Gatwick drone pilot arrested

[Codename-John]

Ok but there was no need for them to break the law by endangering his aircraft, camera and possibly anything in the surrounding area in the process, and there should be some recourse on the officers involved as blatently 2 laws have been broken, as you have stated yourself ignorance of the law is no excuse for not following it.

Endangering safety of an aircraft

137. A person must not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in an aircraft.

Endangering safety of any person or property

138. A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.

The heavy handedness then also comes from keeping him locked up for 5 hours, when they could have removed him from the scene - potential breach of peace over with, if he returns then they have a case for locking him up if needed

[Martin Harris - Moderator]

Isn't that the same as a police car chasing a miscreant? In order to do so, the level of risk to the public is assessed "on the fly", normal traffic law is disregarded by officers trained to make wide ranging risk assessments in short timescales under pressure and a decision to continue or abandon the chase is taken based on the danger to the public, the criminal and the seriousness of the case. In this case, a quite small UAS was apparently being flown in a manner likely to aggravate a situation, the policemen on the spot requested the pilot to land, he refused - possibly committing the offence of interfering with a police officer in the execution of his duty - and they took the action necessary to contain the situation.

On the available evidence from both sides, I would favour the action taken. However, it would have been so much better if the pilot had landed the UAS when requested to...

Edited By Martin Harris on 02/01/2015 00:11:05

[Pete B]

Right, let's play it your way.

This time, you are the bobby.

On one side you have a group of very upset people who really don't give a fig for your efforts to pacify them and are determined to sort the problem out for themselves unless you act quickly. You know that if they get near the guy, it will end very badly for him - and possibly for some of your lads. On the other side, you have a self-centred, fat-headed oaf who really doesn't give a damn whom he upsets or how much trouble he causes, just as long as he can stand on his 'rights' and do whatever he likes.

Doing nothing isn't an option - it never is for a policeman.

I'll be generous - you've got overnight to come up with a solution - probably rather longer than the minute or two the bobby at the scene had to make a decision and defuse the situation.

'Heavy-handedness'? Well, who knows what happened in the Custody Centre? If he failed to give adequate assurance that he wouldn't return to the scene, then the Custody Sergeant was perfectly correct in keeping him locked up until the work at the site had been completed. Given his evident attitude problem at the scene earlier, I'm sure they would have really enjoyed his company...

I'm off to bed now - look forward to your answer in the morning!

Pete

[Pete B]

Quite, Martin - I think you deserve the 'Man on the Clapham omnibus' award!

Pete

[GrahamWh]

I agree with you Pete if the man's actions were causing people at the scene upset. There is of course section 5 of the Public Order Act, which says an offence is committed if someone engages in threatening or abusive behaviour likely to cause other people harassment, alarm or distress. If the flying amounted to what a reasonably minded person (eg. a magistrate) would consider abusive in the circs, and if there was alarm or distress likely to be caused (definitely distress) then that offence is committed.

The chap is fortunate not to have been prosecuted for that or given a ticket for it.

There was a woman killed in a town near where I live in a crash. Members of the public stood around with their mobile phones filming it all. Disgusting.

Edited By GrahamWh on 02/01/2015 00:57:40

Edited By GrahamWh on 02/01/2015 00:58:27

[Dave Hopkin]

Ok Pete.. I take that challenge!

Firstly lets clarify the situation, although he was flying near Gatwick the police were objecting to him attempting to film from the UAV a fatal fire scene nothing to do with any dangerous flying or endangering anyone - simply a matter of filming a emotionally charged incident and that complaints had been mde to the police by local residents and others in the area.

Ok is he breaking a law? No, Was he operating in violation of the ANO? No, Was he breaching the peace - No, why? because the definition of this common law precept was made in Regina V Howell in 1981 where Breach of the Peace was adjudged to be defined as :

"actions which harm another person, or harm his property in his presence, or actions which are likely to provoke such harm."

I would say that none of the above where taking or about to take place

Therefore in my view the Police acted unlawfully and should not have prevented his lawful activtiy

I will reverse the challenge.....

