https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/fren...rone-operator/
French sailor allegedly assaults Scottish drone operator
What started as a routine drone flight quickly spiralled into a violent confrontation for a Scottish drone operator at the Port of Leith, Edinburgh.
The incident led to allegations of physical assault, ensuing charges, and a contentious legal debate that’s garnering attention.Dave Cullen was piloting his 249g drone near a French naval ship berthed in the port, the FS Chevalier Paul. While the flight was within the parameters set by existing legislation, the drone’s presence prompted four sailors to demand the operator obtain permission from the ship’s command.
This confrontation swiftly escalated, resulting in the operator alleging that he received a punch to the shoulder.
Following the incident, a spokesperson for Police Scotland confirmed that an assault report had been filed at Ocean Drive in Edinburgh around 3.25pm on Sunday, 7 May. The spokesperson added, “No one was injured,” and revealed, “A 24-year-old man has been charged in connection with the assault and issued with a recorded police warning.”
However, the assault isn’t the only legal trouble stemming from this incident. The drone operator himself now faces charges regarding his drone’s operation. According to the Police Scotland spokesperson,
“A 48-year-old man has been charged in connection with offences relating to the use of a drone. He will be the subject of a report to the Procurator Fiscal.”
This legal predicament has led to questions about the legitimacy of the charges laid against the drone operator. An expert in drone flight operations has told me that the operator’s flight was within the boundaries set by the UK Air Navigation Order (ANO) and the guidelines from the Drone Code issued by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The operator maintains that he kept the drone within visual line of sight and at a safe distance from the docked ship, something backed up by flight logs I have viewed.
Adding a layer of complexity to this case is the fact that there were no flight restrictions in the area at the time of the flight. This information supports the operator’s assertion of compliance with local airspace regulations. The operator’s flight logs and considerable drone operating experience further substantiate his claims of the flight’s legality.
According to a drone flight expert I spoke to,
“This flight was not reckless,” casting doubt on the charges brought against the operator. He added,
“Assuming the drone is a sub-250g model. The drone was operated close enough for visual line of sight and never dangerously low or close.”
Following this incident, the operator found himself facing charges of culpable and reckless conduct from the Procurator Fiscal, who issued a conditional offer of a fiscal fine or a court appearance. This fine states that the drone flight activated the warship’s anti-terrorism measures, thereby posing a threat to the public as
“reckless endangerment”.
Let’s take a closer look…..