Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Drones threatening commercial a/c?

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Drones threatening commercial a/c?

Old 2nd Jan 2015, 11:50
  #181 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Tunbridge Wells, UK
Age: 41
Posts: 109
Ah the old 'just doing my job' line. I suppose if he wasn't there then someone else with a drone would have been, eh?

I have no idea whether it's legal, hence the asking. My point was that comparing it to flying one 5 miles from aircraft at 5000-7000ft was, literally, miles from the truth.
TurboTomato is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 17:39
  #182 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: uk
Posts: 23
I can not quote chapter and verse of the ANO, i am only going by what we have been told by the BMFA and the Poster we was sent by them from the CAA http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1995/CAP%201202UAVsafetyrules.pdf.
it clearly states to stay away from airports and airfields.
The BMFA are not a "authoritative source" as you say but the drone pilot would be required by the CAA to have insurance as part of his approval from the Civil Aviation Authority so most likely it will be through the BMFA and would be void if he did not follow there regulations.
Either way if he was to fly in to the flight path of a landing aircraft he would be putting aircraft/persons in danger and that would be covered in the ANO.
thelad is offline  
Old 2nd Jan 2015, 22:45
  #183 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: bristol
Age: 60
Posts: 1
BMFA rules or insurance do not come into it. This was a commercial flight which the pilot appears to be fully qualified to undertake. In the UK, commercial RPAS work comes under the jurisdiction of the CAA and has nothing whatsoever to do with the BMFA. BMFA insurance does not cover commercial flying and the pilot is legally required to have a commercial policy in place (far more expensive).

The flight seems to have been professionally undertaken with landowner's permission, an observer to monitor for incursions (who would normally be paid) and the pilot explained intentions to on-site police prior to the flight.

Over 7kgs or under he would still need permission from Gatwick ATC to fly/oparte (sic) in Gatwick ATZ
Nonsense. In the UK, flying an RPAS under 7 kg MTOM commercially (would guess a phantom is less than 2kg?) is perfectly legal in a CTR/ATZ without notifying ATC, providing the criterion "the person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fly the aircraft if reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made " is satisfied. As far as I can see the latter issue is the only point open for discussion.

Ah the old 'just doing my job line'. I suppose if he wasn't there then someone else with a drone would have been, eh
Yep. It’s what the press do and, once again, is perfectly legal. Although appeals to morality do not affect legality,the pilot doesn't appear to have been filming anything distasteful, just the scene of a tragic event. Freedom of the press is essential in a democracy, in many situations it helps to hold those in power accountable – such as when a couple of plod go completely ego, snatch a control and attempt to land a 2kg RPAS without the necessary skills. Fortunately they got lucky and I'm sure it makes for a good pub story, but the outcome could have been very different. From what I have seen/read the guy flying was far more responsible than local police.

And as for the police claim (after exhausting all other options) that he had caused a breach of the peace, just have a look at the situation in the video/photos. Can you see people fleeing in panic or an angry mob gathering in the background? The phrase "trumped up charges" immediately springs to mind.
gaz_1000 is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2015, 13:09
  #184 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Farnham, Surrey
Posts: 1,173
The site residents and/or Police were probably more concerned that the rightful owners of various vehicles and items of property might spot them in the pictures from the drone. Knowing how the Police will do anything to avoid confronting such people about retrieval of property, both groups were probably only too happy to work together to prevent the drone operator from getting the pictures.

As for:
Surrey Police said he was arrested following complaints his behaviour was "disrespectful and intrusive".
I hope neither the Police or the site residents would be hypocritical enough to view distressing images from Iraq, West Africa or anywhere else in the world.
Mechta is offline  
Old 3rd Jan 2015, 22:14
  #185 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK/OZ
Posts: 1,677
Quote:
Surrey Police said he was arrested following complaints his behaviour was "disrespectful and intrusive".
And what law says it is illegal to be disrespectful or intrusive?
The breach of the peace was caused by the onlookers and enacted by the police!

Police are very keen to control the media, it makes policing easier.
But an elevated picture of the house is more descriptive than from ground level, especially if the roof has collapsed.

