drone skulduggery

[Ernie]

It seems that there are ever increasing numbers of videos on social media that are posted by drone owners. The images that are shown are of incredible quality

both from the air, and on the ground. BUT in many many cases the purpose seems to be only to provoke a confrontation with the police, to show them to be idiots and thus to get many followers on the web. These guys have swotted up on their drone laws, and use their knowledge to exploit them to the full, by overflying private property, roads, etc and pushing the rules to the very limit (can you really fly an aircraft that weighs less than 250g over built up areas) 

This sort of stuff will of course eventually cause the lawmakers to take a close look, and more than likely, the sledgehammer solution will be to ban the lot. 

ernie 

[Jonathan W]

That would be the self-appointed "auditors" on youtube! They certainly know how to raise a reaction by behaving in an obtuse or know-it-all manner. The ones I noticed are however flying sub 250g DJI drones according to the limitations of the factory installed geo-fencing system. Increasingly, when the site security call the police, the police are getting wise and taking very little interest.

 

I guess if there was a law against "being very irritating" then they could be locked up. I think it's a fad that will fade away, because the videos are quite repetitive and boring once you have seen a few.

[Denis Watkins]

Hand held jammers are next, to bring them down with a thud !!!

 

[Paul De Tourtoulon]

Not if they are pre programmed to fly on Gps coordinates  like the report on todays French tv, dropping phones and drugs into prisons then flying off to the unknown,,

[Andy Stephenson]

It would be easier to jam the GPS signal if it wasn't illegal.

[Don Fry]

Being very irritating comes under the Ways and Means Act. Ancient legislation.
It strikes me, why look at the irritating output. Feeding the cuckoo, when the Epilogue is more interesting, or indeed a fascinating bit on the news today on the Diwali.

[EvilC57]

I started coming across these so called ‘audit’ videos on YouTube a few weeks ago, and despite the positive and supportive comments garnered from their ‘fans’, my only thought was why, what’s the point other than to wind up, and waste the time of site security staff and local police - as if they (the police) haven’t got enough on their plate already.

 

Other than flying drones over property, the majority of the ones I’ve seen seem to be where the YouTuber sets up a camera with a long lens on a tripod, and takes photos or video looking through the fence or into the entrance of various MOD or police establishments, factories, distribution centres etc. and waits to be challenged, arguing (usually with some success) that they are on a public road and can do what they like.

Edited October 26, 2022 by EvilC57

[Denis Watkins]

These so called " auditors " have no moral compass and waste the time of authorities to gain followers on youtube.

It is just another money making scheme.

 

[Brian Cooper]

These miscreants can't really be described as "model flyers" or even as "enthusiasts". 

They are merely "passing through". 

Their irresponsible behaviour is designed to grab attention..... or will give them something to brag about at the pub. 

 

At best, they can be described as "cheeky". 

Ultimately, their actions will just result in further restrictions. 

 

There has never been a world shortage of idiots. . . They walk among us. 

 

[MattyB]

17 hours ago, Jonathan W said:

That would be the self-appointed "auditors" on youtube! They certainly know how to raise a reaction by behaving in an obtuse or know-it-all manner. The ones I noticed are however flying sub 250g DJI drones according to the limitations of the factory installed geo-fencing system. Increasingly, when the site security call the police, the police are getting wise and taking very little interest.

 

I guess if there was a law against "being very irritating" then they could be locked up. I think it's a fad that will fade away, because the videos are quite repetitive and boring once you have seen a few.

 

I have to admit I had not heard about this trend, but having viewed a couple of videos this morning I would tend to agree - they are rather repetitive and the know it all tone used is particularly grating. On the other hand given the cost of living crisis people are going to do stuff that generates cash (no matter how small), and if you have all the kit already and you video gets a lot of views....

 

17 hours ago, Denis Watkins said:

Hand held jammers are next, to bring them down with a thud !!!

 

 

It is rather unlikely a knowledgeable Police Officer would agree, as it would be a breach of the ANO as per CAP 722...

 

"ANO 2016 article 241 applies to all operating categories and stipulates that a person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft (manned or unmanned) to endanger any person or property (which includes other aircraft and their occupants)."

 

1 hour ago, Denis Watkins said:

These so called "auditors" have no moral compass and waste the time of authorities to gain followers on youtube.

It is just another money making scheme.

 

 

10 hours ago, EvilC57 said:

I started coming across these so called ‘audit’ videos on YouTube a few weeks ago, and despite the positive and supportive comments garnered from their ‘fans’, my only thought was why, what’s the point other than to wind up, and waste the time of site security staff and local police - as if they (the police) haven’t got enough on their plate already.

 

 

I feel a bit torn to be honest. On one hand the lack of knowledge of the (admittedly complex) laws on UAS usage by the authorities is often pretty breath-taking, with many officers clearly making stuff up on the spot. It's frankly embarrassing, and shouldn't be happening.

 

On the other hand, I cannot see there ever being a link between these videos being made and an improvement in the knowledge show by Police Officers on the ground. Far more likely in the long term if they continue is that the law will be "simplified" by becoming more draconian (i.e. the 250g limit is done away with altogether). In that case we all lose, and for what? Yes these people are flying legally as it stands, but given their proven ability to deliver malicious payloads (i.e. the effective uses of consumer drones in Ukraine) why would any reasonable person require the right to fly over a Police station, Army barracks etc anyway? 

[MattyB]

PS - This video is a good summary of what to do if your business is "audited" in this way - the Police would be well advised to watch it...! 😉

 

 

[FlyinFlynn]

1 hour ago, MattyB said:

ANO 2016 article 241 applies to all operating categories and stipulates that a person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft (manned or unmanned) to endanger any person or property (which includes other aircraft and their occupants)."

