Oh FFS!

All of you get a life - this Quadrocopter is about the same size as your average model aircraft. You know, the sort of thing you can buy from the Gadget Shop or your RC Model Shop and legally fly without permission from the CAA as long is it is for personal reasons (up to 20kgs in weight).

Here is the data sheet for the device AirRobot®. Die universelle Plattform für die Überwachung, Inspektion und Dokumentation aus der Luft

It weighs less than 1Kg - it's hardly an unmanned Tornado or a Predator/Reaper! See an avoid is for big stuff and anyway the Coppers have to keep it within 400ft in height - and most other air users are above 500ft anyway (especially in built up areas). Just how much "see and avoid" do you think is done by RC model flyers??? :confused:

The big issue was that the Police were doing "Air Work" with this small UAV and that requires permission from the CAA as stipulated by the CAA in the Air Navigation Order (ANO). See Civil Air Publication (CAP) 722 on UAVs, the ANO and CAP 658 on model aircraft for further.

As for privacy 'glad rag' - if you want to wear a gimp mask and a superman costume and be private then draw the bloomin' curtains! I would rather be safe and sound by losing a bit of privacy than feeling extra private with 3 crack-heads getting "medieval on my arse" whilst they rob my house. Furthermore, a Police Helicopter can legally fly over your house at either 500ft or 1500ft depending on your location and look in your window with an MX-15 camera and count the spots on your bottom - the only difference is that it is bloody noisy and bloody expensive (and I don't like that as it comes from my Council Tax!).

Sorry for the rant, but I feel there is a lot of uninformed debate on this thread when the only real issue is that the Feds did not get the correct paperwork in place. What they need is a bunch of retired and well-informed ex-mil aviators to run their UAV operations and let their flat-footers chase criminals and nick them! :ugh:

LJ

I work with sensitive databases, and the number of errors are huge.

I'm sure that when Plod breaks your door down at 3 in the morning, cos they've used out of date or cr*p information, or they stop you on the motorway because they've misidentified your car (again) and think you are a Manchester-based drug baron, you will smile sweetly and say 'No problem officer, anything to oblige....'

After all, if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear. Just like that nice Brazilian at Stockwell.....


And as for the UAV operators, I spoke to one recently and he was standard Plod who flew model aircraft in his spare time. Just as the military are thinking of using gamers rather than trained pilots....

I can assure you that the military is not going to use "gamers" as UAV operators. My 8yr old kid is a "gamer" and she does not have the skill set to fly a Reaper in a complex air/land battlespace and execute a swing-role ISTAR and CAS mission - so let's put that notion to bed!

In fact the 4x RAF non-pilots that are undergoing trials will fly 30-odd hours as a pilot (inc. going solo), 60-odd hours learning instrument flying skills in the Tucano simulator, go on a 1 month UAV Fundamentals Course in the USA (which includes more sim flying), do the Joint FIRES Course, some other courses and then a 3 month US Predator OCU - to all intense and purposes about a year's training and they will be rated pilots in every sense. They are not "gamers" (apart from playing their Nintendo DS or iPhone games in spare time like anyone else!).

Surely, the increase in Intelligence, Surveillance and Recconaisance (ISR), that UAVs like this will provide, will stop the unlikely occurences you mention:

It certainly won't make the situation any worse, will it?

I have also worked with your so-called "sensitive databases" and yes mistakes are made - some intel is never 100%. But what would you rather they do? Nothing!? I do concede that the De Menezes case was a tragic and total cock-up - it should never happen again (but as long as humans are involved it probably will!).

It staggers me the amount of resistance to this capability. It strikes me that it shares comparison with the need of a man to waive a flag in front of a motor vehicle about 100years ago!:ugh:

LJ

I don't think that anyone was suggesting they used 8yr olds. However...

The British Army Uses Videogames as a Recruitment Tool - So does the U.S. Army - Softpedia

You could certainly make an argument that the best gamers (of recruitable age) would have a lot of the attributes the military might desire.

