YouTuber Droner NeverMindYourOwn fined in 600 Euro for flying a drone in Spain!!

[roflyer]

If you don't think this is dangerous, I have no idea what to say to talk any sense into you.

I guess a lot of people have little appreciation for the risks involved in aviation, nor for what level of confidence should be able to be placed in an aircraft before flying it over built up areas.

It's extremely unhelpful to conflate drone paranoia with safe flying.

Indeed it's better you say nothing... I fly safely, but won't be hypocritical saying I never broke any rules... you can be... It's a shame that our hobby is turning into a criminal activity by idiots who are truly reckless, superprotective people and politicians that make stupid laws and rules... and compares a 750g quad to a manned aircraft....

Peace....

 

[AnzacJack]

Interesting that this is in the same area as this post.
Can anyone identify this idiot?

 

[roflyer]

Interesting that this is in the same area as this post.
Can anyone identify this idiot?

 

[philh24]

I think there might be another fine on its way then,hopefully the maximum that is allowed and jail time. This guy deserves to be made an example of .
He obviously likes flying near airports and isn't to far from Heathrow,makes you wonder that drone that was sighted there a few weeks back.

 

[BorisTheSpider]

Just to clarify since the thread drifted a bit, the guy who received a fine for flying in the Teide national park, and who has also posted video of him flying around the cathedral square over people etc is not the same person as the one flying near the airport.

 

[philh24]

Just to clarify since the thread drifted a bit, the guy who received a fine for flying in the Teide national park, and who has also posted video of him flying around the cathedral square over people etc is not the same person as the one flying near the airport.

I think it drifted a bit because the bloke who was flying over the church has put a new video about the antics of the bloke at the airport.

 

[roflyer]

His defense.... he have a point!

 

[philh24]

Good video,and a well put together letter.

 

[pierce]

The guy is a moron, and all he ever seems to do is break the law and complain about the rules. He seems to have very little knowledge or education about flying, but an opinion about everything - a typical loudmouth.

Hopefully he will be fined and prosecuted further in future for many of the other stupid things he's done here with drones, including flying around a busy square with a historic cathedral, posting videos of 5km+ "distance record" attempts and more I can't think of right now.

If you're not going to respect the rules in someone else's country, keep the **** away, and I say that as an immigrant in Spain.

He's not a moron and he already done a lot more in defense of the drone comunity then everybody that i know have done. He's far far away from beeing an offender he's a lot educational instead.

 

[BorisTheSpider]

He's not a moron and he already done a lot more in defense of the drone comunity then everybody that i know have done. He's far far away from beeing an offender he's a lot educational instead.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I put it to you that regularly publishing videos of yourself breaking the law by flying without LOS, flying over congested areas, in national parks where such flying is prohibited, and opinionated loudmouthed bluster such as his latest video where he presumes to offer a reduced fine when he's been caught bang-to-rights breaking the law are hardly the actions of someone promoting or improving the public image of an activity.

 

[Kestrel]

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I put it to you that regularly publishing videos of yourself breaking the law by flying without LOS, flying over congested areas, in national parks where such flying is prohibited, and opinionated loudmouthed bluster such as his latest video where he presumes to offer a reduced fine when he's been caught bang-to-rights breaking the law are hardly the actions of someone promoting or improving the public image of an activity.

And he claims to do weeks of research on the places he flies, yet he flies in a restricted area which lands him a fine..

 

[motard]

Why in Spain they only have laws in Spanish? We in Portugal have everything translated to English, to help tourists and others. We want tourists, Spain don't. They loose. Google translate isn't perfect, he tried.

 

[pierce]

Well... i believe the world should follow Canadá rules!!!
Better this way, Lets finish the drone thing. Say "Amen" to all the nonsense rules, vote them! Dont fight for your interests, obey. Amen! See you in church!

 

[pierce]

Well... i believe the world should follow Canadá rules!!!
Better this way, Lets finish the drone thing. Say "Amen" to all the nonsense rules, vote them! Dont fight for your interests, obey. Amen! See you in church!

Gran teide luxury Helicopter Tour

 

[roflyer]

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I put it to you that regularly publishing videos of yourself breaking the law by flying without LOS, flying over congested areas, in national parks where such flying is prohibited, and opinionated loudmouthed bluster such as his latest video where he presumes to offer a reduced fine when he's been caught bang-to-rights breaking the law are hardly the actions of someone promoting or improving the public image of an activity.

