Nige,

All valid counter arguments - but could that not be said for all walks of life -

• Your nutters will still shout at CC for their Wine not being chilled perfectly and start drunken brawls on planes threatening to kill everyone with a bomb.

• Execs will still cause a massive disturbance in the cabin just before a departure because her nuts were in a bag not a bowl.

• Pilots still drink and attempt to fly aircraft.

All of those are nutters and pose serious threats to Aircraft safety in one of the most regulated industries in the world alongside medicines / injectables. The fact is, no amount of regulation is bullet proof and will not stop the moronic baffoons. But regulation, clear guidelines and legislation help keep it to a minimum.

The videos on YouTube as you quite rightly state, are astounding. Prosecutions are now starting to occur, but the problem is, the FAA / CAA still do not seem have one stance on it The guy that slams a Drone into a building about 600ft up in NY got away with it, no prosecution - that is a serious threat to not only helicopters but people on the ground too - Countless acts of breaches in the UK as well have gone without prosecution. Educating people will help, but will not stop all. Regulating to an extent will help, but not stop all. A major issue is the lack of education. For example, I can go and buy a quad over the counter, no questions ask, which has a climb rate of something like 20m/s. If you don't know what you are doing, 3-4 seconds held down, you have got some serious Alt and may be out of range - if its not a correctly configured unit or TX/RX issues occur, that will keep climbing, leaving the person on the ground in a bit of bother and potential traffic even more so. I'd like to see compulsory trainning of some sort, but how that is regulated is difficult.

Another thing worth noting - although it is somewhat irrelevent - but most drones / Quads/ UAS are light plastic composites so people simply don't think about it causing damage to an aircraft. The majority are not metal framed (You are getting into the serious stuff here) - It would be interesting to see GE / RR etc + Government / FAA / CAA do an ingestion test of a well known (For example, DJI Phantom) into one of these engines - as an educational video and from a safety perspective. I think if people saw that, they would be shocked at the damage it would do - I'd say it would be on par with a Canadian goose going through it, seeing as the materials are not as fragile as organic matter.


My point is,

• if a terrorist blows up a plane, we don't stop flying do we?

• If a person is killed in a car crash, we don't stop driving?

There is no blanket way to stop these people without destroying it for the majority. All we can do, is do our best, be it the FAA / CAA , Hobby pilots and the courts to come up with a way of allowing responsible pilots to fly whilst punishing those that commit offenses. Carpeting the issue of drones and drone pilots in general as negative is not the right answer. If the London paper's artical on how "Pilotless planes are safer" are anything to go by, you'd better invest in a FPV kit and a drone to practice on for when you have to fix the computers mess remotely from a hangar :ok::ugh:

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is that the responsible users aren't the problem. And whatever 'rules' are brought in, Mr Nutter will still wander down to Heathrow...

We are fortunate in the UK that the CAA and the BMFA have an excellent relationship, and the CAA realise that legislating for the sake of it isn't going to work.

They seem to have a philosophy of helping the responsible, while prosecuting the irresponsible.
Lets hope it continues...

Police wrestle drone control from pilot and try and land drone themselves!
 

A journalist who is also a CAA registered drone flyer, informed police on scene at a fatal fire that he was going to launch to take pictures.
But when it became airborn someone took exception and the ensuing events are as staggering as they are disturbing.

Police claiming a drone caused a breach of the peace!

Even in the Southern UK where air space is at a premium, there is room for everyone so long as we all play sensibly and legally.

I wonder if the Surrey police committed an offence by wrestling the controls off the pilot and thus endangering the aircraft and the surrounding people whom they were claiming to be protecting? You would think that the journo would have responded promptly if they had said, " Excuse me, sir, please can you land the aircraft immediately as we wish to discuss the current situation?"

Im not sticking up for the plod but if he was in Gatwicks ATZ he was not complient to CAA regs and wants locking up if he did not get permisson from the ATC.

I was at an airshow where a lady collapsed shortly after a Spitfire crashed (it was a very distressing sight). An accredited photographer tried to take photos of the lady receiving treatment but he was hustled away under protest.

Balancing people's rights to privacy vs freedom of reporting is already tricky and wider use of drones for photography is bound to run into these issues.

He wouldn't need permission from ATC as his SUA was less than 7 kg so he was in compliance with UK law in that respect.

