Peter Jenkins Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Report on the BBC website. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyGnome Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 (edited) Pity they can't prosecute the other 'hobbyists' who advised him......... Edited January 31 by GrumpyGnome 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Kearsley Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 I wonder how he was tracked down by the police and what alerted them in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve too Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 (edited) 52 minutes ago, Peter Jenkins said: Report on the BBC I wonder how many such reports we will see on the BBC before the DfT and CAA are forced to tighten up the regulations to protect the public. "The drone was a small one, which did not require a licence." (sic) implies < 250g. That prosecution seems to set low bar for reckless or negligent endangerment, "there was no suggestion a helicopter was there, but it was at a height where one could have been flying". Edited January 31 by steve too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Cooper Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken anderson. Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Rules are rules....worst case he could have caused an incident...3 miles away from him is a bit 'iffy'.... unfortunately model flyers who do behave will be looked upon as he is in some quarters..☠️ Ken Anderson...ne...1 ..... Rules dept 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leccyflyer Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 There is no possibility whatsoever that he was flying line of sight, because he was using binoculars, with a "small drone" three miles away. Not a chance. He was flying FPV. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barnstormer 52 Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 My grump is with the BBC Why not include a picture of the actual drone used in the offence, rather than something that resembles 'The Flying Bedstead'. Why use the term 'Hobbyists' - which seems to infer the blame lies partly with other model flyers, knitting is a hobby as is restoring vintage cars. 'Other hobbyists' sems to me to imply that he is involved in model flying - if he was then surely he would have known he was in the wrong. I regularly make spelling mistakes but you would think the BBC would proof read what they write - offence 3 is listed as Alternated the drone controller to allow the drone to fly further distances, contrary to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul De Tourtoulon Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 I can't see a standard toy drone having a radio signal at 3-miles !. My best range was on 41.100 mhz and that was 2.6 klm (1.61miles ) less than half of that on 2.4,,, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leccyflyer Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 The newer and more expensive sub250g drones are reported as having a range of about 5km. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilC57 Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 40 minutes ago, leccyflyer said: There is no possibility whatsoever that he was flying line of sight, because he was using binoculars, with a "small drone" three miles away. Not a chance. He was flying FPV. “He used binoculars to watch the drone and thought this was acceptable because it was in his line of sight.” He doesn’t sound bright enough or knowledgeable enough to have been using FPV equipment. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leccyflyer Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 14 minutes ago, EvilC57 said: “He used binoculars to watch the drone and thought this was acceptable because it was in his line of sight.” He doesn’t sound bright enough or knowledgeable enough to have been using FPV equipment. You don't have to be particularly bright to use FPV equipment - look at some of the antics posted by FPV pilots online, even before drones existed. Precious little sign of being bright there. You can buy an FPV capable small drone in the high street that has perfectly good FPV capability, enabling it to be flown beyond visual line of sight - a small drone doesn't have to get very far away before it could not possibly be flown without using the FPV downlink and a screen. You'd be hard pressed to see a decent sized model a couple of miles away, say something like a 72" span glider or suchlike, never mind three miles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Jenkins Posted January 31 Author Share Posted January 31 1 hour ago, Barnstormer 52 said: My grump is with the BBC Why not include a picture of the actual drone used in the offence, rather than something that resembles 'The Flying Bedstead'. Why use the term 'Hobbyists' - which seems to infer the blame lies partly with other model flyers, knitting is a hobby as is restoring vintage cars. 'Other hobbyists' sems to me to imply that he is involved in model flying - if he was then surely he would have known he was in the wrong. I regularly make spelling mistakes but you would think the BBC would proof read what they write - offence 3 is listed as Alternated the drone controller to allow the drone to fly further distances, contrary to the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 You, and all the rest of us, can complain to the BBC about their failure to report without bias. Use this link. It's all fairly simple to do. So, if the BBC gets a load of complaints on this article they might, might mind you, do better in future! Given their well publicised bias in a lot of other higher profile news I doubt it will change the way they do things but it just might.! I shall be filling out that form shortly! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Kearsley Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 3 hours ago, Tim Kearsley said: I wonder how he was tracked down by the police and what alerted them in the first place? Sorry to repeat this but anyone any view on how this: a) came to the attention of the police and b) how the drone was linked to the pilot He obviously wouldn't have had any CAA operator ID on the drone. I just can't clearly see how he was "rumbled", so to speak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Stephenson Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 It likely he put something on social media, isn't this how most idiots get caught these days. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 A neighbour or as above, an article on social media. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Our Ducks are in a row, a minor ? event and a loose use of terms by a journalist concerns me little. The laws worked, we're engaged with those laws. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kc Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 What could he have altered on the 'drone controller ' to make it illegal? Could it have been an illegal import that didn't comply with UK Tx power regulations? He would surely have needed an operators licence if it had a camera on it even sub 250 gram so it cannot have been FPV flown correctly without an operaors licence. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Dance 1 Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 The BBC report seems to be a bit dodgy. He was brought before a Magistrates court. Magistrates courts usually have three magistrates trying each case, one acts as chairman. No 'Judges' anywhere. In order to be tried in front of a judge he would hae been tried in a higher court in front of jury. Thje BBC must be fully aware of this. I would suggest that we treat this report with a good deal of suspiscion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrumpyGnome Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 The article says he disabled the height warnings.... which is the same as just ignoring them! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Kearsley Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 1 hour ago, Andy Stephenson said: It likely he put something on social media, isn't this how most idiots get caught these days. Yes, of course. I didn't think of that. You've got to be a real first-class idiot to not only break the law but then tell everyone online that you did so! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leccyflyer Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 1 hour ago, kc said: What could he have altered on the 'drone controller ' to make it illegal? Could it have been an illegal import that didn't comply with UK Tx power regulations? He would surely have needed an operators licence if it had a camera on it even sub 250 gram so it cannot have been FPV flown correctly without an operaors licence. If you are in a restricted area the DJI software - for example - will tell you that you are in a restricted area, but will give you the option to still fly, if you acknowledge and then ignore that warning. I expect that other platforms have similar capabilities. I wouldn't assume that the BBC journalist was well equipped with a good level of understanding of the regulations, but if the person charged with the offence sated that they were flying LOS and their drone was , as described, a small drone, then they might conclude that no licence was necessary. With that said a licence is not the same as a registration - most UAV operators don't hold operator's licences, do they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leccyflyer Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 6 minutes ago, Tim Kearsley said: Yes, of course. I didn't think of that. You've got to be a real first-class idiot to not only break the law but then tell everyone online that you did so! Yes, but that seems to be the norm for no small number of those posting their BVLOS videos online and usually has been, since that started happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john stones 1 - Moderator Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 Police also use social media asking for information at times, on a local basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve too Posted January 31 Share Posted January 31 1 hour ago, kc said: He would surely have needed an operators licence if it had a camera on it even sub 250 gram so it cannot have been FPV flown correctly without an operaors licence. You don't need a flyer ID if your UA is below 250g. Coincidentally, the CAA want to change this. 2 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.