Drone Law Broken

[BlueHave]

As many will have seen the Bank Buildings in Belfast built in 1900 -1903 ( not 1785 as the news quoted ) burnt to a shell. Streets 100m around are closed until further notice until the remaining sandstone facade is deemed safe and not at risk of collapse.

Anyway some 'idiot' and 'amateur' drone enthusiast has caused a bit of a stink on twitter by flying his drone above the structure and posting the results on twitter. The official drone operators are going crazy because he didn't obey the laws of the sky.

I think it's partly sour grapes because they didn't get the shots but could the operator realistically be fined by the CAA ten if he made no money from the shots obtained.

It also seems the news agencies and media at large are using his shots which also seems to upset the genuine droners.

Shots in question

[Super Slo Mo]

Whether he will be fined or not is down to the laws that he’s broken (if any) not whether he’s gained any financial advantage.

That said, if it turns out he’s been charging for his services on this or other occasions yet isn’t a licensed operator then he may be in more trouble.

[Dog Star]

Personally I think it's a load of sour grapes and it makes me chuckle, however they can always get around the drone tax - sorry! "operators license" - imposition with the old faithful "safety" line. It's like when someone neutralises an argument about 20mph speed limits or whatever by wheeling out someone who's child got knocked over.

I do wonder whether drone people with licenses will end up like 4x4 response types - "roger wilco had a NM in the pdq on short final into my back garden" blah

[E36GUY]

Dog Star said:

Personally I think it's a load of sour grapes and it makes me chuckle, however they can always get around the drone tax - sorry! "operators license" - imposition with the old faithful "safety" line. It's like when someone neutralises an argument about 20mph speed limits or whatever by wheeling out someone who's child got knocked over.

I do wonder whether drone people with licenses will end up like 4x4 response types - "roger wilco had a NM in the pdq on short final into my back garden" blah

It's to do with air safety. Drones can easily fly into airspace that contains actual aircraft. Commercial operators are - and should be - approved by the CAA to follow safety codes. Frannkly I think the availability of these things to the common idiot is really fking dangerous and its only a matter of time before there is a serious accident involving one.

[Josho]

If I take a building of a building on fire on my phone and sell it to Daily Mail am I a commercial photographer?

[Super Slo Mo]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Not necessarily. You don’t have to be licenced to fly one illegally, as there are height and operating restrictions that apply across the board, not just to licensed operators.

[DurianIceCream]

Dog Star said:

I do wonder whether drone people with licenses will end up like 4x4 response types - "roger wilco had a NM in the pdq on short final into my back garden" blah

Nope, I’ve used professional drone operators before. The one I used charges about £600/day.

Their drone works, they know how to use it and just as important, they know that a several kilogram lump of plastic, carbon fibre and electronics up in the sky can do a lot of damage if it lands on somebody’s head. Something lacking with unlicensed operators.

[Nightmare]

E36GUY said:

It's to do with air safety. Drones can easily fly into airspace that contains actual aircraft. Commercial operators are - and should be - approved by the CAA to follow safety codes. Frannkly I think the availability of these things to the common idiot is really fking dangerous and its only a matter of time before there is a serious accident involving one.

There have already been a few - just not in the UK yet. I entirely agree with you about the danger.....most of the decent camera platforms are running carbon fibre or even titanium props. If you get hit by one it will remove whatever it hits. I saw a video yesterday of some dickwad who decided to take his up a kilometre. Absolutely zero understanding of even basic things like air currents. Ended up running out of battery and it falling from about 600metres. Incredibly lucky it didn’t hit someone or something of value. I would be delighted if the CAA could do this guy - cos the other option will be everything getting grounded at some point when something really bad does happen.

I both love and hate that dji et al are making these thing so skill free

[CAPP0]

"According to UK laws regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority, consumer drones (classed as those that weigh under 20kg) must be flown no higher than 400 feet (120 metres), and be kept at least 50 metres away from people and private property, and 150 metres from congested areas and organised open-air assemblies of more than 1,000 people."

So since you can't fly higher than 120m, but have to stay 150m away from congested areas, then I guess the operator of this one could have some tricky questions to answer if pressed.

Great pictures though!

[BMWBen]

CAPP0 said:

"According to UK laws regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority, consumer drones (classed as those that weigh under 20kg) must be flown no higher than 400 feet (120 metres), and be kept at least 50 metres away from people and private property, and 150 metres from congested areas and organised open-air assemblies of more than 1,000 people."

So since you can't fly higher than 120m, but have to stay 150m away from congested areas, then I guess the operator of this one could have some tricky questions to answer if pressed.

Great pictures though!

Slightly flawed rules are they not? If you only have to stay 50m away from people that means you could fly it directly over their head at 100m altitude.

I'd rather have a drone fall on my head from 5m than 100m...

[CAPP0]

BMWBen said:

CAPP0 said:

"According to UK laws regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority, consumer drones (classed as those that weigh under 20kg) must be flown no higher than 400 feet (120 metres), and be kept at least 50 metres away from people and private property, and 150 metres from congested areas and organised open-air assemblies of more than 1,000 people."