Every now and again Plod get it wrong. These stupid goons were equipped with two-way radios so they could have asked for more information, but chose not to. So in this case their ignorance and stupidity demands some form action, possibly even a criminal prosecution. Wreckless endangerment of the public, flying close than 50m to people not associated with the event, air piracy etc. if you illegally interfere with aircraft, you must pay the price.

Over 7kgs or under he would still need permission from Gatwick ATC to fly/oparte in Gatwick ATZ.

So the police officers were guilty as well! They must not be let off.

Can you provide a reference to support that ?

I think he will struggle with that...

Ring the BMFA and ask! Ill scan my handbook in the morning for you! So your saying its ok for me to get my foamy out and fly it around at the bottem of an airport runway in the ATZ Without permission?

I'm not saying anything, you were the one claiming there are CAA regulations prohibiting it.

If you can cite an article in the Air Navigation Order or other legislation that prohibits flying an SUA under 7Kg in the ATZ then provide a reference to it. I would be interested to see it.

Whilst I would agree with the BMFA that flying in the ATZ may be unwise they aren't an authoritative source and unwise is not the same as illegal.

With regard to your suggestion that you should fly at the end of the runway I suspect there are articles in the ANO, 137 for a start, that would prohibit that if the airport were open and traffic was landing on that runway.

The ANO requires operators of SUA of greater than 7 kg to gain permission from the appropriate ATSU to operate inside ATZs, Class A, C,D or E airspace. (See CAP 393, Article 166(4). The general thrust of NATS (UK) policy for the large international airports (as explained to me when setting up my own business last year) is that sub-7 kg SUAs may operate without restriction in CTZs whilst above-7 kg SUAs will be refused permission on an ad-hoc basis but may apply under Non Standard Flight procedures. Obviously smaller airfields may have a more relaxed policy. At Manchester airport, the locals release flocks of pigeons on a regular basis, judging by the NOTAMs, which is arguably more of a danger to traffic than a single SUA. But NATS accommodates it and everyone gets along just fine.

With respect to operating at the end of an active runway, Article 166(2) would come into effect whereby "the person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fly the aircraft if reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made." So if you do that then you are breaking the law. Operating at 300 ft agl 5 miles south of Gatwick where the airliners are all up at 5-7000 ft should not be a problem.

As someone wisely said above, there is plenty of airspace to share around quite safely. Spouting off about regulations that don't actually exist really doesn't advance the debate.

THIS is what drones should be used for:

HONG KONG FIREWORKS 2015 - Filmed with a Drone [Team BlackSheep] - YouTube

Not that familiar with the CAA drone regs, but if the plod forcibly took control from a licenced operator in flight, they need prosecuting to the full extent of the law.

But he wasn't. I know that area - he would have been approximately 800m laterally from aircraft on final for 26L at around 1300ft AGL. You tell me if that is legal. And what he was attempting to do (photograph the aftermath of a fire that killed 2 children and an adult) was distasteful at best. So plod have my full backing tbh.

That sounds right - looking at the map, the mobile home site is about 4 DME from the threshold. If an aircraft at that point was at 150' (the height the drone was flying at) then I'd suggest that the presence of a drone half a mile off the port wingtip would be the least of the pilot's problems.

Well we're still waiting for our Yorkshire friend to back up his assertion that it isn't, by quoting chapter-and-verse, but if you can save him the trouble ...

He's a press photographer. That's his job.

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? :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. :E

As for: 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.

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.:ugh:

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 - 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.

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

Other parts deal with the terrorism excuse, which suggests that the use of supposed powers in the past have actually been illegal

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

If a repost, please delete.

Atatürk Havaliman?'nda izinsiz 'Air Drone' uçu?u! - Dailymotion video

Hi,

Already posted :)
Already deleted :)
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.

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.

Just what we need. Long range:

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

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects...etry-over-wifi

Skies open for drones over busy Istanbul airport - SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
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

Glad we've got that cleared up, then.

But do you think it has the payload capacity for 100ml of pilot's shampoo?

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)

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."

So what happens if you take-off and then fly towards/into the safety zone? Does it fall out of the sky?

Presumably drones are pre-programmed at the factory with the coordinates of all the world's major airports.

The Istanbul drone pilot is on record as saying that he succeeded in disabling those protections in order to perform the video flight.