illegal; drone flight and non registration fines

[Gavin Mack]

Man fined after drone flight above football stadium caused game to be halted (msn.com)

[Peter Jenkins]

Just over £3k and 6 pts on his licence for driving without insurance.  This is what we are up against with people who don't care about others.  According to the newspaper report he has had multiple drone offences as well.  Don't know why they cannot confiscate his drone and radio equipment as he's going to do it again and cause even more problems.

[Andy Stephenson]

Including the comparatively "trivial" motoring offences that cost him over £3,500, an expensive day out!

[MattyB]

29 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said:

Just over £3k and 6 pts on his licence for driving without insurance.  This is what we are up against with people who don't care about others.  According to the newspaper report he has had multiple drone offences as well.  Don't know why they cannot confiscate his drone and radio equipment as he's going to do it again and cause even more problems.

 

The Chairwoman of the bench of magistrates seemed to be pretty generous to him in her comments, but then she also doesn't seem to understand that registration is not a "license" either...

 

"Chairwoman of the bench of magistrates, Jennifer Wood, opened her sentencing remarks with the words: “Difficult one, this.”

She later said: “It’s not my job to lecture you. You are not a criminal for this – we have seen far worse – but it was dangerous.

“It seems a shame that you are not going to fly your drone again. I would say, license it, learn how to fly it properly and get the enjoyment out of it that you clearly want.”

She added: “We’ve been fair with you, and from my perspective, it’s been very interesting.

“It’s fun for you and we get why, but you have to be properly trained and have to be properly licensed.”

 

[Peter Jenkins]

I bet she knew nothing about the ANO before this prosecution came her way!

[GrumpyGnome]

1 hour ago, Peter Jenkins said:

 Don't know why they cannot confiscate his drone and radio equipment as he's going to do it again and cause even more problems.

 

He'd just buy more I guess. Although it would add to the expense......

[Neil James]

We take this sort of idiotic behaviour pretty seriously in the IOM.

 

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/courts/man-who-flew-drone-near-the-tt-course-spent-a-night-in-the-cells-619479

 

[paul devereux]

I think drone flying should be separated from flying model planes, legally. There isn't any skill involved (you don't have to learn to fly a drone) and they are ubiquitous in public places. In fact, I think it was drone operation that the CAA was aiming at when it introduced the registration legislation. Would there be any point the BMFA fighting for separate recognition, any one think?

[Lima Hotel Foxtrot]

57 minutes ago, paul devereux said:

I think drone flying should be separated from flying model planes, legally. There isn't any skill involved (you don't have to learn to fly a drone) and they are ubiquitous in public places. In fact, I think it was drone operation that the CAA was aiming at when it introduced the registration legislation. Would there be any point the BMFA fighting for separate recognition, any one think?

There already is for model planes: Article 16 exemption in the ANO. Trying to fiddle with it further would just muddy the waters even more and provoke more repetition of old arguments on forums.

 

Legislatively it's simply easier to place all UAVs in one main category with subcategories for weight etc. Oh, that's what the CAA have done! 

Edited June 20, 2023 by Lima Hotel Foxtrot
Poxy auto correct!

[Cuban8]

1 hour ago, paul devereux said:

I think drone flying should be separated from flying model planes, legally. There isn't any skill involved (you don't have to learn to fly a drone) and they are ubiquitous in public places. In fact, I think it was drone operation that the CAA was aiming at when it introduced the registration legislation. Would there be any point the BMFA fighting for separate recognition, any one think?

I think that particular bird has long since flown. Doesn't make it right though.

 

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by Cuban8

[Capt Kremen]

We had the 'Flying Scotsman' steam loco visit our local station at the W/E, stopping to take on water.

You can guess what was hovering directly over the rail track, loco and carriages full of passengers.

Other scheduled trains were still running past on the other adjacent track whilst the drone was in the air.

Sooner or later ..... do hope not though.

[MattyB]

1 hour ago, paul devereux said:

I think drone flying should be separated from flying model planes, legally. There isn't any skill involved (you don't have to learn to fly a drone) and they are ubiquitous in public places.

 

That might be true of the semi-autonomous camera drones, but is certainly not true of FPV racing quads, freestyle drones, Tiny Whoops etc. I've tried it; it's fun but very, very difficult in full manual mode. Example:

 

 

1 hour ago, paul devereux said:

....In fact, I think it was drone operation that the CAA was aiming at when it introduced the registration legislation. Would there be any point the BMFA fighting for separate recognition, any one think?

 

There are thousands of pages on this topic in this forum. The BMFA and other national orgs did fightover a period of multiple years, and they lost for several reasons:

1. Nobody could come up with a watertight legal definition of what a model aircraft is that all parties could agree on;
2. It's not in the authorities interest to separate them - it just makes things more complex and onerous for them as legilators and the Police on the enforcement side if different groups have different rules and rights;
3. It makes incorporating BVLOS commercial drones into the airspace more difficult (which is their main goal, irrespective of the words they trot out about "improving safety").

Short answer - forget it, that bird has flown, especially given no other country on earth has gone that route either so there is no precedent to lean on.

 

Edited June 20, 2023 by MattyB

[Geoff S]

I've been watching the cross-country and downhill mountain bike racing on Eurosport recently.  These are Olympic length events held at various venues in Europe.  Much of the coverage was from quadcopters following the riders through trees and elsewhere with incredible skill and there were lots of spectators very close to the action.  I think drones are also used to broadcast skiing.  Not sure how this activity squares with not flying close to people but perhaps the rules are different in the EU generally or at officially sanctioned events.  It certainly adds to the enjoyment for remote spectators like me.

[MattyB]

7 minutes ago, Geoff S said:

I've been watching the cross-country and downhill mountain bike racing on Eurosport recently.  These are Olympic length events held at various venues in Europe.  Much of the coverage was from quadcopters following the riders through trees and elsewhere with incredible skill and there were lots of spectators very close to the action.  I think drones are also used to broadcast skiing.  Not sure how this activity squares with not flying close to people but perhaps the rules are different in the EU generally or at officially sanctioned events.  It certainly adds to the enjoyment for remote spectators like me.

 

Yeah, they've done it in other events like skiing and snowboarding too in the recent past, including at the last Olympics. I can only assume they get exceptions and/or put disclaimers in to the T&Cs for spectators telling them the drones will be used.

[Peter Christy]

I assume its to do with the bit about "people of whom you have no control" )forget the exact phrasing, but that's the spirit of it. Presumably the competitors, as part of their entry terms, agree to the coverage and are thus "under the control of..".

 

I also suspect that the drone operators at such events have much more stringent requirements applied to them than for us mere hobbyists, if not by the air authorities, then by the event's insurers!

 

MattyB has beaten me to it...! 😉

[John Lee]

There was an accident at last year’s Henley Regatta involving a commercial drone filming the event. The AAIB report details some of the Regulations & risk assessments required for such activities. 

[john davidson 1]

Reading the report it is obvious that these commercial  quadcopters operating at weights like this present a grave danger to people when in free fall The joules mentioned were not really surprising .And they are very common at all kinds of events now.

[Peter Jenkins]

These days, very few TV programmes seem to be without drone footage.  Often though the company providing the drones is on the list of credits at the end of the program and are probably staffed by experienced drone pilots who are well aware of the need for carrying out the full range of pre-flight actions including risk assessments and notification to the CAA of drone operations, location and timing.

[Andy Symons - BMFA]

There is no doubt drones will be used in more and more scenarios. Tonight's BMFA In the Air Tonight session talked about one of them.

Seehttps://itat-forum.bmfa.uk/season-3/bmfa-in-the-air-tonight-20-06-2023-using-drone-technology-to-bring-smarter-greener-logistics-to-the-nhs-with-apian-aero#post-518

[kc]

Is the magistrates comment " you have to be properly trained " correct?  Surely not!  You only have to pass the CAA knowledge test and have an operators number - there is no legal requirement to be 'properly trained' for most ( non commercial) drone flying as far as I know.  Maybe a smart lawyer would spot an error that would be grounds for appeal!

It would be good if pilots did need to be properly trained to fly drones- but they don't!