Imagine you are happily flying at your field, unknown to you, some local resident doesnt like the noise, so complains to the police, PC's Plod and Cosh (using the Guildford case as Precedent) march down the field grab your TX out of you hands, handcuff you, try to land your plane themselves then take you away. for 5 hours in Police cells.

Edited By Dave Hopkin on 02/01/2015 01:18:07

[Codename-John]

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 02/01/2015 00:19:11:

 

On one side you have a group of very upset people who really don't give a fig for your efforts to pacify them and are determined to sort the problem out for themselves unless you act quickly. You know that if they get near the guy, it will end very badly for him - and possibly for some of your lads. On the other side, you have a self-centred, fat-headed oaf who really doesn't give a damn whom he upsets or how much trouble he causes, just as long as he can stand on his 'rights' and do whatever he likes.

 

 

I`d land my Drone and walk away before either of them got any closer 

But seriously, Once again you are making assumptions ( and possible libellous descriptions ) about a usually law abiding if misguided citizen based on nothing but conjecture.

If it was me as the police officer I would probably explain to this usually law abiding, seemingly resonable person ( whom had the decency to seek out permission and also inform me or one of my colleagues of his actions before he started, of which I possibly informed him I had no problem with and allowed him to proceed ), that there had been complaints since he started his activity and I was now withdrawing the previous consent, I would give him a specific time frame in order to land his craft and sent him on his way, no problems

Instead of shouting orders at him and when he didn't immediately comply, recklessly or negligently endangered an aircraft, persons or property by snatching a controller for which I had no clue how to operate, out of his hand, then to justify my actions needlessly locked him up for 5 hours. Then tried to control the damage from the possible bad press of my illegal and dangerous actions by getting my PR department to release a derogatory statement about the individual to the local rag without implicating me in my actions in any way

Edited By Codename-John on 02/01/2015 02:00:58

[ChrisB]

Posted by Codename-John on 01/01/2015 23:43:22:

Ok but there was no need for them to break the law by endangering his aircraft, camera and possibly anything in the surrounding area in the process, and there should be some recourse on the officers involved as blatently 2 laws have been broken, as you have stated yourself ignorance of the law is no excuse for not following it.

Endangering safety of an aircraft

137. A person must not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in an aircraft.

Endangering safety of any person or property

138. A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.

The heavy handedness then also comes from keeping him locked up for 5 hours, when they could have removed him from the scene - potential breach of peace over with, if he returns then they have a case for locking him up if needed

I would agree that the police officers were guilty of breaching 137 and 138 of the Air Navigation Order

I would consider the filming of a scene by a camera located anywhere as not a breach of the peace but a lawful act.

Perhaps the CAA should consider breifing all police forces on articles 137 and 138, as I would consider the crash of an aircraft of any type due to the ignorance of a police officer more peace breaching than filming.

Maybe the BMFA can advise if processes are being put in place to advise UK law enforcement officers and agencies of the severe risks of forceably snatching a transmitter from someone whilst an aircraft is in flight?

[Ernie]

Hi guys, "tried to land it themselves" wow, there you are with your brand new christmas pressie doing low inverted passes when Mr Plod arrives. Can't do that sir, he says wrestling the box away

ernie

[Kevin Wilson]

The reference to Gatwick is a red herring. Newchapel is on the approach/departure path (dependent upon wind) but some 4 miles from the runway. The aircraft are at about 1500' when they pass this spot and about 1/2 mile to the North (flightradar24).

The similarity to a Police car chase is tenuous, as I cannot believe any force would allow an untrained and inexperienced officer to lead a chase. So why would any officer expect to take charge of a remotely operated aircraft without training or experience.

The journalist was doing what journalists have always done, suspend morals to get their story. It is an unsavory part of the job. I expect the services on the ground need to become similarly hardened to cope with their jobs.

The journalist clearly should have called it a day when requested; irrespective of what equipment he was using.

Likewise the Police could have handled things better. As has already been said, this was decision taken very much on the fly.

The objection of the residents is likely to be as much based on their very insular culture as that one incident. I expect there would be a similar potential of disorder if you tried filming their encampment at any time.

