How many drones are actually used legally?

Blank_Canvas said:
Yes failure to adhere to legislation can lead to arrest and prosecution. Has a bit more clout than the Highway Code !
Click to expand...

Fair enough, it can be difficult to tell what's actual passed law and what's just advice and recommendation.
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Yes failure to adhere to legislation can lead to arrest and prosecution. Has a bit more clout than the Highway Code !
Click to expand...

Some of the Highway Code is law. The parts which are, are highlighted as such and reference is made to the relevant part of the Road Traffic Act.


Steve.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
I did mention earlier a case that is currently going through the courts.
Click to expand...

as above, parts of the Highway Code can have your licence off you and land you in prison my many years, others are just good advice on how to get along with other road users.
 
steveo_mcg said:
as above, parts of the Highway Code can have your licence off you and land you in prison my many years, others are just good advice on how to get along with other road users.
Click to expand...
Well you can't lose a license for mis use of a drone, because the CAA don't issue a licence. What they can (and do) do is bring a criminal prosecution.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Well you can't lose a license for mis use of a drone, because the CAA don't issue a licence. What they can (and do) do is bring a criminal prosecution.
Click to expand...

You mean like the Police might for failing to follow parts of the Highway code? :confused:
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Well you can't lose a license for mis use of a drone, because the CAA don't issue a licence. What they can (and do) do is bring a criminal prosecution.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's time for them to be licenced, as well as requiring an operators licence and compulsory insurance for all use in, around or over any area that any person could be. Punishment for failing to comply could be seizure and destruction (a bit like s59 PRA is used for motor vehicles) and suspension/loss of licence for misuse, and a heavy fine and/or imprisonment for serial offenders.

That would hopefully deter people from using them in a way that breaches the privacy or quiet of the general public and deter the casual users who just see them as toys to spy on people with.
 
Last edited:
4wd said:
Yes and let's licence all zoom lens users too, it's obvious they mainly buy them to spy on people.
Click to expand...

The lens can't cause a motor vehicle accident or fall out of the sky out of control and kill/injure someone in the way a drone could.

However, I would expect to see criminal action against a photographer who gets a long lens and a cherry picker and parks it on the side of the road and starts photographing or videoing people in the back gardens, yes.
 
Last edited:
Dave1 said:
However, I would expect to see criminal action against a photographer who gets a long lens and a cherry picker and parks it on the side of the road and starts photographing or videoing people in the back gardens, yes.
Click to expand...

On what charge?


Steve.
 
StewartR said:
Really? I think it's very clear. The title of the article, and every single paragraph within the article, say "small unmanned surveillance aircraft". I don't think there's any scope for misunderstafing at all.
Click to expand...

It obviously is unclear though as you quoted earlier that it only applies to surveillance aircraft but if the BMFA are correct (I'd tend to believe they probably are) then it doesn't just apply to surveillance but to all small unmanned aircraft.
 
Dave1 said:
The lens can't cause a motor vehicle accident or fall out of the sky out of control and kill/injure someone in the way a
Click to expand...

Five years ago I took off from the grounds of Chatsworth House, Derbyshire in a Hot Air Balloon. This area is notoriously noted for unpredictable wind and weather conditions. Flying over a disused quarry at a low altitude it soon became became apparent that that an unusual air current was present, the balloon started to descend into the quarry, putting in some major burns in, we managed to clear the quarry and gain height only to see some trees dead ahead. Still trying to put more burns in and gain some altitude the basket smashed into the top of the tree line and the basket swung like a pendulum with us in in. During a blind effort to quickly remove all the broken branches from on top of the propane cylinders (control valve). Someone's lens (70-200mm) lens was inadvertently scooped up and jettisoned over the side of the basket with the branches It didn't kill anyone (but could off) but it's probably still laying in a farmers field in Derbyshire to this day. The morale of this story is that lenses can fall out of the sky !
 
Last edited:
Ricardodaforce said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-32626718
Click to expand...
Ricardodaforce said:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/02/uk-first-drone-conviction
Click to expand...

Yes, 2 very high profile cases, and i'm sure the fact that one was flown over a Nuclear base (and the other over a packed Football Stadium) had nothing at all to do with the convictions being brought in the slightest............ ;)

Had these been flown within 50m of someone's next door neighbour i'm sure there would be no prosecutions being brought
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Five years ago I took off from the grounds of Chatsworth House, Derbyshire in a Hot Air Balloon. This area is notoriously noted for unpredictable wind and weather conditions. Flying over a disused quarry at a low altitude it soon became became apparent that that an unusual air current was present, the balloon started to descend into the quarry, putting in some major burns in, we managed to clear the quarry and gain height only to see some trees dead ahead. Still trying to put more burns in and gain some altitude the basket smashed into the top of the tree line and the basket swung like a pendulum with us in in. During a blind effort to quickly remove all the broken branches from on top of the propane cylinders (control valve). Someone's lens (70-200mm) lens was inadvertently scooped up and jettisoned over the side of the basket with the branches It didn't kill anyone (but could off) but it's probably still laying in a farmers field in Derbyshire to this day. The morale of this story is that lenses can fall out of the sky !
Click to expand...

Except the lens falling was caused by being in a hot air balloon. Without the balloon, how would the lens have fallen from the sky?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hot air balloons are regulated, licenced and require insurance to fly?

;)
 
Dave1 said:
Except the lens falling was caused by being in a hot air balloon. Without the balloon, how would the lens have fallen from the sky?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hot air balloons are regulated, licenced and require insurance to fly?

;)
Click to expand...

Yes, they are defined as an 'aircraft' by the CAA. As they are not easy to manoeuvre I the air every other aircraft had to give way to it. You need a PPL to fly one.
 
Dave1 said:
Public Order Act
Protection from Harassment Act
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you actually need to be creating disorder or harrassing in order to be charged with one of those? Just photographing from a high position doesn't do that.


Steve.
 
I don't understand why everyone is getting so hung up on the regulations, they're not much different from what we had for years that govern model aircraft.

Don't fly over people or in congested areas, within 50m of any person, structure or vehicle not under your control and certainly not near active airfields or airports even with CAA permission, unless cleared with ATC and all necessary paperwork filled out.

I don't find that hard to understand at all.


Fly safe and have fun

:)
 
Steve Smith said:
Wouldn't you actually need to be creating disorder or harrassing in order to be charged with one of those? Just photographing from a high position doesn't do that.


Steve.
Click to expand...

S4 POA
[F14AIntentional harassment, alarm or distress.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
Click to expand...

S1 PFHA

1Prohibition of harassment.
(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—

(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and

(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
Click to expand...

If the victim perceives the behaviour as causing harassment, alarm or distress they commit both offences.

A drone with a camera hanging off the bottom overflying your house (or the hypothetical photographer at the back fence in a cherry picker) while, for example, your teenage daughter is sunbathing in the back garden, is going to cause alarm and distress and amount to harassment if it occurs more than once.

It would probably be better for both the public and those who want to indulge their hobby for the use to be specifically regulated and licenced in the future. The licence should include a theory test of the laws concerned and a practical exam conducted by approved flying clubs.
 
Last edited:
Rob 80386 said:
I don't understand why everyone is getting so hung up on the regulations, they're not much different from what we had for years that govern model aircraft.

Don't fly over people or in congested areas, within 50m of any person, structure or vehicle not under your control and certainly not near active airfields or airports even with CAA permission, unless cleared with ATC and all necessary paperwork filled out.

I don't find that hard to understand at all.


Fly safe and have fun

:)
Click to expand...

I think the problem lies in the fact that the vast majority of Joe Public have no idea about these rules/guidelines, and there are many more people buying/flying drones that model aircraft as Drones require a far smaller skill set than model aircraft do

I'm sure the majority of model aircraft flyers would belong to some sort of club where these rules/guidelines will be pointed out, but Fred from down the road who bought a Drone off of eBay will have little clue about these rules
 
Dave1 said:
S4 POA


S1 PFHA



If the victim perceives the behaviour as causing harassment, alarm or distress they commit both offences.

A drone with a camera hanging off the bottom overflying your house (or the hypothetical photographer at the back fence in a cherry picker) while, for example, your teenage daughter is sunbathing in the back garden, is going to cause alarm and distress and amount to harassment if it occurs more than once.

It would probably be better for both the public and those who want to indulge their hobby for the use to be specifically regulated and licenced in the future. The licence should include a theory test of the laws concerned and a practical exam conducted by approved flying clubs.
Click to expand...

Very similar to the process you go through to obtain a PFAW.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Very similar to the process you go through to obtain a PFAW.
Click to expand...

Yes, it needn't be an expensive process (or even necessarily a government administered test), approved clubs could run it and ensure those wanting to use drones had at least a basic legal knowledge, show they can actually control the device and have at least public liability insurance.

Even the enthusiasts should want to control the total amateurs who will eventually cause incidents which will likely see draconian restrictions or even prohibition of all non-professional drone flying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top