French teenager with UAV charged with endangering lives

And so it begins...the drone legal wars, for real. I too watched the video. The kid has talent and starts 2 busineses at the tender age of 18. I can't speak for the French, but in the US (depending on state) this would not rise to the charge of "reckless endangerment". You must show the blatant willfull disregard for public safety and in many cases intent to be reckless. Having a permit issued from the local authority would have saved some heartache.
 
ianwood said:
Finally got to watch the video. I don't get it. I see nothing wrong with it. I don't see any undue risks being taken. It looks like he had control over his machine at all times and wasn't flying aggressively. He kept a reasonable distance above crowds.

What I see makes me want to go back to France to appreciate the architecture! And if I went, I'd bring my P2 and do EXACTLY the same thing! They shouldn't be punishing this kid. They should be giving him an award for doing a better job of promoting his city than any tourist board ever has! Good for him!

People saying it was risky and he shouldn't have done it sound just like the politicians trying to be authoritative on "drones". This is what the Phantom was made to do! With reasonable precautions, there is no reason why this type of filming should be prevented.

People drive cars in built-up areas and at least here in the US, you can be blind, limbless and and in a coma and probably still pass the driving test. So if a 16 year old girl can legally sit behind the wheel of a 4 ton death wagon from hell in an area chock full of people, then I should be able to film architecture with a 2kg "drone" without some politician using me as an example for their own personal gain.

I get what you are saying but the girl has (in theory) passed a test of competence and by doing so has permission to drive on the public highway and has to carry insurance (well, you do in the UK at any rate). If the lad who did the video had asked permission, done a bit of a risk assessment and got some insurance they might have said "yes" - he could have offered the video to the tourist office: great publicity for his business.

I want to fly in a local town park. It's legal for the UK (it's big enough that in the middle I'm more than 150m from a congested area) but it's not public land per se. I want to get some unique shots of the town from above in this central position. I could have just done it, but being a boring old fart I asked permission. I did a nice email to the town clerk, showed him a simple risk assessment (failsafe modes, gps control, no aerobatics, that sort of thing), showed him I had £5M of liability insurance, would only fly in off-peak times to minimise risk to joe public and offered to show him the aircraft. He actually put it to the town council who said... yes! The town clerk is now desperate for the weather to clear because he wants to come and have a go! So I've now got carte blanche to fly somewhere a bit different and get unique shots of my home town I couldn't have got legally. So I can share any pics and videos around without worrying about getting bitten on the arse. Plus they now know me and that I'm sensible and I reckon I could get permission to fly from other council-owned land now. It's all win.

But... I'm not 18 - and I know that makes a big difference to how you think about stuff. As I said above, I don't think it's right to charge him with endangering life, but he did take risks and he didn't have permission...
 
Jre said:
ianwood said:
Finally got to watch the video. I don't get it. I see nothing wrong with it. I don't see any undue risks being taken. It looks like he had control over his machine at all times and wasn't flying aggressively. He kept a reasonable distance above crowds.

What I see makes me want to go back to France to appreciate the architecture! And if I went, I'd bring my P2 and do EXACTLY the same thing! They shouldn't be punishing this kid. They should be giving him an award for doing a better job of promoting his city than any tourist board ever has! Good for him!

People saying it was risky and he shouldn't have done it sound just like the politicians trying to be authoritative on "drones". This is what the Phantom was made to do! With reasonable precautions, there is no reason why this type of filming should be prevented.

People drive cars in built-up areas and at least here in the US, you can be blind, limbless and and in a coma and probably still pass the driving test. So if a 16 year old girl can legally sit behind the wheel of a 4 ton death wagon from hell in an area chock full of people, then I should be able to film architecture with a 2kg "drone" without some politician using me as an example for their own personal gain.

+1

+2
 
Pull_Up said:
I get what you are saying but the girl has (in theory) passed a test of competence and by doing so has permission to drive on the public highway and has to carry insurance (well, you do in the UK at any rate). If the lad who did the video had asked permission, done a bit of a risk assessment and got some insurance they might have said "yes" - he could have offered the video to the tourist office: great publicity for his business.

I want to fly in a local town park. It's legal for the UK (it's big enough that in the middle I'm more than 150m from a congested area) but it's not public land per se. I want to get some unique shots of the town from above in this central position. I could have just done it, but being a boring old fart I asked permission. I did a nice email to the town clerk, showed him a simple risk assessment (failsafe modes, gps control, no aerobatics, that sort of thing), showed him I had £5M of liability insurance, would only fly in off-peak times to minimise risk to joe public and offered to show him the aircraft. He actually put it to the town council who said... yes! The town clerk is now desperate for the weather to clear because he wants to come and have a go! So I've now got carte blanche to fly somewhere a bit different and get unique shots of my home town I couldn't have got legally. So I can share any pics and videos around without worrying about getting bitten on the arse. Plus they now know me and that I'm sensible and I reckon I could get permission to fly from other council-owned land now. It's all win.

But... I'm not 18 - and I know that makes a big difference to how you think about stuff. As I said above, I don't think it's right to charge him with endangering life, but he did take risks and he didn't have permission...

I think you're approach is the right one where possible. Proactively demonstrating your attention to safety is always a good idea. But, in larger metropolitan areas getting permission is nigh impossible. And while liability insurance does help with a bad outcome and is obviously good for your personal protection, it has no influence on the actual safety.

As for our fictitious teenager, you're giving her much too much credit for passing her test!

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtP-S9OS0o0[/youtube]
 
"Drone Youth" I love it. Leave it to the media to immediately stamp a title like that on someone. Hmmm... Let's find a pigeonhole for this guy. Imbeciles...

-slinger[/quote]

I guess that makes us DRONE SENIORS.??...

MOOSE
 
ianwood said:
I think you're approach is the right one where possible. Proactively demonstrating your attention to safety is always a good idea. But, in larger metropolitan areas getting permission is nigh impossible. And while liability insurance does help with a bad outcome and is obviously good for your personal protection, it has no influence on the actual safety.

No, no influence on the safety at all, but it makes the officials a little more relaxed that they won't get dragged into a law suit because the pilot has no assets and isn't worth suing... It's always going to be difficult to get permission in heavily built-up areas, yes - but perhaps that's for good reason? I get the aesthetic reason for doing it, but if people just take it upon themselves to do it irrespective then it's hardly going to help our cause that these things are safe if handled properly, most of us are responsible, we are doing it to get a great new perspective on the surroundings, etc. Every one incident like this just adds to the negative stereotype in peoples' minds (and the minds of officials).
 
Pull_Up said:
There is precedent for forming a "virtual" flying club with rules and codes to which members agree to adhere. fpvuk.org in the UK is one such, and its clear rules and good name have helped to get the UK CAA to relax further the limits of its exemption for immersive FPV pilots who abide by the strict guidelines.

Perhaps we need a more general, worldwide virtual flying club for general recreational UAV pilots who aren't at the bleeding edge and do want to act and be seen to act with responsibility.

Trouble is real life committees are bad enough, let alone trying to run a worldwide virtual one...
Yes, I agree. It would be difficult to draw up a worldwide Code of Conduct but of course many parts of it would transferable between states. There is sometimes no need to re-invent the wheel and we are lucky here in the UK to have FPVUK.org (not least because it provides public liability insurance at a reasonable price) so we already have a structure with an existing membership that could be used. I am a member but do not know who is actively involved in it other than the main guy seems to be also a DJI dealer. I will get in touch and suggest that we find a lawyer who is a Phantom/drone pilot who could help draw up a Code.

I think it is prudent when flying in high profile built up areas to carry a written risk assessment and a copy of your PLI (I think this may be already mandatory in some parts of the US). The alternative is to seek permission as you have done but I think it may be hard to obtain a blanket approval for all parts of your town/city. If approval is sought it would help enormously if we could also hand over a copy of a Code of Conduct in addition to our insurance details. I plan to take some footage of the Liver buildings in the center of Liverpool and my plan is to wait a bit for longer days and then get up early and do it before the office workers arrive in the morning.

