Recent UK Prosecution of Drone Pilot.

[Area21]

http://news.met.police.uk/news/man-convicted-of-drone-offences-129339

Just found this on the BMFA News pod.

This is the type of publicity we can do without.

May be the forum should consider a page to allow such News Articles to be viewed so others can learn from them and help to promote good practice, safe flying and enjoyment.

 

[Bartman]

I hope he has to pay a fine that is at least as big as as any money he made from his Youtube channel!!

from the article;

Under article 166 and 167 of the Air Navigation Order, anyone flying a drone, must:

+ Keep the drone within 'line of sight' at all times, that is no more than 400ft vertically and 500m horizontally.
+ Take responsibility for avoiding collisions with other people or objects - including aircraft.
+ Not fly the drone over a congested area (streets, towns and cities).
+ Not fly the drone within 50m of a person, vehicle, building or structure, or overhead large assemblies of people, such a spectators at sporting events or concerts.
+ Obtain permission from the Civil Aviation Authority to use a drone for any kind of paid work or commercial activity.

For further information on the regulations surrounding the use of small unmanned aircraft, visit: http://www.caa.co.uk/

 

[Oceans Eleven]

Hmmm. Anyone else notice in this image (link) the type of sUAV involved...again??

 

[Old Man]

It's been said the company producing the aircraft in the photo has sold more of them than any other maker so it should come as no surprise it is the most common aircraft used in these violations. However, the number of these units sold places that much more responsibility on those making and selling them to assure the buyers are educated in flight safety practices prior to receiving their toys. It's becoming more and more evident that some type of flight controller distance and height restrictions need to be built in and locked until such time as the owner is provided an unlock code that is earned through some form of testing or licensing. The FAA's Part 107 rule could be the baseline for establishing such FC range limiting codes. If an individual had not passed the exam, registered their aircraft, and obtained a license they would have a built in limitation of "X" distance and altitude with any MR sold in this country.

The most common products being sought by "consumer drone" owners are devices that will permit them to extend the range of their aerial toys. One of the most common pre-buy questions from those considering the purchase of a consumer drone is "What's the video range?". They are not interested in buying products that keep operations within line of sight. Many do not bother to learn how to fly their aircraft in any mode that does not use altitude and/or GPS stabilization.

 

[cootertwo]

Yup, kinda like the good ole days with CB radios. Get you a nice amplifier, and talk for miles! Had one guy years ago, that would park in the lot across the street from my house and yack on his CB. He actually had a little florescent type bulb on the end of his whip antenna, that would light up when he keyed the mike. Also completely over road my television reception. When I complained to the government, they informed me that there was only one person for the whole south Florida area, that was setup to check signal strengths. Also they had to be over the limit for a certain continuous time, before being subject to a fine. It may be a good time to invest in some video transmitters, before they are all required to be made with a much lower power output than is currently available. It's definitely a strange problem, with all that's already been sold, and I can't even begin to imagine what's going to happen after Christmas! In my opinion, it's PEOPLE that are the problem. The Gobments need to deal with the people, not the devices they might choose to use and abuse. Same goes for guns, hammers, baseball bats, screwdrivers, fists, on and on into infinity.

 

[John Doecliff]

cootertwo said: and I can't even begin to imagine what's going to happen after Christmas!

I have seen where they expect a boom of sorts due to high "drone" sales this Christmas which was one of the reasons for the push for some kind of registration before then. I was thinking a good amount of those will fit into what I call a "House drone" (only fit for indoor use) catergory. A good percentage of the larger ones wont make it past the new year once they crash and break or fly away. it's going to take a few years for this to sort itself out. Until then look forward to more stories like the above, some worse than others. I subscribe to a UAV news link that comes in my email everyday. It contains 6 or 8 news links on everything drones. Good articles on developing technology and some links of stupid people doing stupid things. Actually it used to be better but lately it has less and less interesting links.

 

[Old Man]

I get similar updates every day through my work e-mail. We have a group that's dedicated to ferreting out press releases and general news reflecting the state of the UAV industry. They do a pretty ggod job of it.

I agree completely with Cootertoo but the issue is how to get the attention of the people. Pleading with them hasn't worked at all, regardless of where we have reached out to them. Manufacturers still promote long range use, which is counter productive to any educational efforts that have taken place. The consumer drone makers largely, although not completely, produce MR's with video and telemetry systems that fit within legal FCC "no license required" guidelines but people run out and buy after market stuff that extends range and boost transmission power. Any new law ends up both benefit and detriment, often causing those that have been doing right more harm than it did to those that were doing wrong. It's almost a perfect example of the phrase "you can't get there from here".

 

[John Doecliff]

Well I would disagree that they run out and buy after market stuff that boosts range. There's a certain level of commitment to go that route and most people don't have the interest. But then you can do plenty of damage with a stock phantom and that's why you see it in most cases that we're talking about. It probably has a lot to with cost. The technology is cheap and easily available. I question my own level of commitment with building my own UAV's and reading and learning as much as I can and then 3DR comes out with UAV that is completely automated and does effortlessly what I struggled to learn for months and months. Same thing with DJI's Inspire. I bust my ass building and learning and a guy with $3500 can make me look like a chump. It's frustrating but I don't care, most of those people fade away pretty fast. This is the very beginning of this technology and I love being part of it.

 

[Area21]

I bought my F550 from a nice gentleman who went to great expense to have this made and set up for him which he did fly, but he sold it soon afterwards and got it for a song (but won't sing it) because it was toooo complicated and technical for him. So as money was no problem he went and bought an Inspire 1. Push button to fly and push to land. All he wanted to do was to take aerial photos and guess there are many like him around.

 

[Old Man]

John,

There's a company called FPVLR that caters to the buy and fly crowd by producing plug and play range extending equipment for consumer drones. For a hundred to a couple hundred $$ anyone can obtain something that simply plugs into their transmitters and copters and fly a long, long ways away. Perhaps the brand new people to the hobby aren't going there (yet) or other places but it does not take long for them to learn where the all they desire can be found.

I agree there are various "camps" that people fall into and tend to stay in but there are a very large number of people that cross over from one camp to another. BTW, 3DR led the automation game and made it truly easy and affordable with their APM quad. It was a heck of a lot cheaper than $3500.00 Even now, with their X8 and a laptop one can do some very amazing stuff for less than a $1,500 entry price and build on that as desired. Once people learn how the system works they discover just how much they were short changed with a most of the other consumer stuff.

 

[John Doecliff]

So were all in agreement and yes it doesn't take even close to $3500 to get what you want. For a tenth of that you can buy a used phantom and be a menace to your neighbors that very same afternoon. I would argue that a lot of the controversy with UAV’s is just media hype. Not that it matters, even if it’s all hype once people think a certain way it’s hard to change their minds. Sooner or later there will be a serious accident with a UAV and that will bring down the full wrath of the Govt. I suppose we should accept some sort of regulation now in hopes that it insulates us when somebody does something really stupid. Right now the only thing I can do is look out for myself and not be part of the problem by being “That Guy”

 

[ProfEngr]

No one should EVER, willingly accept increased Govt regulations. The only purpose they serve is for some ignorant (or greedy) bureaucrat to pick and choose who wins and who loses. They also stifle creativity, ingenuity, and growth anywhere they're implemented. </rant>

 

[John Doecliff]

I won't argue with that. But it's looking like it's going to happen whether we like it or not. The politicians and bureaucrats have us in their sights. They only know how to regulate, tax and get in the way of things.

 

[Oceans Eleven]

Oh brother.

 

[violetwolf]

I'm shocked that there haven't been any terrorist related incidents thus far. We all know its inevitable and the day it happens ......

 

[Jebarus]

This is really unfortunate. If only there was a way the enthusiasts and the industry could self regulate. This idiot gives us all a bad name, and it makes it more likely that harsh regulations could be adopted.

 

[John Doecliff]

Yeah, no one wants to point out the obvious with a terrorist related incident. We could all get grounded pretty fast. Hate to even think of it.