Shocking disregard for the law - London Flight

[m0j0]

It's a stunning video no doubt, but flying in or above crowds of people AND above government buildings in the main part of London is asking for trouble.

This is a statement I agree with. The statements regarding safety etc I'm not sure they are substantiated in any facts or history. Flight was ill advised and against every rule they have in the UK. It was probably also a huge mistake to post it. Dangerous maybe.... how dangerous is debatable. That is if you are one that uses history and probabilities to determine how dangerous an activity is..

E.g. Swimming with great white sharks with dead baby seals tied to you... Very dangerous..

Flying a 2016 state of the art quad over a persons head mmmeh!


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[m0j0]

Where on earth did you read that?!?

I didn't. It just seems like in my example nobody is saying jail the guy who is speeding in a 2500kg sedan.. There are some on here that think this guy should be thrown in jail for flying his drone over people because it's so dangerous.. So nobody said it, but it is implied by the comments. I agree the flight was a bad idea but throw the guy in jail. Wow!


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[maseman88]

1000 dollar fine or losing the drone is what should happen AT MOST!

 

[m0j0]

1000 dollar fine or losing the drone is what should happen AT MOST!

I think that's excessive but a fine seems appropriate.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[GoodnNuff]

Flying a 2016 state of the art quad over a persons head mmmeh!

Falling drone misses skier by inches - CNN Video

Drone Operator Fined After Almost Hitting NYC Pedestrian

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

11-month-old girl hit in head by crashing drone; FAA investigating

Drone strikes man near Bryant-Denny Stadium, police identify operator

Toddler has eyeball sliced in half during horrific drone accident

Drone Crash Caused More Injuries at ‘Great Bull Run’ Than Bulls

You should spend a few minutes educating yourself Mojo....

 

[sar104]

So operating a 1.5 kg UAV at 1000 ft is more dangerous than driving a 2500kg vehicle at 80mph. Ok.

If that is a serious question then the answer is that it depends on where you are doing either of those activities.

If the comparison is flying the drone in the middle of a helicopter airway, as in this case, versus driving the vehicle at 80 mph on an interstate or other major highway, then I would have thought that the answer is obviously yes - both more dangerous and more serious a violation of the law.

If the comparison were, instead, flying at 1000 ft in uncontrolled airspace versus driving at 80 mph on a residential street then the opposite would be true.

Is this issue really that hard to comprehend?

 

[sar104]

He flew a very very safe drone that has had millions of pounds and 10+ years of r&d.

Very true, but none of that technology is designed to avoid mid-air collisions if you fly around in a designated air route without ATC clearance and assistance.

 

[m0j0]

If that is a serious question then the answer is that it depends on where you are doing either of those activities.

If the comparison is flying the drone in the middle of a helicopter airway, as in this case, versus driving the vehicle at 80 mph on an interstate or other major highway, then I would have thought that the answer is obviously yes - both more dangerous and more serious a violation of the law.

I'm speaking of this particular flight and speeding. I'm saying this flight was not as dangerous as people are making it out to be.. Ill advised yes.. Dangerous to some degree, I guess, but throw the guy in jail. No!


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[sar104]

I'm speaking of this particular flight and speeding. I'm saying this flight was not as dangerous as people are making it out to be.. Ill advised yes.. Dangerous to some degree, I guess, but throw the guy in jail. No!

Jail sounds inappropriate, although the attitude of the subject in question is sufficiently inflammatory that I'm not surprised by some of the more extreme reactions.

But the flight was a danger to other air traffic in the area. Presumably you don't condone flying in airport approach and departure routes. This was equivalent to doing that - his flights over the Thames were in a designated, and busy, helicopter route. And if an aircraft were flown in that location without ATC clearance there would be serious consequences to the pilot.

In terms of flying over crowds and close to buildings, especially in crowded locations, the rules are intended to balance risk and consequence. The risk of a Phantom falling from the sky is low provided it is flown competently, but the risk of hitting someone if it does is high, and the consequence may be severe - hence the prohibition on flying over crowds and stadia.

 

[fly-catchers]

I wonder if DJI will add London as a no fly zone in a future firmware update? Rather like they did when that Phantom landed on the Whitehouse lawns..

 

[sar104]

I wonder if DJI will add London as a no fly zone in a future firmware update? Rather like they did when that Phantom landed on the Whitehouse lawns..

I'm sure that they would prefer not to do that, but flights such as the one under discussion here will probably increase the pressure on them to do so.

 

[m0j0]

Jail sounds inappropriate...... I'm not surprised by some of the more extreme reactions.

Neither am I.

