Martin Whybrow Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 Last year, our parish council posted a link to a you-tube video of our village, filmed from a multirotor; the video looked very professional, except for the fact he overflew a number of people during the video. The video made me think the operator wasn't trained; it mentioned his name and it turns out he's a local professional photographer; I checked his website, but I couldn't find any mentions of video, so I let it drop. Yesterday, the parish council sent an email telling us that they're going to be filming with a 'drone' over our part of the village as part of an action to attempt block an unwanted planning application; the same photographer's name was mentioned. I checked his website, and he now has a page with a number of sample videos and advertising his 'drone photography' service. I couldn't find any mention of a license though, so I looked at the CAA register, and sure enough he's not on it. I sent an email to the parish council to tell him that they needed to check if he's licensed; the response was laughable, they just told me he was an ex-policeman! I've also contacted him via his website to suggest he adds a bit to his page to show he's corrrectly licensed and perhaps display his license number - I haven't heard back. The CAA aren't interested in reports of unlicensed operators, so I guess it falls to the police to look into it. Edited By Martin Whybrow on 10/10/2016 20:11:59 Edited By Martin Whybrow on 10/10/2016 20:12:34 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 Tom is spot on. The key legal question is "is the flight for valuable consideration" - if so then if he does not have a CAA Permit for Aerial Work he is breaking the law - pure and simple. It then doesn't matter whether he is insured or not - his insurance will be invalid as his action is illegal. Note that "valuable consideration" does not just mean money - it would include anysort of payment in kind or benefit accrued as a result of the flight. Just to be clear on another point: it is not per se illegal to overfly people or buildings. It is illegal to fly within 50m of them with a surviellance equiped UAV if they not under your control, it is illegal to fly over in excess of 1,000 people (at any hieght) without a special permision. It is illegal to fly in a congested area if you do not have a Pernit for Aerial Work. If you do have such a Permit it is allowed to fly in a congested area provide the UAV's take off mass is less than 7Kg. Over this weight you need an enhanced CAA permission. You are correct the decision was made somne time ago that investigation and prosecution of breaches of the ANO by drone pilots would be the responsibility of the police not the CAA. BEB Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 10/10/2016 21:15:17 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 Job for the Flying Squad then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted October 10, 2016 Share Posted October 10, 2016 LOL! Very good! BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Skilbeck Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 The fact that he is advertising his services indicates this is a commercial operation and he is not complying with the law if he's not licensed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken anderson. Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 Posted by Tom Sharp 2 on 10/10/2016 20:39:39: It all hangs on the circumstances of the contract, will the photographer be doing the job free for the good of the village or will he be charging. ......................................................................................... or until it go's wrong and no one will claim responsibility..... ken Anderson...ne...1 ..... responsible dept Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Whybrow Posted October 27, 2016 Author Share Posted October 27, 2016 Well, I'm now somewhat disillusioned about the reporting process. The CAA website is a complete mess of broken links and missing pages at the moment, but I did eventually find an email address to report suspected illegal SUA activity to; I dutifully composed an email and sent it to the given address, only to receive an automated response that the email address doesn't exist! I decided that I should contact the police; after hunting high and low, I couldn't find an email address for the local police, but did locate a web form; I filled in the form with the basics of my enquiry, the following day they called me and left a message to call them back, quoting an incident number. Today, I called them and after much toing and froing, spoke to someone who could assist, only to be told that operating a 'drone' commercially without the correct permissions is not an offence! They suggested that if I wanted to pursue it further, I should talk to the CAA. So there you have it, an extensive process exists for training UAV pilots to operate commercially and for licensing operators, and it's all a complete waste of time as 'they' won't investigate anyone who ignores all the rules! Edited By Martin Whybrow on 27/10/2016 13:36:35 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomtom39 Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 Percy. I had a conversation with a licensed "operator" yesterday and understand that Insurance is not mandatory! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff S Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 Insurance may not be mandatory but all that means is that he's likely to lose everything he owns if he causes damage, injury etc and is sued successfully. I wouldn't want to be in that position and is just one of the reasons I'm a member of the BMFA. Geoff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 No insurance is not mandatory - but a Permit is! BEB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucksboy Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 Over the last few years the Police have suffered cuts and are there are now 15-20,000 less officers in the Country than in 2003/4. The average copper will be fully up to speed with many laws and their complexities, theft, assault and damage for example. However, ask one of them what the laws are regarding UAV's and the like and you will draw a short straw. Some officers, due to their specialism or where they work will know some pretty weird and wonderful law (the complexities around the the Badger Act was always a useful subject for Police Examinations) but I bet their are a handful who know anything about this. It is true, there are computers databases where they can read any written law in the country but when you are the only officer covering an area and the jobs are all calling for your immediate attendance, they may not have time to sit and read that computer. Don't forget, Theresa May has told the Police that they should deal with Crime and nothing else. Something has got to give and I bet this is one area where there will be no appetite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisB Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 I read an article a few years ago about a police officer who grabbed a TX off a pilot who was flying a 'Drone', as he thought it was being flown illegally. Even if it was being flown without the relevant permits, if it was being flown in a safe environment and in a safe manner, the officer would have been guilty of endangering persons and property etc etc. Correct education of law enforcement agencies is essential for the future, as often they won't know the specific details of the law they are trying to enforce.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 Ah - this issue of the complexity and relative obscurity of the law as far as the average Bobby is concerned is, I believe, at least partially behind EASA's current proposals. By creating a system under which "drone " flights can only happen in one of two defined ways: 1. A commercial operator with a licence that he can produce on demand, or 2. A flight over a registered flying site used by a model club - of which there are relatively very few in any police area. It becomes much easier for a police office to decide if someone flying a drone is likely to be breaking the law or not. BEB Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 27/10/2016 19:22:49 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff S Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 Enthusiastic and dedicated hobbyists are always more likely to know the laws relating to their passion than a bobby who has a very wide remit and usually other priorities. We used to ride motor cycles without lights perfectly legally even when the law apparently required them to be working. If no lights are fitted then it's fine outside lighting up times so we rode our trials and vintage bikes confident that we were legal. It's the same with aeromodelling and presumably lots of other activities. Geoff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Member Posted October 27, 2016 Share Posted October 27, 2016 [This posting has been removed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The real Ron Truth Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 The reality with all the proposed EASA changes is that there will be on one to enforce these new laws. Unless you endanger people or property, fly in the vicinity of an airport or city or film an MP doing something they shouldn't , the chances are that the police will simply note it as they would occasional nuisance crime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Fry Posted October 28, 2016 Share Posted October 28, 2016 The police tend to be the repository of last choice for all sorts of laws and regulations. Foot and mouth regulations. Try also chicken flu. Of course they are expected to be au fait with the difference between a bike race, and a time trial, and woe betide if not familiar with a place of safety under mental health legislation. Get a meal break this shift, or look up aviation law, I leave the likely choice up to you. Until someone has a real, rather than foreseen problem. This is not as cynical as it sounds, the police deal with courts, and maybe and perhaps don't wash in court. It plunged and hit its victim is a problem to be explained by the person who caused or allowed the drop. No exaggeration impugned on the prosecutor, it happened, explain why. I read today evidence that driving whilst phoning is a dying prosecution, despite the habit being linked to 22 deaths a year in the U.K. What priority a drone against that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.