Discussion
Digitalize said:
No, but if you work out who it is it's probably worth mentioning 'The Drone Code', can't be within 50m of anyone or thing from memory, without permission (not from the people, but the CAA).
Either way, I imagine he's just testing it before taking somewhere else, in theory it's no more intrusive really than satellite imagery, which can be done without you knowing.
Worth noting as well that the ANO states "within 50 metres" for this rule as opposed to "over or within" for all the others. Ie flying 50m above you can be just fine...Either way, I imagine he's just testing it before taking somewhere else, in theory it's no more intrusive really than satellite imagery, which can be done without you knowing.
TurboHatchback said:
V8A*ndy said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
You could read the time on a watch from 100m, easily, how do people on the ground know what optics you've got.
Helicopters have the '1,000 foot Rule' over towns and villages.
Where can I find a consumer drone that can do that?Helicopters have the '1,000 foot Rule' over towns and villages.
Then show me a gimbal that's going to keep it steady enough so that it can actually keep the watch in shot
feef said:
TurboHatchback said:
V8A*ndy said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
You could read the time on a watch from 100m, easily, how do people on the ground know what optics you've got.
Helicopters have the '1,000 foot Rule' over towns and villages.
Where can I find a consumer drone that can do that?Helicopters have the '1,000 foot Rule' over towns and villages.
Then show me a gimbal that's going to keep it steady enough so that it can actually keep the watch in shot
Digitalize said:
That is interesting if true, I thought it was 50m horizontally, infinite vertically.
It's my interpretation, anyway...The Air Navigation Order itself says:
ANO said:
Article 167
1) The person in charge of a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not fly the aircraft in any of the circumstances described in paragraph (2) except in accordance with a permission issued by the CAA.
2) The circumstances referred to in paragraph (1) are:
(a) over or within 150 metres of any congested area;
(b) over or within 150 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons;
(c) within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft; or
(d) subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), within 50 metres of any person.
3) Subject to paragraph (4), during take-off or landing, a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not be flown within 30 metres of any person.
4) Paragraphs (2)(d) and (3) do not apply to the person in charge of the small unmanned surveillance aircraft or a person under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft.
5) In this article ‘a small unmanned surveillance aircraft’ means a small unmanned aircraft which is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition.
Given the specific inclusion of "over or" within 2(a) and (b) it seems fair to assume that it's omission in (c) is intentional.1) The person in charge of a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not fly the aircraft in any of the circumstances described in paragraph (2) except in accordance with a permission issued by the CAA.
2) The circumstances referred to in paragraph (1) are:
(a) over or within 150 metres of any congested area;
(b) over or within 150 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons;
(c) within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft; or
(d) subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), within 50 metres of any person.
3) Subject to paragraph (4), during take-off or landing, a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not be flown within 30 metres of any person.
4) Paragraphs (2)(d) and (3) do not apply to the person in charge of the small unmanned surveillance aircraft or a person under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft.
5) In this article ‘a small unmanned surveillance aircraft’ means a small unmanned aircraft which is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition.
Also worth highlighting that the above only applies (per (5)) to drones with cameras and that the CAA subsequently clarified in CAP722 that “The provision of image or other data solely for the use of controlling or monitoring the aircraft is not considered to be applicable to the meaning of ‘Surveillance or Data Acquisition’ covered at Article 167 for SUSA.” - so by that logic camera that's just being used to fly the drone (and not being recorded) or a drone fitted with a camera that's not turned on at the time aren't covered by the restrictions in ANO Article 167.
It's interesting how the public are paranoid about (mostly) toy devices near to their homes, yet completely ignore those utterly flouting the law and uploading the results to YouTube; check out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4eH5HlqcBc for example. A chap based in the West Midlands who ignores the CAA's "keep it within line of sight ie 500 metres and under 400 ft high" rules and flys 10s of kilometres, at much higher altitudes controlling his craft with radios many times the legal power limits and transmitting back video on frequencies that aren't even licenced for civilian use in Europe. Doesn't really do the hobby any favours.
TurboHatchback said:
I wasn't clear, I was referring merely to the altitude one can achieve. I've already commented earlier in the thread about resolution, distance and the lack of zoom, I'd be surprised if any available consumer drones could read a watch from more than 6ft away. I think the whole privacy argument is a daft and seems to be held by either the professionally offended or those who don't understand the technology (unless the pilot is being particularly inconsiderate). Then again if someone wants to take a photo of me and use it to bash one out then I wouldn't really care, I am one sexy mofo after all.