I agree with others on here that if we do nothing, it is just a matter of time until there is an accident and our current freedom will be curtailed.
 
This is wrong - isn't it in relation to UK CAA regs?
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    257.3 KB · Views: 386
I don't know whether they're right about the UK CAA regs but the article has the guy's name back to front and also has the wrong name for 'Le Républicain' newspaper.

I also doubt very much that the journalist who wrote the Times article ever spoke to the 'prosecution service' in Nancy, but then of course the first rule of journalism is, "Never let the truth get in the way of a good story"
 
Pull_Up said:
It's always going to be difficult to get permission in heavily built-up areas, yes - but perhaps that's for good reason? I get the aesthetic reason for doing it, but if people just take it upon themselves to do it irrespective then it's hardly going to help our cause that these things are safe if handled properly, most of us are responsible, we are doing it to get a great new perspective on the surroundings, etc. Every one incident like this just adds to the negative stereotype in peoples' minds (and the minds of officials).

What's the good reason for not flying in built-up areas?

I've never encountered a negative reaction to using the Phantom in any area. Most people are naturally curious and amused by it. Others pay it no attention. All the negativity seems to come purely from the press and the politicians. And they are capitalizing on uninformed, irrational fear. All these news reports sound so sinister, you'd think it was an Al Qaeda terror plot until you see it was some kid goofing around where no one was hurt let alone inconvenienced. Where's the harm in that?

I stand by flying in built-up areas. Just because one person may do it irresponsibly doesn't mean I should stop if I am doing it with awareness for safety and taking reasonable precautions. We can let the stigma cast a cloud over us and limit our activities until all the fun is sucked out of it or we can demonstrate to people first-hand that these things are fun and interesting, can be used responsibly in most places and all the demonizing BS is just that.

The day someone gets killed by a drone, maybe I'll eat my words but I really think this whole thing is blown so far out of proportion that it is farcical. We have so many more real dangers and issues to be concerned about in the every day world that "drones" should really be way way down the priority list.
 
ianwood,

I respectfully disagree with you. We live in a world of where public "perception is reality." No question that the smallest incident gains media attention. Frankly, I don't what this French kid did or didn't do, but it's clear that irresponsible flying will accelerate the demise of our hobby. The NYC incident and documented chasing of wildlife are clear indications of what some pilots are irresponsibly willing to do.

Flying over people in populated urban areas is NOT cool. Your "awareness for safety and taking reasonable precautions" won't help when you lose control do to a malfunction or radio interference issue. We all know it happens - it's all documented. In any event, I too suspect that no one will be killed, probably not even injured, by the exaggerated public perception will be the equivalent of reckless endangerment.

I simply am of the opinion that we need to be mindful of public opinion and that we should be prudent in choosing where and how we fly.
 
Moose said:
"Drone Youth" I love it. Leave it to the media to immediately stamp a title like that on someone. Hmmm... Let's find a pigeonhole for this guy. Imbeciles...

-slinger

I guess that makes us DRONE SENIORS.??...

MOOSE[/quote]


:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
mem_ny said:
ianwood,

I respectfully disagree with you. We live in a world of where public "perception is reality." No question that the smallest incident gains media attention. Frankly, I don't what this French kid did or didn't do, but it's clear that irresponsible flying will accelerate the demise of our hobby. The NYC incident and documented chasing of wildlife are clear indications of what some pilots are irresponsibly willing to do.

Flying over people in populated urban areas is NOT cool. Your "awareness for safety and taking reasonable precautions" won't help when you lose control do to a malfunction or radio interference issue. We all know it happens - it's all documented. In any event, I too suspect that no one will be killed, probably not even injured, by the exaggerated public perception will be the equivalent of reckless endangerment.

I simply am of the opinion that we need to be mindful of public opinion and that we should be prudent in choosing where and how we fly.

1) This kid didn´t do irresponsible flying, check his video, please
2) Consider the worst case scenario: the drone crashes and injures a child, for example; ok, the owner must be accounted for that, no doubt
3) What about having hundreds of planes flying over you every day, in a city like Lisbon, for example, where you have the local airport in the middle of a 1,5 million people populated city center? It is legal, isn't it? But is it not far more dangerous? Ok, airplane pilots are professional, drone pilots are not. But let us not compare what is not comparable, then!

I'm ok with having to have a license to fly drones. Everyone doing so, should have to have one, then, don´t you agree?
 
I kinda agree with the not so irresponsible side of this one. Any remote control aircraft has a risk of fly away. At the same time I fully understand that drones such as ours are very easy to launch and fly just about anywhere. I'm not sure a license would do anything to safeguard against irresponsible flying. It doesn't appear to do much for irresponsible driving. As for mandating insurance? I would love to see any actuarial loss data.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk
 
Moose said:
"Drone Youth" I love it. Leave it to the media to immediately stamp a title like that on someone. Hmmm... Let's find a pigeonhole for this guy. Imbeciles...

So, when the local 'media' finds me out flying in the local park (or wherever), my title will be "Drone Senior".

What then, will they call all the rest of you between "youth" and "seniors"? Drone "miscreants"? :roll:
 
I don't think we should have irresponsible flying, but I also don't think things should be trumped into irresponsible flying if it is not. I don't under stand the argument about "chasing wildlife". I've seen numerous videos on PBS or National Geographic where helicopter were obviously "chasing" herds of wildlife during filming. How is that any less harassing? (Especially when you can't really even hear a phantom up at 200 feet. Or maybe that's just me because I'm old...)
 
ianwood said:
What's the good reason for not flying in built-up areas?
Well for me, in my jurisdiction, it's because it's against the law. Same as it would be to fly a microlight aircraft over a built-up area. It's more to do with public safety because we can currently fly without having to have any approval, certification or licencing. I'm happy to sacrifice flying over cities for relative freedom elsewhere and the availability of a legal route to using UAVs commercially in the UK should I wish to.

Note the ban on flying over or within 150m of a congested area in the UK only applies to UAVs equipped with cameras, I suspect because they encourage potentially more risky flying To get cool shots and the chance of encountering many more people either through pilot error or equipment failure.

You always have the chance to apply to the CAA for a specific permission, although you would still need to be in control of any building you get closer than 50m to.
 
mem_ny said:
ianwood,

I respectfully disagree with you. We live in a world of where public "perception is reality." No question that the smallest incident gains media attention. Frankly, I don't what this French kid did or didn't do, but it's clear that irresponsible flying will accelerate the demise of our hobby. The NYC incident and documented chasing of wildlife are clear indications of what some pilots are irresponsibly willing to do.

Flying over people in populated urban areas is NOT cool. Your "awareness for safety and taking reasonable precautions" won't help when you lose control do to a malfunction or radio interference issue. We all know it happens - it's all documented. In any event, I too suspect that no one will be killed, probably not even injured, by the exaggerated public perception will be the equivalent of reckless endangerment.

I simply am of the opinion that we need to be mindful of public opinion and that we should be prudent in choosing where and how we fly.

By allowing this perception to dictate how you fly even when you know that the likelihood of injury to anyone is significantly low, you are perpetuating that perception and allowing it to become a reality. I'd rather fight the stigma. How else will the public know that the media is demonizing drones unless they can see us using them in a benign and safe manner. For every one knucklehead out there flying his drone recklessly, there should be 10 of us doing it responsibly where people can see it. Hopefully more. Let the politicians and media lead by fear but we need to lead by example.

Legality, Pull_Up, I agree. Not much to be done there. Breaking the law is stupid even if the law is too. At some point though, as is happening here in the US, the laws will need to challenged in a constructive but effective manner.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
143,066
Messages
1,467,354
Members
104,933
Latest member
mactechnic