Shocking disregard for the law - London Flight

[mark99]

What Law ? can you quote the Law and the Legislative act that was breeched .

 

[dewster]

It is a nice video. I think it's too late for the hobby being ruined. Strict regulation is coming. Cities will explicitly ban drones without permits. Manufacturers such as DJI have already implemented software to prevent flight in prohibited areas. We will be stuck with more YouTube videos of trees. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[tlhintoq]

Please educate rather than just bash. Which parts of this exactly were 'dangerous' in that they risked the well being of others? And what UK laws were broken, so that the rest of us know and don't repeat ourselves when visiting?

 

[sar104]

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.

The number of logical fallacies and incorrect assertions in your post is just remarkable - in fact it comprises virtually nothing else.

There are numerous places that he flew to make the video where helicopters likely would not be found. Are you actually arguing that because he probably was safe from mid-air collisions when right next to the Shard that he was safe over the Thames, or further from the tower? Or are you just trying to muddy the argument with an irrelevant observation? I only mentioned the Shard (1004 ft) because it was an altitude reference point that countered an argument previously made that he only flew at 100 ft. He was also well over the height of the London Eye (450 ft) over the Thames.

So a drone strike on an aircraft, for example a helicopter flying relatively slowly - let's say 80 - 100 knots - is not a problem? Why do you think that? Accident statistics indicate that bird strikes on small helicopters cause the highest proportion of damage of all categories of bird strike - mostly windshield failure - and bird impacts (soft, usually < 1 kg) are much less severe than the impact of a 1.5 kg rigid object. Do you think that a Phantom coming through the windshield at 80 knots is no problem for helicopter pilots?

You go on to argue that being hit by one would be like being hit by a stray football. How do you reach that conclusion? You are comparing a 0.4 kg rounded, compliant football with a 1.5 kg rigid plastic aircraft. Luckily there are few examples, yet.

Woman knocked unconscious by falling drone during Seattle's Pride parade

What relevance does the possibility and risk of being struck by an object thrown from a building have to this situation? Are you really arguing that because other risks exist, this one doesn't matter?

If nothing else, this thread illustrates several interesting schools of thought:

1. The ends justifies the means: his video is impressive so it doesn't matter who he endangered to make it;
2. Safety rules don't apply to me, because I know better;
3. I like what he did, so I'm going to make a bunch of ignorant, incorrect assertions and logical fallacies in an attempt to explain why his flying was safe;

and just a staggering lack of critical thinking.

 

[sar104]

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:

You have misunderstood the meaning of the work "guidance" in this context. It refers to guidance on the requirements. These are not optional.

CAP 722: Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace - Guidance

 

[b0dyr0ck2006]

It is a nice video. I think it's too late for the hobby being ruined. Strict regulation is coming. Cities will explicitly ban drones without permits. Manufacturers such as DJI have already implemented software to prevent flight in prohibited areas. We will be stuck with more YouTube videos of trees. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

Strict regulation is coming regardless of users actions, the authorities will not let drone owners fly without recourse or regulation. The same thing that applies to model aircraft hobbyists. Plus with the advent of Amazon drones and I suspect more companies in the future I am sure they are pushing for more control over the airspace for a monetary reason more than safety.

 

[b0dyr0ck2006]

You have misunderstood the meaning of the work "guidance" in this context. It refers to guidance on the requirements. These are not optional.

CAP 722: Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in UK Airspace - Guidance

They are still not laws or legislation. Yet.

Plus what you have linked is commercial.

 

[sar104]

Please educate rather than just bash. Which parts of this exactly were 'dangerous' in that they risked the well being of others? And what UK laws were broken, so that the rest of us know and don't repeat ourselves when visiting?

It's long and repetitive, but you should read the thread rather than asking for it to be summarized for you.

 

[Simon 41]

I agree it's a great video and what drones are for, if you weren't confident to fly in built up areas you wouldn't and a drone with GPS and collision avoidance does exactly what it say on the tin! no harm done and I am sure the Police wouldn't think twice about using one to try and locate criminals in built up areas!

 

[Dirty Bird]

The UK & EU bring millions of Quranderthal invaders into their midsts, all intent on the destruction of Western civilization. Hundreds of rapes, murders, acts of terrorism at the hands of the invaders, no-go zones & Sharia courts, and we get a cartoon about the dangers of drones. Talk about misplaced priorities....

RE: In the UK

 

[b0dyr0ck2006]

I agree it's a great video and what drones are for, if you weren't confident to fly in built up areas you wouldn't and a drone with GPS and collision avoidance does exactly what it say on the tin! no harm done and I am sure the Police wouldn't think twice about using one to try and locate criminals in built up areas!

The local police in fact have just purchased a few drones for use in that very way. Granted they are commercial grade systems (read £500,000 worth) but drones non the less

 

[sar104]

They are still not laws or legislation. Yet.

Plus what you have linked is commercial.

Even if you restrict the discussion to Articles 166 and 167, they are clearly stated as "requirements". They are not optional guidelines. CAA defined requirements are enforceable.

 

[Dirty Bird]

Meanwhile the kind & benevolent government flies armed Predator drones over it's civilian population. Of course this is for our safety....

Aside from any safety reasons................... the .gov says NO! Don't do it! That's all the reason you need. But keep disregarding the rules. When they finally do educate you, it's going to cost a pretty penny! The fines are killer!

 

[sar104]

Meanwhile the kind & benevolent government flies armed Predator drones over it's civilian population. Of course this is for our safety....

In busy air lanes and close around city buildings? I had no idea that they did that.

 

[articandy]

Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[articandy]

Here you go!!


Sent from my iPhone using PhantomPilots mobile app

 

[GoodnNuff]

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:

Bwahahaha! One page back you were demanding that I stick to "facts" and then you post this fiction?

LOL


fined £1,800 at Westminster Magistrates' Court.
Man fined after flying drones over Premier League stadiums - BBC News

Mr Brunner, from Clapton, was fined £1,225 by Westminster magistrates after admitting three offences under the Air Navigation Order
Film-maker 'didn't know' flying drone over Hyde Park was a crime

A 42-year-old man from Nottingham, according to the Metropolitan Police, has become the first person in the UK to be successfully prosecuted and convicted on drone-related charges.
UK hands down first ever conviction for illegal drone flying

Those non laws and non regulations cost these guys some $, and at least one had is drone confiscated and is banned from owning one for the next several years. Pretty powerful imaginary laws, eh?

 

[sar104]

The local police in fact have just purchased a few drones for use in that very way. Granted they are commercial grade systems (read £500,000 worth) but drones non the less

And presumably they will follow all applicable requirements for their operation, such as pilot certifications and getting ATC clearance and coordination when flying in controlled airspace. If they don't then they will also be in breach of operating requirements. But until that happens you are simply deflecting again with another irrelevant, off-topic observation.

 

[DCDrone]

The comments frighten me even more than the video. Flights like this, and the publicizing of them, is what puts our hobby at risk - more than any actual damages or injuries. The public's perception is what drives restrictive legislation. I'll add that our hobby has a lot of arrogant flyers who think they have a lot more control over their craft than they really do. They remind me of street racers. They have incredible skill... until it fails them. Usually they aren't the ones who suffer.

 

[Dan Torchio]

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...

Sorry, but these are legal devices that were intended just for this. If he has no liability insurance then he is an idiot. Driving cars, drunk drivers, texting and driving, etc, all daily risks. Perhaps licensing with a field test to see if you can control these might help.