The "read a watch" is a side issue. A consumer drone from a moderate distance has plenty of ability to invade your privacy.If you put a video camera on a long pole and used it to look into a bedroom window from a public street from a distance of well over this 6-feet which has been bandied about for the watch reading, then the large majority of people will say that is an invasion of privacy. But if instead of mounting the camera on a pole, use use a drone from the same distance and it is OK? I don't think so.
AH33 said:
Ring the police, there's clearly a perv in your neighbourhood who'd do well to receive some advice.
No time at all for people like that.
.... & tell the police there were children around at the time. The drone pilot may well end up being accused of some very unpopular suggestions which should his neighbours find out........ No time at all for people like that.
surveyor said:
Yep, spoil it for everyone. Find em and insert the drone.after landing, the pilot reported an object - believed to be a drone - had struck the front of the Airbus A320.
So could have been a bird?
A British Airways spokesman said: "Our aircraft landed safely, was fully examined by our engineers and it was cleared to operate its next flight."
No damage at all then?
I'm not convinced it was a drone.
So could have been a bird?
A British Airways spokesman said: "Our aircraft landed safely, was fully examined by our engineers and it was cleared to operate its next flight."
No damage at all then?
I'm not convinced it was a drone.
myvision said:
after landing, the pilot reported an object - believed to be a drone - had struck the front of the Airbus A320.
So could have been a bird?
Presumably, the pilot saw it clearly enough - as it approached at 150mph - to know it wasn't a bird, but not to see exactly what it was.So could have been a bird?
myvision said:
A British Airways spokesman said: "Our aircraft landed safely, was fully examined by our engineers and it was cleared to operate its next flight."
No damage at all then?
This time. No testing has ever been done on drone strikes onto airliners. Plenty of testing is done on birdstrikes. Your typical bird is lighter and squishier than your typical drone, and doesn't contain a flammable-chemistry battery.No damage at all then?
creampuff said:
The probably won't be able to find the owner. Drones are heading either for an outright ban for most people or heavy regulation and licensing.
Sky News, noted for its libertarian stance, was for your heavy regulation and licensing. Eamon Holmes, noted for being a trifle right of the norm in Sky News, demanded an outright ban, his justification being that 'no one needs them'.Regulation without enforcement is exactly the same as no regulation and the police will not be interested unless they are airport police.
myvision said:
after landing, the pilot reported an object - believed to be a drone - had struck the front of the Airbus A320.
So could have been a bird?
A British Airways spokesman said: "Our aircraft landed safely, was fully examined by our engineers and it was cleared to operate its next flight."
No damage at all then?
I'm not convinced it was a drone.
There are tell tail signs for a birdstrike - usually the smeared blood and/or stench give it away...So could have been a bird?
A British Airways spokesman said: "Our aircraft landed safely, was fully examined by our engineers and it was cleared to operate its next flight."
No damage at all then?
I'm not convinced it was a drone.
WJNB said:
AH33 said:
Ring the police, there's clearly a perv in your neighbourhood who'd do well to receive some advice.
No time at all for people like that.
.... & tell the police there were children around at the time. The drone pilot may well end up being accused of some very unpopular suggestions which should his neighbours find out........ No time at all for people like that.
Surely even the smallest of contact between the [suspected] drone and a landing aircraft wouldn't end well for the drone; I imagine you'd have pieces of it lying on the runway at a minimum.
If it was indeed a drone, the drone pilot is lucky to get it back in one piece if it actually came into contact with an aircraft. It would be savage if the engine ingested the bloody thing.
If it was indeed a drone, the drone pilot is lucky to get it back in one piece if it actually came into contact with an aircraft. It would be savage if the engine ingested the bloody thing.
Interesting calling for heavy regulation. I do wonder how 'fairy land' some people are in this country
Last week my next door neighbour had £2K worth of ride on lawn mower nicked in the middle of the day. CCTV captures plates an all of a white van and some decent images of thieves breaking into a locked garage, trying to start it and eventually getting it into the back of the van.
Police were called. Not interested, advice to call insurance. Didn't even come round
when CCTV was mentioned they said 'CCTV rarely helps us'
when number plate was mentioned they said 'well its going to be fake isn't it'
When gunshots broke our kitchen window a few years ago while my wife was at the sink, we phoned the police and they said 'what do you expect you live in the country'
When a car crashed into our front fence, went through the fence drove into our garden leaving a six foot hole in the front fence and narrowly missed someone standing in our front garden then proceeded to dukes of hazard style snake across the grass and drive off at speed we called the police
They said if no one was hurt call the insurance company
Now with a police force that is this disinterested in any sort of crime stopping, do you really think any form of legislation on drones is going to make bib stop eating his doughnuts out where I live?