For UAV pilots, why not? Obviously they need appropriate training, but they might have a very relevant skillset that could be usefully employed.

TN

I think if you look at the released court/newspaper reports of some recent cases of "medieval arse" you will find that the first thing they did was shut the building(s) down....

Anyway, you are really losing the point here, and I do feel sorry that your perspective is so skewed.

The famous Benjamin Franklin quote springs to mind...

"Any nation that trades a little of it's liberty for more security deserves neither and loses both."

Think about that people.

Some recommended reading for the pro-drone/ CCTV / ID Cards/ 'Police State' fans would be George Orwell's 1984. :ugh:

Poose.

You make an excellent point, do we want a Stasi state or a state were the forces of law and order are accountable to us, the people, or the other way around. We need more police on the streets, not doing paperwork, but nicking criminals. Until a few politicians have had their houses turned over and their kids attacked and mugged in the street or drug dealing scum selling in the house next door, very little will happen.

Rant off and apologies for thread drift.

Air pig

Why 500ft or 1500ft?

Sorry, my bad, 500ft and 1000ft. It's 500ft and 1000ft for flight over a built up area for the ANO rule 5 .

Here it is in full:

(b) The 500 feet rule
Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
(c) The 1000 feet rule
Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft flying over a congested area of a city town or settlement shall not fly below a height of 1,000 feet above the highest fixed obstacle within a horizontal radius of 600 metres of the aircraft.

Further, my bad...

(e) Police air operator’s certificate
Any aircraft flying in accordance with the terms of a police air operator’s certificate shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule, the 1000 feet rule, the prohibition on flying over open air assemblies and the prohibition on landing and taking off near open air assemblies.

Sorry for the bum info...:eek:

Phew, thanks, I thought for a moment the rules must have had changed completely today and as the police know (or don't know), "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

P.S. How long since you last read the ANO before today? :p

Never really paid much attention to Rule 5(e) as I'm not a Policeman! :ok:

But you still missed the change from the "1500 foot rule" over congested areas to 1,000 feet, which happened about four years ago and doesn't apply to policemen. ;)

Leon, to be pedantic

1. The police actually can fly at 300 ft AGL over yer grot if you live in a congested area (day only) CAP 612,Table 5, Section 3 Chapter 3, Page 5

2. No matter that the MX 15 or Star Safire III can see the spots on the aforementioned backside, they can't legally look through your windows unless there is a 'RIPA' authority in force!

RIPA

Aah, but the Brazilian DID have something to hide; he was here illegally. Perhaps this was why he fled? Normal people don't flee from the Police, especially when they have sub-machine guns trained on you.

Stu, I don't think he fled from the police, he just got on a train whilst being ignorant of the fact that he was under surveillance!

Shy Torque - Nope, just my crap typing and proof reading - if I remember correctly it changed in 2005.

I do admit that the Police Air Operators Certificate was a revelation, though! :eek:

Handysnaks - do you need a RIPA for all Police Helo surveillance work? Or just for snooping inside private property?

Routine stuff, searching for burglars in gardens or open land, pursuits etc, no RIPA required.
Personal intrusion type surveillance then RIPA required (it isn't written like that in the act!!). There are of course, many confusing grey areas:rolleyes:

edited to add

snurgling back to base at night with OVC at 600 and 2000m viz is not something one does often (not round this neck of the woods anyway).

Leon, glad you remembered, we wouldn't want any "uninformed debate", now would we? :E

Shy Torque - Me Sir? Perish the thought, old boy! ;)

Handysnaks - Thanks. What a shame the Merseyside Police Air Support Unit didn't help out the little UAV operators with the paperwork - or do you think it was conveniently overlooked? Also, I am surprised that the CAA didn't just say "Hey Chief Constable, you need a licence for that" and then helped them out quietly, rather than throwing the book at them and publicising it!