Edited By Kevin Wilson on 02/01/2015 08:29:07

[John F]

It is quite funny how the Police are accused of acting illegally when the journalist photographer was asked repeatedly to land the aircraft. The Police had no other choice but to act after complaints from local residents and others in the vicinity of the incident in which a woman and two young children died. 

There is no "challenge" to take on and create a different scenario. It is what it is - a guy who refuses orders to land, after complaints from residents, so therefore the Police have to act.

Here's the important bit - everyone on the journo's side have stated that the Police acted illegally, recklessley endagering lives etc. How do you know? Ignoring the fact that many folk state that these drones have automatic righting systems etc, how do you know it was flown dangerously by the Police?

You only have the reporters version of events, in that it took 3 officers to land the aircraft, where they "brought back to the ground with a thud", now how do you know that is true? (the same Police Officer with the tx in any photo) You have a journo who refuses orders from the Police, who, by the looks of it, gets a friend to photograph the incident, whereby he is struggling with the Police, so he can create a brand new story, yet he fails to prove that 3 Officers had a go.

He is now on twitter claiming alsorts of ridiculous nonsense over "I didn't known the Police have powers to insist a UAV pilot to bring down an aircraft, can you please show me the Act of Parliament please?"

How does anyone know that it simply didn't land with the grace of a feather?

If it had crashed the reporter, I am sure, would claim the Police crashed it, so how is the police wrong yet the reporter who was acting illegally, once ordered by the Police Officer to land, right?

It's weird how we defend our own interests at the expense of evidence that is before our eyes, sometimes blindly so.

Edited By John F on 02/01/2015 09:00:35

[Pete B]

Interesting discussion, this....

OK, Dave Hopkin first.

Let's continue with my suspected scenario of what was happening at the time - that the site residents are upset enough to take the law into their own hands. None of us know for sure, obviously but I'd bet I'm not far off the mark.

Breach of the Peace was adjudged to be defined as "actions which harm another person, or harm his property in his presence, or actions which are likely to provoke such harm."

I would say that none of the above where taking or about to take place.

I think you may have misunderstood the way that legislation, the Justices of the Peace Act 1361, works. The person arrested does not have to be the one causing harm or damage - it is sufficient if his continued activity is likely to cause other persons to commit disorder. It's commonly used where someone, whilst not necessarily committing a substantive offence, conducts himself in such a way that others may likely be provoked into using violence themselves. The only way to prevent things escalating is to remove the offender from the scene. If it's a one-off occasion, once things have calmed down, the offender is released. If they are likely to continue such action, they can be bound over to keep the Peace. If they subsequently breach the bindover, they can be fined or imprisoned.

Therefore I would argue that his conduct did justify arrest.

Imagine you are happily flying at your field, unknown to you, some local resident doesnt like the noise, so complains to the police, PC's Plod and Cosh (using the Guildford case as Precedent) march down the field grab your TX out of you hands, handcuff you, try to land your plane themselves then take you away. for 5 hours in Police cells.

Are you serious?

Alright, I'll play - make a complaint against police - simple. The compensation should fund your next model - or two.....

CJ, your turn.

If it was me as the police officer I would probably explain to this usually law abiding, seemingly reasonable person that there had been complaints since he started his activity and I was now withdrawing the previous consent, I would give him a specific time frame in order to land his craft and sent him on his way, no problems

What makes you think none of that was done - just a view that policemen are incapable of discussion and resolving situations without having to throw their weight around, perhaps?

I'd agree with your solution, although the time frame might be quite short, like 'Now'. Neither you nor I know how many times he was asked to stop flying but the phrase including the 'Final request' comment indicates that it is likely to have been asked on at least one earlier occasion. Bit of a mistake leaving that in the video, eh?

You still haven't answered the question, though. What if, despite being asked nicely, he refused to land the drone? How are you going to resolve it?

Pete

[Erfolg]

The more i have read about the incident and read the views of contributors to this thread, I have become to the view that there is no absolute right and wrong in this instance. Some questionable responses though.

I do not know, although I suspect that the response from the police was in part driven by general concerns of authorities with respect to the operation of drone/quad type aerial vehicles. Seeing the device operating, I would not at all be surprised that their thoughts went along the lines "we will nip this in the bud and do it now".

The operator of the drone, was trying to earn his living, operating a drone legally, gathering images.

The point has generally been made, that if the images were to be captured via a helicopter, nothing would have been said or done. There is a public interest type argument as to why these things can and should be done. Although sometimes some may question the good taste.

Perhaps the one bit that shows how distorted things can be, if a group is likely to kick up a fuss and may be break the law, because they do not like something, the laws which would be applied to others are sometimes disregarded. In some instances, those behaving reasonably are the ones who then find themselves at the wrong end of the application of the law enforcement process. The irony is the police in this instance wonder how they can become alienated from ordinary law abiding citizens, and the various pressure groups and miscreants rub their hands in glee, at a further triumph.

Looking at this case, I suspect it is a relatively trivial event in its self, where the police probably being determined to impose their authority.. A photo journalist, being less than co-operative. The result is over reaction by all the parties. I am less than convinced that how the police seized control of the drone was safe or even legal.

I suspect we will read far more about similar situations for some time, until a generally accepted parameters are established by all users, the authorities and to a lesser extent the general public.

I personally have no issue with journalists, film crews using these devices. I can believe that for many organisations such as the Fire Brigades, Search and Rescue groups that these quads will become an essential tool.

I am less convinced that they would be safe in the hands of the police in a charged pursuit scenario, having been passed on the M60 (on Monday night), in a average speed area of 50 mph, by a police car travelling at a speed which appeared to be in excess of 100mph by some margin. No doubt it will be just waived through as he was responding to some emergency. If this was the case, 60 or 70 would have been far more appropriate. Risks are taken when the adrenalin is high. Yet for seeking out miscreants hiding in bushes etc, they could be a useful tool.

As for me, I find quads boring and not a model I want to fly particularly.

[robert Jones 14]

BEB:"Put yourself in the bobby's position - does he tell the residents to ignore the drone, tell them there's nothing he can do- and risk the journo getting filled in? - or does he suggest to the journo that it's inadvisable to continue filming for his own safety?

I know what course I''d take - and, quite frankly, the journo is probably too thick-skinned to realise that he should be grateful to the police for saving him from a darn good hiding - at least!"

Most of what you say BEB makes sense, but this doesn't! So the police can break the law themselves if they make the judgment that it will prevent someone getting a good hiding? How about them arresting the people threatening to do the hiding, because is definitely against the law?

The police shouldn't be allowed to interpret criminal law as they see fit in individual circumstances.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by robert Jones 14 on 02/01/2015 10:36:10:

BEB:"Put yourself in the bobby's position - does he tell the residents to ignore the drone, tell them there's nothing he can do- and risk the journo getting filled in? - or does he suggest to the journo that it's inadvisable to continue filming for his own safety?

I know what course I''d take - and, quite frankly, the journo is probably too thick-skinned to realise that he should be grateful to the police for saving him from a darn good hiding - at least!"

Most of what you say BEB makes sense, but this doesn't! So the police can break the law themselves if they make the judgment that it will prevent someone getting a good hiding? How about them arresting the people threatening to do the hiding, because is definitely against the law?

The police shouldn't be allowed to interpret criminal law as they see fit in individual circumstances.

Sorry to disappoint you Robert - but that wasn't me! I think you'll find that was PeteB - who I'm sure will be happy to respond!

BEB

[Dave Hopkin]

Pete I am very serious! Apart from this case where the Journo aledges the TX was wrested from him (and if that were true he might face a charge of impeding the police so I take it with a pinch of salt) - there was a case before Xmas in Manchester where a numpty was flying a FPV-UAV over and down into the City of Manchester Stadium shortly before a match, he was arrested in the Adsa Car Park about 300m away, but I have seen no details on how the Police Arrest was carried out or how the UAV was landed.

In my experience the Police have no concept of the laws surrounding Model Flight (though I suspect/hope that will change in light of the recent hooha surrounding "drones" - I was in conversation with 2 of Manchesters finest about 4 months ago which drifted to RC Flying and they had never heard of the ANO, I guess until now its not been on the police radar.

But in the eyes of the law there is no difference between a "drone" and a Fixed Wing Model Aircraft, they all all "unmanned aerial vehicles" therefore any precedent set when dealing with a Quad would legally apply to ANY model aircraft.

So if locals made complaints against a flyer(s) and the police felt they were getty upity and liable to cause troube - in your definition of breach of YOU would be arrested in your words

"On one side you have a group of very upset people who really don't give a fig for your efforts to pacify them and are determined to sort the problem out for themselves unless you act quickly. You know that if they get near the guy, it will end very badly for him - and possibly for some of your lads. On the other side, you have a self-centred, fat-headed oaf who really doesn't give a damn whom he upsets or how much trouble he causes, just as long as he can stand on his 'rights' and do whatever he likes."

The Justice of the Peace Act 1361 has been subject to multiple amendments (Criminal Law Act 1967, Magistrates Act 1980 and others, so its applicability would highly contraversial (as the exercising of any of the laws that still exists from the middle ages would be) especially if used by a Police Office who holds a Warrant and is not himself a Justice of the Peace

[robert Jones 14]

Re-posting due to addressing wrong mod!:

Pete-:"Put yourself in the bobby's position - does he tell the residents to ignore the drone, tell them there's nothing he can do- and risk the journo getting filled in? - or does he suggest to the journo that it's inadvisable to continue filming for his own safety?

I know what course I''d take - and, quite frankly, the journo is probably too thick-skinned to realise that he should be grateful to the police for saving him from a darn good hiding - at least!"

Most of what you say, Pete, makes sense, but this doesn't! So the police can break the law themselves if they make the judgment that it will prevent someone getting a good hiding? How about them arresting the people threatening to do the hiding, because is definitely against the law?

The police shouldn't be allowed to interpret criminal law as they see fit in individual circumstances.

What if someone was arrested for drink driving and they said they would give their pub landlord a hiding because he has served him drinks when he was incapable of driving safely?

Suppose the police on the spot agreed the landlord had been morally wrong, as he should have done more to prevent his customers drink driving?

Would it be okay then for the police to arrest the landlord and take him into protective custody for several hours, then release him without charges, to protect him from getting a hiding?

Of course it wouldn't, they are not allow to make judgments as to what part of the criminal law applies in different situations. That is contrary to the Rule of Law, of which this county used to be proud.

[Don Fry]

So to summarise all of the above 1. The journo is an insentative person. 2. Police officers can't fly quads. 3.Showmen who have just lost members of their community are a bit tribal in their outlook. I am filled with astonishment that the world can be so.

[Don Fry]

PS, IN LINE WITH OUR ESTEEMED MODERATORS COMMENT ABOUT MODEL AIRCRAFT. I hit a tree on Wednesday, one of those things, but for the fact I hit the same tree about 3 months ago.

[Spice Cat]

Posted by Donald Fry on 02/01/2015 11:20:40:

PS, IN LINE WITH OUR ESTEEMED MODERATORS COMMENT ABOUT MODEL AIRCRAFT. I hit a tree on Wednesday, one of those things, but for the fact I hit the same tree about 3 months ago.

Consistency; like it.

[Erfolg]

I am not a journalist or have any connection with the job.

In their defence i would say that they are seldom welcomed under most circumstances. Most have little if any respect for their work.

Yet, they are a major part of ensuring that the truth is made public and reining in the excesses of those who are privileged, be it through wealth, official position, position in society as well as straight forward crime etc.

I can well imagine that most journalists are thick skinned, they need to be. I also imagine that they are often subject to the threat and actual violence, particularly by those who have something to hide, or suppress.

Rather than stop them operating, the police should protect all going about their legal business, even if some do not like it.

As for the police, again a difficult position. They have their bosses, their bosses being subjected to pressures from politically appointed committees and out cries and pressure from interest groups. Then there is the problem that when they turn up at a scene or are just going about their job, they have no idea often, who is committing a crime, is a suspect etc.

