Another piece on Watchdog tonight about drones, an 18 month old child suffered life changing injuries after their car was hit by a drone. Starts at 7.30, BBC1
Agreed,Just watched it. It does seem like the old Lynne Faulds Woods days of watchdog. Like all these injuries the guy flying was being a cock. He hit a tree the flew his drone into a baby.. Tit. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-34936739
I do think stiffer penalties are needed for people who do that sort of thing
Matthew I mainly agree, but even a little one (drone) can damage an eye ... they are inherently a high-risk device (whirling blades, lightweight, prone to gusts of air and obstacles ...).
Quite, it's that amplification issue ...Flying models have always been risky, they've been around for most a lifetime, starting in the 1940's, people have been seriously injured and killed from being hit by fixed wing and helicopter models, anyone familiar with the hobby should know this no matter what they fly, drones may be new technology but the same problems exist and now they''re more accessible the issues that plagued flying models in the past are being amplified by this fact.
My wife did a 10k mud run type thing in a local forest park on Sunday and there was a guy there filming it with a Phantom. I watched him hover it about 5 meters off the ground in front of the start line and them film 750 runners run under it. And lots of close up stuff around the obstacle course in the last 1km of the race. Horrific to think now what could have happened if this had came down
https://www.facebook.com/e2sai/?fref=ts
Just like anything else that people use or play about with - footballs, darts, paper aeroplanes, bits of stickMatthew I mainly agree, but even a little one (drone) can damage an eye ... they are inherently a high-risk device (whirling blades, lightweight, prone to gusts of air and obstacles ...).
My wife did a 10k mud run type thing in a local forest park on Sunday and there was a guy there filming it with a Phantom. I watched him hover it about 5 meters off the ground in front of the start line and them film 750 runners run under it. And lots of close up stuff around the obstacle course in the last 1km of the race. Horrific to think now what could have happened if this had came down
https://www.facebook.com/e2sai/?fref=ts
I'd love to hear his explanation on why he thought that was legal.
Interestingly, I went for a bird of prey experience day last Sunday - had fabulous fun learning about and flying falcons and hawks. Anyway, one of the tutors used a drone to give one of the falcons something to chase - great to watch - and was at great lengths beforehand to explain the rules of using the drone and make the point that he had completed the CAA course.
Of the dozen people there only two of us were even aware that there were rules and one of the "unaware" even had a small quad-copter himself.
Totally illegal. There is no way those people underneath him were under his control.
Not sure if a link to the CAA's page on drones has been posted yet, if so, I think it bears repeating! http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1995&pagetype=90
The link at the end seems to suggest that permissions can cover flying over " people or properties (vehicles, vessels or structures) that are not under your control " http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1995&pagetype=90&pageid=16006
I assumed that too but I could be wrong. He only seems to have a facebook page, cand find a web site where he might list the CAA Permissions. As I said before, I think It is something that a lot of people know nothing about. I would never have heard of the rules and regulations if I hadn't geen a member of this forum.Indeed. I have made the assumption (maybe erroneously) from the description that this guy does not hold a CAA permission.
Interesting news from Japan. Seems they're looking at drones as an alternative to fixed-camera CCTV.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/15/japan_lowflying_drone_security_camera/
Just stumbled across this thread, I've got a little quad and was looking to get a phantom to enhance both photography and building business doing inspections of chimneys etc. soon found out the rules for commercial use are over the top stupid. I was looking forward to getting licenced and doing a training course but decided it's just too regulated
Just stumbled across this thread, I've got a little quad and was looking to get a phantom to enhance both photography and building business doing inspections of chimneys etc. soon found out the rules for commercial use are over the top stupid. I was looking forward to getting licenced and doing a training course but decided it's just too regulated
I'd agree with that, I'd even agree to mandatory training for commercial useMy views have got harder as the year has progressed. I'd be for mandatory registration of drones.
Seems crazy there is NO legislation if you just buy one from a shop
I've gotten quite into drones over the last year, more for fun than anything to do with photography. Somehow I've ended to doing a little beta-testing and publicity for a couple of manufacturers - not really sure how that happened but it's been fun (even if one drone has now failed spectacularly). Up until now I've just has small drones, but the new GoPro Karma will probably change this when it's released. The initial footage from it looks in a different league to similar drones.
https://gopro.com/news/karma-is-coming-in-2016
Not a lot of details out about this drone but the rumour is a cost of £500 - £1000 so DJI money. I have a photography project that I'd like to start around March and if the footage shown from this drone is achievable then it will be perfect.
There is legislation. I'd suggest it evidently needs to be better publicised with purchase though if you think there isn't. Heres a starting point should you wish to delve deeper https://www.caa.co.uk/drones/
Sorry, I meant no registration requirement, therefore no real comeback on irresponsible owners unless caught in the act so to speak
I was wanting to use one for chimney/roof inspections, as well as the obvious benefits for photography but it's a non starter for me
True, but there is no registration for models below certain weight either. Not saying I wouldn't support it, but it may be difficult to enforce. Unless you have the drone even if registered how do you enforce
If a quad causes harm or damage, at least if registered the authorities have somewhere to start if the user legs it as the purchasers identity would be known. But unless their is a registration system for uav like cars where you must notify dvla at owner change it will be pointless, and I can't see that happening due to prohibitive costs
There's a video on YouTube of a guy flying his quad beside Tay rail bridge in Dundee, then right across the flight path of the airport. In another one of his vids, he crashes into a tree and tells he is the owner of a local computer business and intends to supply them. I've not seen him in the local paper getting charged and it's hard to see a worse example of thumbing your nose at the law, or ignorance of it as he may not know
A few high profile prosecutions might help making people aware and stop all the "killer drone" drama
A few weeks ago, I was in PCWCurrys and there was a display of assorted drones. I asked one of the sales bods what rules covered their use and he told me that you could just fly them. I dare say that there are guidelines in the boxes but how many people read beyond the quick start guide?
Did none of you see the skier being hit by a drone in the slalom in Madonna earlier? That was VERY close.
A few weeks ago, I was in PCWCurrys and there was a display of assorted drones. I asked one of the sales bods what rules covered their use and he told me that you could just fly them. I dare say that there are guidelines in the boxes but how many people read beyond the quick start guide?