So since you can't fly higher than 120m, but have to stay 150m away from congested areas, then I guess the operator of this one could have some tricky questions to answer if pressed.

Great pictures though!

Slightly flawed rules are they not? If you only have to stay 50m away from people that means you could fly it directly over their head at 100m altitude.

I'd rather have a drone fall on my head from 5m than 100m...

I didn't write them....

[Oakey]

E36GUY said:

It's to do with air safety. Drones can easily fly into airspace that contains actual aircraft. Commercial operators are - and should be - approved by the CAA to follow safety codes. Frannkly I think the availability of these things to the common idiot is really fking dangerous and its only a matter of time before there is a serious accident involving one.

Well there's already been accidents. There's a great vid on Youtube of a racing driver (think he's a test driver for Ferrari) sat in his office when a drone comes crashing through the window and hits him in the head. Also, I read a story about a young boy losing his eye when his uncle flew his drone into him.

[rxe]

E36GUY said:

It's to do with air safety. Drones can easily fly into airspace that contains actual aircraft. Commercial operators are - and should be - approved by the CAA to follow safety codes. Frannkly I think the availability of these things to the common idiot is really fking dangerous and its only a matter of time before there is a serious accident involving one.

You’ve got to be pretty determined to fly a drone into controlled airspace though. Certainly “off the shelf” DJI ones won’t do it, either in terms of altitude or lat/long.

Anyone trying to mix it with real aeroplanes has the skill to override the software (which looks hard) - licensing isn’t going to change their attitude at all. If we’re worried about people who are determined to damage ‘planes, licensing wouldn’t deter them either. This last category wouldn’t be using COTS drones anyway - they’d be better off rolling their own, strapping s few titanium turbine blades to it (eBay) and teach a rudimentary guidance system to aim for the big spinny things.

Edited by rxe on Thursday 30th August 14:45

[vaguelyfamiliar]

I can chip in a bit here (long time lurker) as I am a commercial drone pilot. The rules do indeed state that you must remain 50m away from people (as well as buildings and vessels, this is reduced to 30 meters for take-off and landing), however, the rules are qualified with the statement "Not under control of the pilot" - under control is taken to mean that the people you are close to, have received a safety brief on the flight to be undertaken. Where people are considered to be under your control, you can fly as close to them as is safe to do so.

[Cold]

Josho said:

If I take a building of a building on fire on my phone and sell it to Daily Mail am I a commercial photographer?

If you take a photo of an advertisement then you may well be a commercial photographer.

As for this bloke, I'm not sure that his drone is going to inflict much damage to a burned out shell of a building no matter how many "Think of the Children" regulations he may or may not have broken.

[Emanresu]

Jesus Christ get over yourself. Did he do you any harm? Did he fly over your house when your wife was sunbathing naked in the back yard and put pictures of her fanjita on the internet?

Unjust laws were made to be broken.

[KevinCamaroSS]

Emanresu said:

Jesus Christ get over yourself. Did he do you any harm? Did he fly over your house when your wife was sunbathing naked in the back yard and put pictures of her fanjita on the internet?

Unjust laws were made to be broken.

What is unjust about laws created for the safety of the general public?

[surveyor]

vaguelyfamiliar said:

I can chip in a bit here (long time lurker) as I am a commercial drone pilot. The rules do indeed state that you must remain 50m away from people (as well as buildings and vessels, this is reduced to 30 meters for take-off and landing), however, the rules are qualified with the statement "Not under control of the pilot" - under control is taken to mean that the people you are close to, have received a safety brief on the flight to be undertaken. Where people are considered to be under your control, you can fly as close to them as is safe to do so.

In this case though the area is clearly a congested area so a ‘pilot’ without a PCFO must be at least 150m horizontal away. If they can trace him they can do him....

[DurianIceCream]

rxe said:

You’ve got to be pretty determined to fly a drone into controlled airspace though. Certainly “off the shelf” DJI ones won’t do it, either in terms of altitude or lat/long.

Anyone trying to mix it with real aeroplanes has the skill to override the software (which looks hard) - licensing isn’t going to change their attitude at all. If we’re worried about people who are determined to damage ‘planes, licensing wouldn’t deter them either. This last category wouldn’t be using COTS drones anyway - they’d be better off rolling their own, strapping s few titanium turbine blades to it (eBay) and teach a rudimentary guidance system to aim for the big spinny things.

Edited by rxe on Thursday 30th August 14:45

Much airspace is Class G. Uncontrolled. VFR pilots can fly as low as 500 ft and avoid obstacles and other aircraft by looking out the window. It’s quite hard to see something as small as a drone.

[Smiljan]

BlueHave said:

As many will have seen the Bank Buildings in Belfast built in 1900 -1903 ( not 1785 as the news quoted ) burnt to a shell. Streets 100m around are closed until further notice until the remaining sandstone facade is deemed safe and not at risk of collapse.

Renovated in 1900, the building originally opened as a bank in 1787.