Drones in the UK?
Discussion
The way the camera moves/its height above buildings it makes me think drones are being used in the UK...by the BBC of all people!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23927521
I guess they're not always bad then
Mind you i do want to play with it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-23927521
I guess they're not always bad then
Mind you i do want to play with it.
Eric Mc said:
I'm waiting for one to fall on some unfortunate's bonce.
That's already happened...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yF4m61UD2A
AER said:
Apparently the battery unexpectedly run our mid flight. Silly thing to be flying over people.There is a 'guy' who makes a system to rival Watchkeeper in some ways using an off the shelf r/c model plane, which has a load of gps and other clever gubbins installed. It can be fully autonomous, taking off, flying a route and landing again all by it's self. One was used for filming some of the olympic torch events....
Hmmm - I'm sure someone is going to be killed by one of these things at some point and then there will be an outcry about their use.
I think that the proliferation of TV camera drones is going to cause a major problem at some point which will eventually result in them either being banned or their use severely restricted. And any new rules that come in attempting to restrict their use had better be targeted properly so as not to cause problems for RC model aircraft hobbyists.
I think that the proliferation of TV camera drones is going to cause a major problem at some point which will eventually result in them either being banned or their use severely restricted. And any new rules that come in attempting to restrict their use had better be targeted properly so as not to cause problems for RC model aircraft hobbyists.
Eric Mc said:
Hmmm - I'm sure someone is going to be killed by one of these things at some point and then there will be an outcry about their use.
I think that the proliferation of TV camera drones is going to cause a major problem at some point which will eventually result in them either being banned or their use severely restricted. And any new rules that come in attempting to restrict their use had better be targeted properly so as not to cause problems for RC model aircraft hobbyists.
Banned, unlikely, licenced perhaps.I think that the proliferation of TV camera drones is going to cause a major problem at some point which will eventually result in them either being banned or their use severely restricted. And any new rules that come in attempting to restrict their use had better be targeted properly so as not to cause problems for RC model aircraft hobbyists.
I remember some cartoon strip (in 200AD, Rogue Trooper possibly) where military and government drones were everywhere. Seeing how these have suddenly progressed, I'm sure we'll be seeing bee sized drones monitoring everything, which is very concerning. Using AI, facial recognition and pattern analysis, I am sure a lot of this data will be able to be analysed by big police computers who will have a record of activities that can then send a NIP in the post for whatever you may have transgressed.
markmullen said:
There already is a legal framework in place CAP 722, its restrictions are what has put me off buying one, there are a lot of hoops to jump through to use one commercially.
Just to add to this we also had to obtain a BNUC-S UAV licence to use ours for commercial work, and also had to apply to the CAA for commercial permission for the year.There are strict guidelines on how and where we operate (covered in CAP722 mentioned above).
As for the video of the fire, I've seen that company before and am pretty sure he posted on here actually saying he wasn't licenced (which will also mean he won't be insured).
Eric Mc said:
Perhaps we are in the "CB Radio" era of remote drones.
Although there are plenty of regs, a lot of the users either don't know about the regs or, if they do, they don't care.
I think its "don't care" unfortunately.Although there are plenty of regs, a lot of the users either don't know about the regs or, if they do, they don't care.
I do hope the owner of the video of the fire is now running legally, but I seriously doubt it.
I hope he at least asked the fire brigade's permission before filming as the last thing they need is something unexpected distracting them whilst perched on a burning building.
But again I doubt that too.
andrewrob said:
Eric Mc said:
Perhaps we are in the "CB Radio" era of remote drones.
Although there are plenty of regs, a lot of the users either don't know about the regs or, if they do, they don't care.
I think its "don't care" unfortunately.Although there are plenty of regs, a lot of the users either don't know about the regs or, if they do, they don't care.
I do hope the owner of the video of the fire is now running legally, but I seriously doubt it.
I hope he at least asked the fire brigade's permission before filming as the last thing they need is something unexpected distracting them whilst perched on a burning building.
But again I doubt that too.
My sons school was on fire, I'm a freelance photographer..............
I turned up on site, introduced myself and gained permission to fly from the chief fire officer who was impressed with the footage to an extent that he asked two firemen to vacate the roof due to safety (the roof collapsed shortly after). Without my footage, there may have been injuries.
I edited the footage, uploaded to Youtube and contacted the BBC, fully aware that they don't pay but was surprised when they asked "how much".
There is footage on Vimeo taken by a quad, but that was further back and I doubt that he asked permission. I ALWAYS seek permission to fly.
Thank you. Lawrence
Thank you for the clarification.
But, as you can see, it's a bit of a free for all out there at the moment. Some drone operators (like you) will do "the right thing" and others won't.
In your case your arrival on the scene seems to have actually helped the emergency services rather than hindered them. But, if something did go wrong and someone was injured - or worse - , who would start blaming whom? And where would you stand with regard to insurance?
But, as you can see, it's a bit of a free for all out there at the moment. Some drone operators (like you) will do "the right thing" and others won't.
In your case your arrival on the scene seems to have actually helped the emergency services rather than hindered them. But, if something did go wrong and someone was injured - or worse - , who would start blaming whom? And where would you stand with regard to insurance?
Eric Mc said:
Thank you for the clarification.
But, as you can see, it's a bit of a free for all out there at the moment. Some drone operators (like you) will do "the right thing" and others won't.
In your case your arrival on the scene seems to have actually helped the emergency services rather than hindered them. But, if something did go wrong and someone was injured - or worse - , who would start blaming whom? And where would you stand with regard to insurance?
Most "drone" operators will behave given that multi-rotors aren't cheap, particularly larger ones that carry DSLR cameras.But, as you can see, it's a bit of a free for all out there at the moment. Some drone operators (like you) will do "the right thing" and others won't.
In your case your arrival on the scene seems to have actually helped the emergency services rather than hindered them. But, if something did go wrong and someone was injured - or worse - , who would start blaming whom? And where would you stand with regard to insurance?
snapper8v said:
andrewrob said:
Eric Mc said:
Perhaps we are in the "CB Radio" era of remote drones.
Although there are plenty of regs, a lot of the users either don't know about the regs or, if they do, they don't care.
I think its "don't care" unfortunately.Although there are plenty of regs, a lot of the users either don't know about the regs or, if they do, they don't care.
I do hope the owner of the video of the fire is now running legally, but I seriously doubt it.
I hope he at least asked the fire brigade's permission before filming as the last thing they need is something unexpected distracting them whilst perched on a burning building.
But again I doubt that too.
My sons school was on fire, I'm a freelance photographer..............
I turned up on site, introduced myself and gained permission to fly from the chief fire officer who was impressed with the footage to an extent that he asked two firemen to vacate the roof due to safety (the roof collapsed shortly after). Without my footage, there may have been injuries.
I edited the footage, uploaded to Youtube and contacted the BBC, fully aware that they don't pay but was surprised when they asked "how much".
There is footage on Vimeo taken by a quad, but that was further back and I doubt that he asked permission. I ALWAYS seek permission to fly.
Thank you. Lawrence
I do echo Eric's thoughts on insurance though and the fact that you still offer aerial photography as a service on your website (I'm assuming unlicecned but apologise if I'm wrong).
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff