Shocking disregard for the law - London Flight

[b0dyr0ck2006]

Do you realize PaulJohn or JohnPaul or whoever the Youtube star is, was in violation of the other laws, and flying in restricted space?
Or you simply want to hear a collective sigh of relief from here that he wasn't in a Heli's flight path?
Why did the BBC run an article on this flight?

I was just correcting misunderstanding of information provided.

The bbc will run an article on an ant farting if they think it will get attention. The bbc as a whole is corrupt and manipulative to the public

 

[LuvMyTJ]

*Debating the topic is fine but lets keep it civil if you want this to remain open.
Please pass the chips... I want some of that dip.​

 

[Air Ontario]

Onion dip or Copenhagen? lol....

 

[LuvMyTJ]

Onion dip or Copenhagen? lol....

Whatever your up for, I think I saw both.

 

[snerd]

 

[DRR]

Pretty pathetic bro

Happy people do not feel the need to insult others.

I know for a fact the energy you put out reflects what you get out of life. The people on this forum bashing other users (including myself), I truly do feel sorry for y'all. I bet you have no idea just how apparent your frustration with your own life is. Perhaps not to everyone, but then again it's just basic psychology, and I consider myself pretty good at reading people

It really does makes me laugh [emoji1] But at the same time I feel bad for you, and hope you find what it is you're looking for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Im sorry you are a nut case.. not right in the head with that attitude. something went wrong with your upbringing not to have respect for the rules. The trouble is you are encouraging others to do the same thing which will lead to all drones being banned. Even Thailand has just banned drones in the country.

 

[ObiDon]

Admittedly, it is an amazing video and very well edited.

However, its possible the worst disregard for law / peoples safety I have ever seen. This video has made it into the London papers, so no doubt the CAA are aware. I hope the pilot (Paul John Raptis) is fined heavily...

That's some great video, and flying.

 

[ObiDon]

Pretty pathetic bro

Happy people do not feel the need to insult others.

I know for a fact the energy you put out reflects what you get out of life. The people on this forum bashing other users (including myself), I truly do feel sorry for y'all. I bet you have no idea just how apparent your frustration with your own life is. Perhaps not to everyone, but then again it's just basic psychology, and I consider myself pretty good at reading people

It really does makes me laugh [emoji1] But at the same time I feel bad for you, and hope you find what it is you're looking for.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great video PaulJohn, with wonderful shots blended masterfully. I've been to London many times, and my trips don't even come close to showcasing it like you did. Bravo! Keep up the great flying!

 

[p fandango]

Bravo! Keep up the great flying!

i wouldn't be surprised if his Phantom's already in a bag marked "Evidence" lol

 

[Zigs]

Ironically, it looks like the "safety" features on the Phantom 4 actually may make those who feel no risk to take even more. I wonder if that's what the manufacturers have in mind as they implement new technology. Just proves commonsense is intrinsic to the person, not the technology.

 

[dirkclod]

Im sorry you are a nut case.. not right in the head with that attitude. something went wrong with your upbringing not to have respect for the rules. The trouble is you are encouraging others to do the same thing which will lead to all drones being banned. Even Thailand has just banned drones in the country.

What part of

*Debating the topic is fine but lets keep it civil if you want this to remain open.

Did you miss ?

 

[Ramphex]

I wonder what's going to happen when one day regulations pass allowing advanced hardware drones, such as DJI products, to fly in areas as above filmed and over people gatherings. Will everyone still bash PaulJohn for being the worst person in the world? Good job Paul, excellent video and editing, definitely looks like a beautiful city to visit.

 

[4wd]

He was at least 1000 ft AGL when he flew over the tower

I don't think any airplanes or helicopters would be there though.
It's analogous to flying close up the side of a mountain or cliff.

The small form factor and lack of serious consequences if it failed - compared to a helicopter - is one of the main strengths of quads for video work.

If it fell and actually hit a person it would be akin to being struck by a stray football I suspect.
Not pleasant but unlikely to be fatal.
But the degree of control is much greater than an errant football.

I would think the risk to people or vehicles on the ground considerably less than being hit by an object falling or thrown from a tall building. It would clearly make more sense from a risk perspective to demolish all tall buildings.

 

[WLS350Z]

awesome video, at the guy who started the thread, grow a set of balls man. the way you made out its like he was flying headlong into people. lmao.
if you don't venture and try things you will never get footage like this. of course you need to be responsible, of course you need to take into account the surroundings, this guy did a fantastic job.
Jealous much?

 

[ROOF55NO]

Any way, overall good shot.

 

[landed]

Erm don't they call them the FAA where you are from? Remember, this is the UK, we have no need for a drone register here as it stands. People like the user in the video are blatantly breaking UK law which will have implications on all UK quad-copter hobbyists that abide by the law.

I think some are saying the law feels too tight

 

[dgd3]

A wonderful video, well done and well meant. I hope we see more from this photographer.
It's what aerial photography should be.
Much safer than helicopters and airplanes.

 

[AndyK]

This guy has great flying skills, even better editing skills and massive balls of steel. Good work chap.

 

[b0dyr0ck2006]

All those that keep shouting abouts laws, as yet there are no actually laws or regulations in place for drones in the uk. Only guidelines set out by the CAA. I repeat, guidelines:

For aircraft of 20 kg or less, these are referred to as a 'small unmanned aircraft', for which the requirements are a little less stringent and are covered within Articles 166 and 167.

Article 166

A person shall not cause or permit any article or animal (whether or not attached to a parachute) to be dropped from a small aircraft so as to endanger persons or property.
The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fly the aircraft if reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made.
The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must maintain direct, unaided visual contact with the aircraft sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions.
The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft which has a mass of more than 7 kg excluding its fuel but including any articles installed in or attached to the aircraft at the commencement of its flight, must not fly such an aircraft:
a) in Class A, C, D or E airspace unless the permission of the appropriate air traffic control unit has been obtained;
b) within an aerodrome traffic zone during the notified hours of watch of the air traffic unit (if any) at that aerodrome unless the permission of any such air traffic control unit has been obtained; or
c) at a height of more than 400 feet above the surface unless it is flying in airspace described in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) above and in accordance with the requirements for that airspace.

The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must not fly such an aircraft for the purposes of aerial work except in accordance with a permission granted by the CAA.
Small Unmanned Surveillance Aircraft

Article 167

The person in charge of a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not fly the aircraft in any of the circumstances described in paragraph (2) except in accordance with a permission issued by the CAA.
The circumstances referred to in paragraph (1) are:
a) over or within 150 metres of any congested area;
b) over or within 150 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons;
c) within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft; or
d) subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), within 50 metres of any person.

Subject to paragraph (4), during take-off or landing, a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not be flown within 30 metres of any person.
Paragraphs (2)(d) and (3) do not apply to the person in charge of the small unmanned surveillance aircraft or a person under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft.
In this article ‘a small unmanned surveillance aircraft’ means a small unmanned aircraft which is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition.
Summary


In essence therefore, provided the aircraft has a mass of 20 kg or less, the current regulations state:

The operation must not endanger anyone or anything.
The aircraft must be kept within the visual line of sight (normally taken to be within 500 m horizontally and 400 ft. vertically) of its remote pilot (i.e. the ‘person in charge’ of it). Operations beyond these distances must be approved by the CAA (the basic premise being for the operator to prove that he/she can do this safely).
Small unmanned aircraft (irrespective of their mass) that are being used for surveillance purposes are subject to tighter restrictions with regard to the minimum distances that you can fly near people or properties that are not under your control. If you wish to fly within these minima, permission is required from the CAA before operations are commenced.
CAA permission is also required for all flights that are being conducted for aerial work (i.e. in very simple terms, you are getting paid for doing it).
The 'remote pilot' has the responsibility for satisfying him/herself that the flight can be conducted safely.

Note: there is currently no 'protected' frequency band allocated for the control link between 'remote pilot' and aircraft. Some control frequencies are also 'shared' with other uses (such as Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, or a band for research and development systems). The small UAS manufacturers should be well aware of this, however it would be worthwhile checking with them to ensure that there are no other related precautions which need to be taken with their specific machine. You will need to ensure that any other equipment you routinely need to use does not adversely affect the flight of the aircraft.

Careful note should be taken that the collection of images of identifiable individuals, even inadvertently, when using surveillance cameras mounted on a small unmanned surveillance aircraft, will be subject to the Data Protection Act. As this Act contains requirements concerning the collection, storage and use of such images, Small Unmanned Aircraft operators should ensure that they are complying with any such applicable requirements or exemptions.


Further information about the Data Protection Act and the circumstances in which it applies can be obtained from the Information Commissioner’s Office.

 

[kphantom]

Admittedly, it is an amazing video and very well edited.

However, its possible the worst disregard for law / peoples safety I have ever seen. This video has made it into the London papers, so no doubt the CAA are aware. I hope the pilot (Paul John Raptis) is fined heavily...

Wow. Nice video but risky.