Jump to content

Drone Pilot Found Guilty and Fined


Recommended Posts

Advert


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 by steve too
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...