Even if they did introduce legislation I would just ignore it. The chances of anyone turning up are zilch. Continue on with your heated discussion about the 50m rule
Last week my next door neighbour had £2K worth of ride on lawn mower nicked in the middle of the day. CCTV captures plates an all of a white van and some decent images of thieves breaking into a locked garage, trying to start it and eventually getting it into the back of the van.
Police were called. Not interested, advice to call insurance. Didn't even come round
when CCTV was mentioned they said 'CCTV rarely helps us'
when number plate was mentioned they said 'well its going to be fake isn't it'
When gunshots broke our kitchen window a few years ago while my wife was at the sink, we phoned the police and they said 'what do you expect you live in the country'
When a car crashed into our front fence, went through the fence drove into our garden leaving a six foot hole in the front fence and narrowly missed someone standing in our front garden then proceeded to dukes of hazard style snake across the grass and drive off at speed we called the police
They said if no one was hurt call the insurance company
Now with a police force that is this disinterested in any sort of crime stopping, do you really think any form of legislation on drones is going to make bib stop eating his doughnuts out where I live?
Even if they did introduce legislation I would just ignore it. The chances of anyone turning up are zilch. Continue on with your heated discussion about the 50m rule
julian64 said:
Interesting calling for heavy regulation. I do wonder how 'fairy land' some people are in this country
Last week my next door neighbour had £2K worth of ride on lawn mower nicked in the middle of the day. CCTV captures plates an all of a white van and some decent images of thieves breaking into a locked garage, trying to start it and eventually getting it into the back of the van.
Police were called. Not interested, advice to call insurance. Didn't even come round
when CCTV was mentioned they said 'CCTV rarely helps us'
when number plate was mentioned they said 'well its going to be fake isn't it'
When gunshots broke our kitchen window a few years ago while my wife was at the sink, we phoned the police and they said 'what do you expect you live in the country'
When a car crashed into our front fence, went through the fence drove into our garden leaving a six foot hole in the front fence and narrowly missed someone standing in our front garden then proceeded to dukes of hazard style snake across the grass and drive off at speed we called the police
They said if no one was hurt call the insurance company
Now with a police force that is this disinterested in any sort of crime stopping, do you really think any form of legislation on drones is going to make bib stop eating his doughnuts out where I live?
Even if they did introduce legislation I would just ignore it. The chances of anyone turning up are zilch. Continue on with your heated discussion about the 50m rule
You make a dig about police eating doughnuts but there is little doubt that the current PC is the hardest working this country has ever enjoyed. Last week my next door neighbour had £2K worth of ride on lawn mower nicked in the middle of the day. CCTV captures plates an all of a white van and some decent images of thieves breaking into a locked garage, trying to start it and eventually getting it into the back of the van.
Police were called. Not interested, advice to call insurance. Didn't even come round
when CCTV was mentioned they said 'CCTV rarely helps us'
when number plate was mentioned they said 'well its going to be fake isn't it'
When gunshots broke our kitchen window a few years ago while my wife was at the sink, we phoned the police and they said 'what do you expect you live in the country'
When a car crashed into our front fence, went through the fence drove into our garden leaving a six foot hole in the front fence and narrowly missed someone standing in our front garden then proceeded to dukes of hazard style snake across the grass and drive off at speed we called the police
They said if no one was hurt call the insurance company
Now with a police force that is this disinterested in any sort of crime stopping, do you really think any form of legislation on drones is going to make bib stop eating his doughnuts out where I live?
Even if they did introduce legislation I would just ignore it. The chances of anyone turning up are zilch. Continue on with your heated discussion about the 50m rule
The funding has been slashed. It is all very well suggesting that fat should bet cut but in the last 15 years of my service, that's up until 2005, reductions year on year were the norm. So with many fewer staff something has to give and new processes have been brought in to cope.
Get used to it as, despite what was said about no more reductions in police funding, police funding is still being reduced. It will get worse. Many forces do not send anyone to a call where a police officer is not essential. This has been forced on them. There are many incidents where the police are required to attend despite them not being required. This from government policy. So a property crime, no one hurt = tough luck.
There is no one.
As for gunshots in the country, I've got to say I agree with the call taker. What did you want them to do?
if you compare the number of police officers in this country to those in, for instance, France or Germany, you will realise what we have is a bargain.
Part of the problem, of course, is the attitude of those who suggest they will ignore laws because the police are unable to respond due to the massive cuts.
Derek Smith said:
As for gunshots in the country, I've got to say I agree with the call taker. What did you want them to do?
So let me get this straight Derek. You think if your windows are broken with gunshots, and you happen to live in a rural area, that's not a police matter even worthy of investigation.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff