then decide on the magnitude of the fines & costs without being able to consider any mitigating circumstances.

What other relevant facts haven't the Westmorland Gazette reported ? An example or two will suffice.

[PatMc]

Posted by Martin Harris on 05/04/2014 21:56:26:

If the authorities retrieved the model and camera and presumably notified the owner that a prosecution was being considered, would it be entirely sensible to post a copy on Youtube?

Perhaps he posted on Youtube before he was notified or even before the model was found. Not sure that "being sensible" is one of Mr Knowles attributes.

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

...which would mean he was downloading via a live link - which would indicate he was operating as FPV which I understand that he's denied.

[Bearair]

Posted by PatMc on 05/04/2014 22:02:31:

Sorry Bearair I think that's a complete cop out. You were the one who suggested that other parties hadn't shone, name a few.

The CAA provided the prosecution evidence at previous magistrates hearings, Knowles pleaded not guilty thus the case went to a higher court where there was a risk of higher levels of fines & costs.
The prosecutors acting for the CAA presented the evidence at the county court, no one presented any defence evidence, the judge had no other option than to bring a guilty verdict then decide on the magnitude of the fines & costs without being able to consider any mitigating circumstances.

What other relevant facts haven't the Westmorland Gazette reported ? An example or two will suffice.

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.

 

Edited By Bearair on 05/04/2014 22:25:14

[PatMc]

Martin extract from the Westmorland Gazette -
Alison Slater, prosecuting for the CAA, said: “The plane was taken to Greater Manchester Police who downloaded the film from the onboard camera.
“Robert Webb, investigating officer for the CAA, informed Knowles of the incident who replied in an email that he had flown six times that day without any problems. “He said on the seventh launch he had lost sight around 100 yards out. He had his laptop set up and followed it on screen until he lost the beacon so gathered it had landed in water.”

[Bearair]

Posted by PatMc on 05/04/2014 22:24:20:

Martin extract from the Westmorland Gazette -
Alison Slater, prosecuting for the CAA, said: “The plane was taken to Greater Manchester Police who downloaded the film from the onboard camera.
“Robert Webb, investigating officer for the CAA, informed Knowles of the incident who replied in an email that he had flown six times that day without any problems. “He said on the seventh launch he had lost sight around 100 yards out. He had his laptop set up and followed it on screen until he lost the beacon so gathered it had landed in water.”

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!

[leccyflyer]

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

Posted by PatMc on 05/04/2014 22:24:20:

Martin extract from the Westmorland Gazette -
Alison Slater, prosecuting for the CAA, said: “The plane was taken to Greater Manchester Police who downloaded the film from the onboard camera.
“Robert Webb, investigating officer for the CAA, informed Knowles of the incident who replied in an email that he had flown six times that day without any problems. “He said on the seventh launch he had lost sight around 100 yards out. He had his laptop set up and followed it on screen until he lost the beacon so gathered it had landed in water.”

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!

If the programmer was dowloading location data to his laptop, did he have GPS data indicating where the UAV ended up? If so, did he inform BAE Systems of it's whereabouts, or did he just keep quiet?

Edited By leccyflyer on 05/04/2014 22:37:49