Police will fight the deployment of drones over incidents as they will argue that in an ongoing investigation some details are best kept from the public gaze.
This was the excuse given for a massive size air exclusion zone that extended 20kilometers from an incident, all the way to the Thames heli lane whilst they dug up the back garden of a suspected terrorist in North London in full view of the adjoining terraces which backed onto the garden.

There are plenty of cases where cameramen have been illegally stopped from filming in public places due to "terror laws". In this case the problem is poor understanding of the law by bobbies on the beat.

A legal point to consider is that the taking of a photo is one thing and that publishing is a seperate act. One can be legal and the other not.

Those who think police should respond to any member of the public who is merely offended deserve to be arrested for having BO wearing distasteful clothes or humming within earshot out of tune.

Whilst filming a proper documentary about a HEMs doctor I was assaulted by a family member of a young boy who was being resuscitated in the back garden of the family home which was in a poor neighbourhood. The parents had arrived back from the pub, a little worse for wear, they had left the boy playing with his mate and he had hurt himself.
Although I was wearing same day glow outfit as the doctor the camera was a red rag to a bull and the father hit me. This is understandable! (The only time I have been assaulted)
The police grabbed him and I withdrew.
To my embarresment a few minutes later the police made the poor guy come up to me and apologise, all the while the doctor and para medics continued to work in vain, on his son


The point is that police make value judgements and are human, clearly they were stressed by the behaviour of the parents of not supervising their son.

Freedom of press must be maintained, the police enforce laws, they dont make them.
mickjoebill is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 11:11
  #186 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 75
Mickjoebill - freedom of the press is fine (provided it is used responsibly). But trying to do your job knowing that every Tom, Dick and Harry are recording your every move on their damn Smartphones would try the patience of Job.

But we are digressing from the main thread, I fear.
londonman is offline  
Old 4th Jan 2015, 11:23
  #187 (permalink)  
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 62
Posts: 1,099
Regarding filming and photography, this is the Met's advice to officers which I would expect to be echoed nationally

From
Photography advice - Metropolitan Police Service

Guidelines for MPS staff on dealing with media reporters, press photographers and television crews

There is nothing preventing officers asking questions of an individual who appears to be taking photographs of someone who is or has been a member of Her Majesty’s Forces (HMF), Intelligence Services or a constable so long as this is being done for a lawful purpose and is not being done in a way that prevents, dissuades or inhibits the individual from doing something which is not unlawful.


Contact with photographers, reporters and television crews is a regular occurrence for many officers and staff. The media influences our reputation so it's crucial to maintain good working relations with its members, even in difficult circumstances.


Following these guidelines means both media and police can fulfill their duties without hindering each other.


Creating vantage points
When areas are cordoned off following an incident, creating a vantage point, if possible, where members of the media at the scene can see police activity, can help them do their job without interfering with a police operation. However, media may still report from areas accessible to the general public.


Identifying the media
Genuine members of the media carry identification, for instance the UK Press Card, which they will present on request.

The press and the public
If someone distressed or bereaved asks the police to stop the media recording them, the request can be passed on to the media, but not enforced.



Access to incident scenes
The Senior Investigating Officer is in charge of granting members of the media access to incident scenes. In the early stages of investigation, evidence gathering and forensic retrieval take priority over media access, but, where appropriate, access should be allowed as soon as is practicable.
Other parts deal with the terrorism excuse, which suggests that the use of supposed powers in the past have actually been illegal
west lakes is offline  
Old 7th Jan 2015, 20:50
  #188 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: US/EU
Posts: 681
For some reason there were four articles posted by the Associated Press today, all under the theme "Drone Revolution":

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015...on.html?ref=us

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015...rs.html?ref=us

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015...es.html?ref=us

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015...es.html?ref=us
Mark in CA is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2015, 21:33
  #189 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Denmark
Age: 64
Posts: 299
If a repost, please delete.