 

[RottenRow]

The AAIB report mentioned by John Lee above makes interesting reading. The fact that an object weighing upto 35kg can legally be flown directly over uninvolved people is worrying. Agreed this is supposedly only by 'professional / commercial' pilots but accidents and equipment failures can happen, as this incident clearly shows. In this case the need to 'get the job done' and taking short-cuts such as having one more flight on the same set of batteries appears to have contributed to the accident, as well as not following the drone manufacturer's guidance on battery voltage.

 

The report doesn't mention why an exhausting battery would suddenly cause the drone to go from flying normally (returning to the take-off point) to literally dropping out of the sky. In this particular case the low battery alarm sounded when the battery voltage reduced to 42V, which was still 3.5V per cell (12s packs), at which point the pilot started to bring the drone back to land from a distance of about 250m.

 

The 50 metre 'bubble' around uninvolved people could actually make the situation more dangerous. A free-falling object falling from 50m possesses about twice the kinetic energy of the same object falling from 25m, so is much more likely to inflict serious injury or property damage.

 

Brian.

[Frank Skilbeck]

8 hours ago, kc said:

Is the magistrates comment " you have to be properly trained " correct?  Surely not!  You only have to pass the CAA knowledge test and have an operators number - there is no legal requirement to be 'properly trained' for most ( non commercial) drone flying as far as I know.  Maybe a smart lawyer would spot an error that would be grounds for appeal!

It would be good if pilots did need to be properly trained to fly drones- but they don't!

 

But if you've passed the CAA test you'll know where you are allowed to fly without further training etc. But as the party was also driving without insurance I don't think he's one who abides by the laws.

[MattyB]

9 hours ago, kc said:

Is the magistrates comment " you have to be properly trained " correct?  Surely not!  You only have to pass the CAA knowledge test and have an operators number - there is no legal requirement to be 'properly trained' for most ( non commercial) drone flying as far as I know.  Maybe a smart lawyer would spot an error that would be grounds for appeal!

It would be good if pilots did need to be properly trained to fly drones- but they don't!

 

Be careful what you wish for. If you do not believe drone operators are properly trained today, then neither are model flyers. In this instance the individual had not passed the CAA test, therefore had not completed the required mandatory training; that is what the magistrate was referring to.
 

Let’s not forget that any legislator seeking to bolster the minimum requirements in terms of formal training would undoubtedly apply an identical approach to both groups, because (Article 16 auth excepted) there is no agreed legal difference between model aircraft and drones. Just ask Canadian model flyers, who now have a large number of onerous hoops to jump through because their national association made a mess of it’s equivalent to the Article 16 authorisation.

 

https://www.suasnews.com/2023/02/transport-canada-removes-maac-exemption-for-model-flying/

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by MattyB

[Lima Hotel Foxtrot]

18 hours ago, Capt Kremen said:

We had the 'Flying Scotsman' steam loco visit our local station at the W/E, stopping to take on water.

You can guess what was hovering directly over the rail track, loco and carriages full of passengers.

Other scheduled trains were still running past on the other adjacent track whilst the drone was in the air.

Sooner or later ..... do hope not though.

In a case of UAV vs loco, my money is on the train.

[Cuban8]

Why all of this should mean that flyers of model aircraft, and in particular, those operating from one of the hundreds of dedicated BMFA club sites should have been mixed up with it is still nuts. The bureaucrats wanted it and they were determined to have it - BMFA did well to get the 'deal' we've got and 99% of flyers couldn't give a fig one way or the other......pay up, tick your boxes and stick your stickers on your models, then go and enjoy your hobby while you can.

 

BTW, the comment about being unable to sufficiently define what a model aeroplane is, reminds me of a story in Stanley Hooker's autobiography, 'Not Much Of An Engineer'.

 IIRC, a committee chaired by Ernest Hives, (who went on to become  Lord Hives, Chief of Rolls Royce), were struggling to define a specification for the water that was to be used as a constituent of the Water/Glycol coolant mix for the Merlin. After hours of no progress, Hives, who was not a man to suffer fools gladly and in total desperation, thumped the table and shouted,

"I'll write your ruddy specification for you........you have to be able to drink the ruddy stuff".

Not sure if that was  accepted.......

 

 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Cuban8