Please don't be an hipocritical.... I don't know any pilots that have 100% of the time piloted with LOS!!!! You will be the very first that never looked at your phone or tablet while flying!! Congratulations you are an example! (of people who agree blindly with stupid rules and don't have any common sense)

 

[Johnny]

I have seen a lot and i mean it, lots and lots of videos and photos on youtube and internet generaly, of people flying over very populates areas, close to airports,capital cities no fly zones and whatever they are not suposed to be doing, some of the fotages are cool ok i get that but i think its just a matter of time for someone to **** it in a big way and everyone will pay the price even the ones trying to fly it as legally and safely as possible, lets remember its a drone thats os being sold to the public in general anyone with f*** 1000 bucks can get one with zero knowledge about it open the **** box fly the **** in the middle of new york drop it in someones head from 200m and its done it will make the news next day more rules and laws

 

[philh24]

Personally I think somebody somewhere is just waiting for an accident to happen here in the UK. I think if somebody is injured or property is damaged in anyway and they haven't been flying by the rules we are finished. I think everybody has to disobey the rules at some point by looking at the screen,when the battery gets low or warning sounds from your phone/ipad you automatically look.
I think that's what Peter is trying to get across, most of the rules are just common sense unfortunately not everybody uses it or even has any.
I do like some of the guys videos and I think if he hadn't put that one on where he was told to stop flying this thread wouldn't be here and he wouldn't have been fined.
I think he put it on you tube to warn people about flying there but it was misinterpreted.

 

[Stuart Wood]

It's a fair point. I haven't watched Casey's videos but if he also flies cheap, uncertified consumer electronics over built up areas then he's also an idiot.

It still amazes me the condition of some of the cars that are allowed on the road, and some that are not allowed but are still there never the less! This needs some perspective, and not simply to vilify the pilots. There are plenty of idiots out there who do stupid things that are far more consequential, that are tolerated, and even supported. Mandatory insurance may be the way to go.

 

[BorisTheSpider]

Please don't be an hipocritical.... I don't know any pilots tha have 100% of the time piloted with LOS!!!! You will be the very first that never looked at your phone or tablet while flying!! Congratulations you are an example! (of people who agree blindly with stupid rules and don't have any common sense)

Looking at your phone screen is not flying without LOS.

Let's compare with a few regulations for manned aircraft.

The rules say, for example, that below minimums an aircraft must maintain visual reference with the runway. Does that mean the pilot can't glance at the airspeed and thrust ?

The rules say that a visual approach is a maneuver conducted by visual reference to terrain. Does that mean if a guy accepts a visual from downwind he has to fly the next 5 minutes without looking inside at all, not even at the airspeed or thrust set? Can he look inside to complete the checklist?

The minimums for a "visual" approach are, among other things, 800M of visibility - are you &%£#ing kidding me? If you think anyone is going around doing visual approaches in 800M, well...

When you're flying VFR, you are responsible for collision avoidance by looking out of the window. Does that mean you are prohibited from looking at your charts in order to navigate? Are you allowed to look at your fuel gauges?

My point is exactly that we don't need people to agree blindly with stupid rules.

Rules almost always require a little bit of interpretation. I doubt a court would find that the intention of the LOS rule for UAVs was to prevent you looking at your telemetry or camera feed. The intention was, IMO, quite clear - that you maintain sufficient visual reference to avoid traffic.

So yeah, looking at your phone, whilst still able to maintain sufficient visual reference with your drone to see traffic near it, is not flying without LOS.

Flying with goggles on is flying without LOS. Flying 5km away, or in the middle of a town whilst hiding from a nearby police station with your goggles on..... You get the idea.

 

[roflyer]

Looking at your phone screen is not flying without LOS.

Let's compare with a few regulations for manned aircraft.

The rules say, for example, that below minimums an aircraft must maintain visual reference with the runway. Does that mean the pilot can't glance at the airspeed and thrust ?

The rules say that a visual approach is a maneuver conducted by visual reference to terrain. Does that mean if a guy accepts a visual from downwind he has to fly the next 5 minutes without looking inside at all, not even at the airspeed or thrust set? Can he look inside to complete the checklist?

The minimums for a "visual" approach are, among other things, 800M of visibility - are you &%£#ing kidding me? If you think anyone is going around doing visual approaches in 800M, well...

When you're flying VFR, you are responsible for collision avoidance by looking out of the window. Does that mean you are prohibited from looking at your charts in order to navigate? Are you allowed to look at your fuel gauges?

My point is exactly that we don't need people to agree blindly with stupid rules.

Rules almost always require a little bit of interpretation. I doubt a court would find that the intention of the LOS rule for UAVs was to prevent you looking at your telemetry or camera feed. The intention was, IMO, quite clear - that you maintain sufficient visual reference to avoid traffic.

So yeah, looking at your phone, whilst still able to maintain sufficient visual reference with your drone to see traffic near it, is not flying without LOS.

Flying with goggles on is flying without LOS. Flying 5km away, or in the middle of a town whilst hiding from a nearby police station with your goggles on..... You get the idea.

Agreed... Peace!!!