Atatürk Havaliman?'nda izinsiz 'Air Drone' uçu?u! - Dailymotion video
sablatnic is offline  
Old 18th Jan 2015, 23:17
  #190 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 63
Posts: 1,809
Hi,

Already posted
Already deleted
No threatening at all .. as it's a pro job (certainly hired by the airport authority!)
jcjeant is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2015, 06:46
  #191 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,653
No threatening at all .. as it's a pro job (certainly hired by the airport authority!)
A quick Google search on "Istanbul airport drone video" would suggest otherwise.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 19th Jan 2015, 15:24
  #192 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tamworth, UK / Nairobi, Kenya
Posts: 613
A while back, someone said "it's not possible"
According to another site, the person responsible has been identified and arrested. (he posted it on youtube, duh!)
But it goes to show that some people might not even think there's anything wrong or illegal about doing it.
darkroomsource is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 03:29
  #193 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: NV
Age: 71
Posts: 147
Just what we need. Long range:

Long Range HD FPV + Telemetry over WiFi <50ms Latency!

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...etry-over-wifi
IBMJunkman is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 03:36
  #194 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 63
Posts: 1,809
Skies open for drones over busy Istanbul airport - SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Speaking to Doğan News Agency, retired pilot Nuri Sakarya slammed the authorities for allowing the flight of an unauthorized aircraft near the control tower.

“No foreign object should be able to come closer than 10 kilometers. This is air traffic terrorism which could cause a serious danger as the drone could have hit an airplane,” said Sakarya.

Meanwhile, Sefa İnan, a retired Turkish Airlines technician, said the sale of drones should be regulated. “There should be directives. Any person can buy and fly a drone anywhere now; this should be stopped,” İnan added.
Like for guns .. it's not the gun who kill .. it's the people who pull the trigger !
The drone pilot:
http://www.aspetmanukyan.com/eng/about.html
jcjeant is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 06:31
  #195 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,653
it's a pro job (certainly hired by the airport authority!)
This is air traffic terrorism which could cause a serious danger as the drone could have hit an airplane
Glad we've got that cleared up, then.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 20th Jan 2015, 16:42
  #196 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Out of the blue
Posts: 159
But do you think it has the payload capacity for 100ml of pilot's shampoo?
Mick Stability is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 08:17
  #197 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Tamworth, UK / Nairobi, Kenya
Posts: 613
It doesn't need a payload.
It has a camera, so it can be flown right into the path of an aircraft taking off (when they figure out that getting in front of one taking off is more of a hazard than one landing, then we're in trouble)
darkroomsource is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 12:17
  #198 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 78
Drones disabled near airports

Many drones, such as those from DJI, are now being designed not to work when near major airports. For example, here's an extract from the DJI Inspire quadcopter manual:

"Category A Safety Zone
(1) The category A “safety zone” is comprised of a small “no-fly zone” and a range of “restricted- altitude zones”. Flight is prevented in the “no-fly zone” but can continue with height restrictions in the restricted-altitude zone.
(2) 1.5 miles (2.4 km) around a designated safety zone is a no-fly zone, inside which takeoff is prevented.
(3) 1.5 miles (2.4 km) to 5 miles (8 km) around restricted areas are altitude restricted, with maximum
altitude going from 35 feet (10.5 m) at 1.5 miles (2.4 km) to 400 feet (120 m) at 5 miles (8 km).
(4) A “warning zone” has been set around the safety zone. When you fly within 320 feet (100m) of the
safety zone, a warning message will appear on the DJI Pilot App."
msjh is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 12:22
  #199 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 75
So what happens if you take-off and then fly towards/into the safety zone? Does it fall out of the sky?
londonman is offline  
Old 21st Jan 2015, 12:25
  #200 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 10,653
Many drones, such as those from DJI, are now being designed not to work when near major airports.
Presumably drones are pre-programmed at the factory with the coordinates of all the world's major airports.

Flight is prevented in the “no-fly zone” but can continue with height restrictions in the restricted-altitude zone.
The Istanbul drone pilot is on record as saying that he succeeded in disabling those protections in order to perform the video flight.
DaveReidUK is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.