In this case I think they did not do their job well, making at least misjudgment.

Like many of us, I watch football, mainly on television these days. I often despair at the judgement and decisions made by referees and the other officials. Often they are completely wrong, appearing to be blind or even biassed. They have set up a number of methods, which are meant to prevent criticism of themselves by those in the game. I have seen some so called research which indicates that they are wrong about 25% of the time. Yet without referees, their would be no structured games, as all would quickly disintegrate into chaos. Then who would be a referee, not thanked by any one, your failings being held up to often to well deserved ridicule (if you support the injured team), making a decision on actions often lasting split seconds. In some respects the police are in a similar position, their would be no society as we know it without them, yet seek to protect themselves from sanction, we need them, yet many know all is not as it should be, because they are as human as the rest of us and will get some things wrong, for a variety of reasons.

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

Posted by Erfolg on 02/01/2015 12:07:57:

I am not a journalist or have any connection with the job.

Yet, they are a major part of ensuring that the truth is made public

Erf, please tell me that your tongue was firmly planted in your cheek when you wrote that, with a very few honourable exceptions it is my view that most journalists wouldn't give a hoot for the truth!

BEB

[Steve T]

I have a friend who is a professional Journalist, he knows that I consider him to be rude, ignorant, practically a criminal and he has admitted that he couldn't care less about truth or lie, anything as long as it's a good story. So there !

[Codename-John]

Posted by Pete B - Moderator on 02/01/2015 10:00:51:

 

You still haven't answered the question, though. What if, despite being asked nicely, he refused to land the drone? How are you going to resolve it?

Pete

 

by locking up the people threatening to harm a law abidng citizen with violence ! they are the one breaching the peace and acting in an unlawful manner with their threatening behaviour !

Edited By Codename-John on 02/01/2015 12:58:06

[Erfolg]

Steve, i have known a journalist in the past, a fellow modeller, he was just an ordinary guy. There have been a number of journalists living in the area, one for the BBC, seemed OK, a near neighbour. I have even worked with an ex journalist, working then as a PR man. His job was to endear the company to the community and the public, supply information to the media, in the most favourable light. Yet i do accept there will be a wide range of characteristics within the community.

Now BEB, the truth!

What is the truth?

My mother provided the first characteristics of the truth, in war it is written by the victor and is always distorted by your position and perspective of events.

Much of what passes for truth, is often, not what it seems. An example of trying to understand the truth and history was provided by an Edinburgh historian at Culloden and my youngest daughter (known as daughter No.2) who has a Masters degree in history and English. The first step is understanding the society. The second understanding who is who, not who you may think they are. Why events unfolded as they did. what the consequences were. In the case of Culloden, why were there French troops with Jacobites, why were the Jacobite side mainly Highland clansmen, with a few Englishmen, and also Irishmen. The Kings side had a real mixture of foreign mercenaries, some Scottish Lowlanders and some enlish troops all lead by a Duke of Cumberland who was more German than English,. Who was Charles, what were his claim to the throne. What is pretty much agreed is that the Highlanders were confronted by professional English soldiers. Yet there were many nationalities, all with there own reasons for being there, with there own notions of truth and what was right and their own self interests.

Again in area of interest to us is the Gas Turbine engine often referred to as a jet. According to some the principal of the jet engine starts with Whittle. yet the first patent was issued to an English Clergyman, long before whittle, which set out the principal. Then one of the first was built by a Norwegian, which was followed by a number by others ranging from Brown Boveri, a German company, in there cases not for aircraft, but metal production. There appears to be numerous papers written, putting forward the concept and often discussing the limitation of materials and high fuel consumption etc. Which killed many of the devices.

The same is true for Radar, there is not one country who developed the concepts, or who had an understanding of the ideas. It was a case that development swere made pretty much made the same time, developments by similar means, or used alternative methods, in a series of steps, with one group leading the other dependant on the time chosen.

In all these cases there will be a simple story presented as the truth, at best an abridged report of complex events. I have come to believe there are many versions of the truth, non being absolutely true, in the sense most of us tend to use the word.