Presumably you don't condone flying in airport approach and departure routes. This was equivalent to doing that - .

Flying in an airport approach is flying in an airport approach. I did not see that here.

The risk of a Phantom falling from the sky is low .

This is exactly what I was speaking of earlier in my example of speeding. Speeding on a roadway; with nobody on it; 6 lanes wide is far more dangerous than flying over a crowd of people. Far more people have been injured doing that then flying a quad over people or even flying in airspace reserved for a plane. That's all. I'm not saying it was right. But the outcry of he "could have hit someone on the ground" yeah I guess.




Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[sar104]

Neither am I.


Flying in an airport approach is flying in an airport approach. I did not see that here.

This is exactly what I was speaking of earlier in my example of speeding. Speeding on a roadway; with nobody on it; 6 lanes wide is far more dangerous than flying over a crowd of people. Far more people have been injured doing that then flying a quad over people or even flying in airspace reserved for a plane. That's all. I'm not saying it was right. But the outcry of he "could have hit someone on the ground" yeah I guess.

If you don't agree that flying in a designated air route is as foolish and risky as flying in a airport approach route then I don't know what else to say.

In the rest of your argument you have, in common with many here, conflated risk and frequency. Vehicle accidents are much more common than drone accidents because there is far more driving than drone flying. That says nothing about the relative risk without normalizing by activity level. Far fewer people are killed base jumping, or free soloing 5.12 climbs, than in vehicle accidents, but I doubt that anyone would disagree that those activities are much higher risk than driving.

 

[Shep]

You have to remember guys (those of you who will obey the guidelines set by the FAA) - there are idiots out there that still get drunk and get behind the wheel thinking it is "no big deal". Assuming that the only one(s) they are endangering is/are themselves and that they have the "right" to drive their own car. There will ALWAYS be the risk takers. Do I like the fact that I can't fly whenever and wherever I want? Do I like the FAA telling me what I can and can't do with my drone? No! But I accept the fact that with great privilege comes great responsibility. I look at a video like this and think, "Man that looks great!" There is even a little, "Wish we could all do that without risk or penalty." But the risks are there and the fines and penalties will be forthcoming.

It is obvious that folks are polarized on this issue and we are not going to change each other's mind. We stand accountable for our now decisions, but I don't want to lose the right to fly. And I don't want to be the reason that you lose the right to fly.

 

[m0j0]

If you don't agree that flying in a designated air route is as foolish and risky as flying in a airport approach route then I don't know what else to say..

Well no, I don't agree that flying 100 feet of the ground in "designated airspace"'is as dangerous or the same as flying 100 feet of the ground in an airport approach. Not the same in my mind at all. All in all I agree this was a bad idea. I'm just saying what he did isn't a hanging offense. Others may disagree.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[m0j0]

You should spend a few minutes educating yourself Mojo....

Those are all incredibly unfortunate accidents. They do absolutely nothing to change my opinion regarding the "true" danger of drone flight..

This is what real danger looks like!
Annual road fatalities - Publications - GOV.UK



Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[GoodnNuff]

Well no, I don't agree that flying 100 feet of the ground in "designated airspace"'is as dangerous or the same as flying 100 feet of the ground in an airport approach. Not the same in my mind at all. All in all I agree this was a bad idea. I'm just saying what he did isn't a hanging offense. Others may disagree.


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

Well to be real, people have spent 11 pages now defending his flight, but it was only this morning that one person called for him to be jailed...

We have pointed out that the flight was dangerous (you may or may not agree) and illegal, and that this could have an impact on how WE ALL fly in the future. We have been told to bugger off, leave the list, called Drone Police etc since this was posted, so to say that the controversy is just over whether he should be jailed or not is disingenuous.

 

[m0j0]

I'm done guys.. I appreciate your position.

Deuces


Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[GoodnNuff]

Those are all incredibly unfortunate accidents. They do absolutely nothing to change my opinion regarding the "true" danger of drone flight..

This is what real danger looks like!
Annual road fatalities - Publications - GOV.UK



Sent from my iPad using PhantomPilots mobile app

Again, you are presenting a logical fallacy.
The dangers of driving do nothing to lessen the potential dangers of drones over crowds.
I simply cannot understand your logic - one danger does not justify the other danger.

 

[maxwell smart]

I don't want the drone police on here to view any of my flytes. Some of you are so brain washed , that no one can change how you see this. If the pilot of a drone [Phantom] has a mishap ,then he will be dealt with. We don't need you self appointed drone police, to make up fines and charges. Go get a life will you.
I think we have a lot of wanta be cops here.
Shessh.