I can find no mention of endangering a flight in CAP722, perhaps if someone can then that would supercede Article 23 from the ANO2016 which specifically excludes small unmanned aerial vehicles from Article 240 (endangering the safety of an aircraft) of ANO2016.   .. it just goes to show what a mess the whole thing is.

 

1 hour ago, MattyB said:

I feel a bit torn to be honest. On one hand the lack of knowledge of the (admittedly complex) laws on UAS usage by the authorities is often pretty breath-taking, with many officers clearly making stuff up on the spot. It's frankly embarrassing, and shouldn't be happening.

I wholeheartedly agree. IF educating the police officers is the goal then I feel it is to be applauded. There appears to be far too many officers making stuff up 'on the fly' trying to impose their will on someone legitimately going about their legal business. This seems to come from their training and is a deplorable situation.

Ask yourself how would you like some copper turning up at your flying site insisting you stop flying and, indeed, arresting you for a false law they have just made up on the spot?....because that is what happens to some of these auditors. Incidentally, the following civil case these people occasionally bring against the officers and the police force for wrongdoing are settled out of public money....your taxes.

 

You would think by now every police officer in the country would have been instructed in what they can, and cannot do, in relation to these auditors, but apparently not.

[MattyB]

3 hours ago, FlyinFlynn said:

I can find no mention of endangering a flight in CAP722, perhaps if someone can then that would supercede Article 23 from the ANO2016 which specifically excludes small unmanned aerial vehicles from Article 240 (endangering the safety of an aircraft) of ANO2016.   .. it just goes to show what a mess the whole thing is.

 

 

Yep, it's definitely there (link to CAP722) in at least a couple of places - section 1.2.4, pages 29 and 30...

 

 

 

 

...and on page 40, section 2.1.3...

 

Edited October 27, 2022 by MattyB

[EvilC57]

23 hours ago, MattyB said:

PS - This video is a good summary of what to do if your business is "audited" in this way - the Police would be well advised to watch it...! 😉

 

 

When it came to getting a reaction, the quickest I have seen in one of these ‘audit’ videos, was a guy who within 25s (yes 25 seconds) of erecting his tripod on the opposite side of the road from the Albert Embankment entrance of the MI6 building in Vauxhall and pointing his camera towards the building, was intercepted by two armed police who swooped on him from a van. However despite the obvious sensitivity of the building and their lightning quick response he faced them down, as it seems, they had no powers to stop him from filming in a public place. The guy may have made his point, but I still don’t see why he felt the need to do it.

Edited October 28, 2022 by EvilC57

[Engine Doctor]

The so called "Audits "youtubers  are a bloody nuisance to all concerned . No respect for anyone or thing just self opinionated products of the " do as you like society " we find ourselves in . what's more worrying is that the woke authorities are it appears  to frightened to challenge them, but will quickly legislate against the law abiding majority . Perhaps we should all stick two fingers up and challenge the rules ? 

 

I watched one episode where they flew a drone high around a prison giving full view of the layout ! When challenged he was as usual full of himself and very cocky until a guard arrived with a dog . He quickly shut his mouth . Then the police arrived and he quickly got lippy again. It ended with the police leaving and him to go on his way as they appeared to not have a clue what to do ! 

 

 

[Don Fry]

Drones may not be flown over people; over airports or airfields; over private property (unless with owner's authorization); over military installations, prisons, nuclear power plants, historical monuments, or national parks. Use this map to locate flight restrictions by geolocation.
 

Law in France. Simple, know where you stand. Gardarmerie can understand it without having to waste a couple of days learning it. The map referred to comes straight up on a phone or internet device. I might point out, since 2010, police forces in UK have lost apx 20000 officers, and untold ancillary workers, ie computer geeks et al. They have also basically taken over the roll of mental heath crisis in the community, as social services are hollowed out, and also run people to hospital, as it’s quicker than simply leaving them to suffer in silence on the ground.. with a couple of hour wait for an Ambulance. Now tell me on top of that that training in odd corners of Law gets a priority. Or even training gets a priority.

[Edgeflyer]

On 26/10/2022 at 16:48, Andy Stephenson said:

It would be easier to jam the GPS signal if it wasn't illegal.

Are you seriously suggesting that would be improving the public's safety? Pilots don't use GPS for navigation?

[Andy Stephenson]

7 minutes ago, Phil B said:

Are you seriously suggesting that would be improving the public's safety? Pilots don't use GPS for navigation?

And jamming the RC signal would be no safer but may even be legal in the right hands.

[Don Fry]

You jam any signal, and you stare at S1 CriminalDamage Act 1971. Proper arrestable offence, max 10 year jobbie. All coppers know that one. 

[Andy Stephenson]

There was a lot of deliberate jamming going on in the MHz days. There were a few slapped wrists, some club expulsions and crashed models but I didn't read anything about jail time, perhaps there should have been.

[Edgeflyer]

I don't believe this! We are serious flyers talking about deliberately crashing aircraft. That is a criminal offence. Endangering an aircraft. It doesn't have to be manned.

[Don Fry]

3 hours ago, Andy Stephenson said:

There was a lot of deliberate jamming going on in the MHz days. There were a few slapped wrists, some club expulsions and crashed models but I didn't read anything about jail time, perhaps there should have been.

Different answer. What judges, magistrates do, their job. In fairness, jail time for a toy? But, toy hits someone having used a jammer, that’s backside in the van, in a cell and interview as convenient. Awaiting medical prognosis? Crime scene investigation, liaising with compatriots in the CAA.
Sounds great at the time. I’ve seen poor sods on their knees in cells praying for their victims recovery.