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.