American mavic pilot grounded in Rome, Italy. Beware

[Vilco]

BAsically they caugth him flying his Mav over the Pantheon, fully no-fly zone, and brougth him to the police station. They not only fined him for flying in a NFZ but also sued him for having caused a false alarm, since there's also an anti-terrorism LEO deployement in Rome.

The journalist, as usual with drones, shows a total ignorance about the subject, talking about a "SIM"... like, yes, let's look at the contacts list and the texts he sent and received...

Roma, drone in volo sul Pantheon: la Procura indaga su tragitti e contatti contenuti nella sim

 

[BigAl07]

You can't cure stupid. Do stupid things get painful results.

 

[dewster]

Touristy sights are a general "no, no" especially famous landmarks. I guess it's going to be one expensive vacation.

 

[gnirtS]

Its happened several times in Rome and Venice. Plenty of press reports about it.
The guy deserved everything he gets.
Why is it a large percentage of drone owners think local laws dont apply to them?

 

[BigAl07]

Its happened several times in Rome and Venice. Plenty of press reports about it.
The guy deserved everything he gets.
Why is it a large percentage of drone owners think local laws dont apply to them?

Nailed it!!!

 

[danman999]

Its happened several times in Rome and Venice. Plenty of press reports about it.
The guy deserved everything he gets.
Why is it a large percentage of drone owners think local laws dont apply to them?

Tell me about it! I have been fighting those attitudes since I got a Mavic and joined this board months ago. There are some great people here, in fact the majority. However, there are also those bad apples who think their toy makes them special. Unfortunately, those few are often then ones who give a bad name to us all.

 

[Dw911]

Its happened several times in Rome and Venice. Plenty of press reports about it.
The guy deserved everything he gets.
Why is it a large percentage of drone owners think local laws dont apply to them?

Quite correct, They should throw the book at him.
That said it just go to show simply banning things just doesn't work, whilst i wouldn't and in sure most on here wouldn't dream off flying over somewhere like that, but for some a ban simply means nothing, They often just see it as a challenge.

What it needs - bearing in mind these sorts of places are actively seeking tourists, so its not like they are off limits -
Is instead of a ban, They allow people to fly drones, say for an hour early in the morning or early evening, They charge a fee equivalent to what you would pay to visit these sort of places on foot and you have to show you have suitable insurance.

Win win, its no longer a banned place to fly, so its no longer a challenge for small minded idiots who just want to brag and post up footage of flying in forbidden places - which is often what causes a back lash against the drone community -
Plus it gives income to the tourists attractions

 

[gnirtS]

Can't see that being popular. The irritating buzz of drones early morning disturbing people. The lack of insurance if/when they crash it. You'd still get idiots breaking either laws or simple common sense regarding altitude, separation from obstacles and so on. The only method would be approved, supervised sessions available at a fee which provided insurance.

Im not really sure it IS a minority of people causing the problems. From this board and in particular the facebook group there seem to be quite a sizeable percentage who knowingly and deliberately violate rules because "they paid for the mavic" and "dont want someone infringing my rights".
Its a problem and its result in tighter and tighter regulation - people cant be trusted to fly sensibly it seems.

 

[Dw911]

I want thinking every morning, say once a month, plus lots of these places are in the middle of no where and pretty much deserted till the tourists show up at nine, so noise is not really an issue at many sites.
I suggested proof of insurance- no insurance no fly- cos its less complicated and the fee i suggested would also cover someone there to keep an eye on things.
In the UK at least there would be plenty of captain Mannering types happy to do that job, probably for free, most of these tourists places have many people on site who fit that description - the National trust certainly do - ;-)

Maybe your right it wont make any difference, and your rught idiots will always be idiots and do as they please, but something's got to be done, especially as drones get cheaper and more people buy them.

There isnt any easy answers, but blanket bans everwhere clearly isnt working, banning stuff rarely works if ever, drugs are banned in most countries and we all know how well that works

 

[gnirtS]

National trust would probably just charge £50 to park the car then demand exclusive rights to use any footage obtained until eternity. Vile organisation.

 

[aringhof]

BAsically they caugth him flying his Mav over the Pantheon, fully no-fly zone, and brougth him to the police station. They not only fined him for flying in a NFZ but also sued him for having caused a false alarm, since there's also an anti-terrorism LEO deployement in Rome.

The journalist, as usual with drones, shows a total ignorance about the subject, talking about a "SIM"... like, yes, let's look at the contacts list and the texts he sent and received...

Roma, drone in volo sul Pantheon: la Procura indaga su tragitti e contatti contenuti nella sim

I assume they have signs posted saying “no drones”over the Pantheon or other locations.

 

[Vilco]

H

I assume they have signs posted saying “no drones”over the Pantheon or other locations.

I don't know, but this guy's been grounded for flying in a NFZ, not for flying over the Pantheon, so I don't see the need for signs, unless one plans to put signs all around all of the NFZs