DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Clueless, Careless & Criminal Which are you?

My first thought was that context is everything and this may have been taken out of it, e.g. they may have been talking about a specific subset of users at the time - those who break the Drone Code - in which case that set of categories would actually make sense. Unfortunately, that's not the case and Andy Sage is clearly talking about drone pilots full stop at the time, so given the other points about NATS and their own drone use made by Ikopta I suspect they'll be getting a LOT of flack about this, and quite rightly so.

The text transcript of the session (held on Wednesday 26th) isn't up on the Parliament website yet, but should be downloadable from this page in the next day or two. In the mean time video of the event can be found here - scrub through it to 09:52:00 to see the entire quote in context.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MiMo28 and Chip
My first thought was that context is everything and this may have been taken out of it, e.g. they may have been talking about a specific subset of users at the time - those who break the Drone Code - in which case that set of categories would actually make sense. Unfortunately, that's not the case and Andy Sage is clearly talking about drone pilots full stop at the time, so given the other points about NATS and their own drone use made by Ikopta I suspect they'll be getting a LOT of flack about this, and quite rightly so.

The text transcript of the session (held on Wednesday 26th) isn't up on the Parliament website yet, but should be downloadable from this page in the next day or two. In the mean time video of the event can be found here - scrub through it to 09:52:00 to see the entire quote in context.

It has been reported that Andy Sage, Head of Unmanned Traffic Management at NATS has issued a public apology for his comments about drone users that he made at the parliamentary select committee hearing and reasserted NATS commitment to equitable airspace access for all responsible pilots. This apology was apparently made at the CAA 'Share the Air' conference being held today.

We will have to await confirmation of the apology but the damage has already been done.
 
It has been reported that Andy Sage, Head of Unmanned Traffic Management at NATS has issued a public apology for his comments about drone users that he made at the parliamentary select committee hearing and reasserted NATS commitment to equitable airspace access for all responsible pilots. This apology was apparently made at the CAA 'Share the Air' conference being held today.

We will have to await confirmation of the apology but the damage has already been done.

It did seem like a basic failure to engage brain before mouth but, as you say, the damage is done. That seemed so natural it definitely makes me suspect that this is the prevailing sentiment towards drone pilots within NATS, rather than just a failure to limit the scope of the remark to pilots that breach the Drone Code. Given that the longer terms plans for the UK includes drones being integrated into ATC systems, which clearly involves NATS, it's definitely disappointing that this attitude, even if in jest, is that close to the surface within NATS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chip and Thomas B
This is the official NATS response, as posted on twitter today.

76389

The problem is that Science & Technology Committee will have taken away an impression that NATS characterises drone operators as a menace - for whatever reason. It pandered to the collective view that drones are a nuisance, have no role to play in UK airspace and need to be restricted in their use because people just aren't to be trusted, or are not responsible enough, to fly safely and within the law.

If the head of unmanned traffic management in the UK is prepared to refer to drone users as clueless, careless or criminal to a parliamentary committee, then he most definitely thinks it, and I daresay there are a lot of people around him who take the same view.
 
From Handy Andy:

"Yesterday I gave evidence to the Science & Technology Select Committee in Parliament as part of its inquiry into commercial and recreational drone use. It is really encouraging to see Parliament taking this issue so seriously.

The theme of discussion for the session was: The risks posed by drone technology to both manned aircraft and individuals. Topics included risks to aircraft, how permission for access should be sought, how drone misuse should be dealt with, and the effectiveness of counter-drone technologies at detecting, identifying and neutralising rogue drones.


It was in the context of this discussion that I spoke about how the irresponsible use of drones should be countered in different ways. I was trying to talk about the misuse of drones and how different types of misuse should be dealt with differently.


It is now very clear that I made a mistake saying this. My words were inappropriate. I got it wrong. I would like to apologise to any drone pilots, the vast majority of whom are extremely responsible, who have been offended by my remarks. I can assure you that we do not ‘categorise’ drone users and believe passionately in fair access to airspace for all users who abide by the rules. I will ensure the Committee understands this position.

At NATS we work closely with the drone pilot community and value their input enormously. Most are responsible pilots, and we are putting huge effort into ensuring they have the best and safest experience they can when they’re flying. We do not want the many to be tarnished by the misdeeds of the few.

We have taken a number of pro-active measures to promote the safe use of drones, including the launch of the Drone Assist safety app, which now has more than 130,000 registered users, and the joint launch with the Civil Aviation Authority of a drone safety website www.dronesafe.uk

NATS safely manage millions of flights in UK airspace every year; the existing safety management cultures and methods of operation that enable us to achieve this are equally applicable to keeping our skies safe with growing volumes of unmanned traffic. We are working hard, and we want to continue to cooperate closely with the drone pilot community on a range of solutions that will help us deliver that."



 
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas B
Let's just remind ourselves of his exact words at the committee;

We regard drone users in three categories; clueless, careless and criminal

It was in response to a question about standardisation of airspace rules, it was not in response to a question about the misuse of drones and how different types of misuse should be dealt with differently. He twisted the facts to make his apology seem like he was referring to misuse - he wasn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: globetrotterdrone
This whole episode could actually end up as a win for the drone community. The apology contains words and sentiments that probably would not have been mentioned during the committee hearing in another scenario without the diatribe. Of course, it also depends on how the press handles it. Will the majority actually publish the apology?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas B
This whole episode could actually end up as a win for the drone community. The apology contains words and sentiments that probably would not have been mentioned during the committee hearing in another scenario without the diatribe. Of course, it also depends on how the press handles it. Will the majority actually publish the apology?

It's debatable whether the apology will surface much outside of the drone community itself. I wish I could believe this could be a win but he was playing to the public perception (and the perception of those MP's on the select committee) that drone users cannot be trusted - when in reality, people like Andy Sage can no longer be trusted to fairly represent the interests of the overwhelmingly law-abiding and responsible community of UAV users.
 
I was struck by the lack of real world experience. The idea of real time updates of emergency drone usage or helicopter deployment to hobby stone fliers is a myth in a world where you can't get internet access on a typical hobbyist drone flyers location in the UK - which is a small island.....
 
As a kid I used to think it was Massive.
Given it's World history, Settlement's colonies Worldwide,
it's almost comical just how small it is.

Interesting photo of claimed geography 'or Empire' pre WW11920px-The_British_Empire.png1920px-The_British_Empire.png
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Slim.slamma
I actually think there is a defamation case to answer. Anyone got access to a lawyer with experience of slander? We could share the cost across hundreds of drone fliers, hobbyist and commercial. Think of the headlines.....
 
Dear Sir,

In the apology from your Mr Sage released yesterday, he suggests the context of his remarks were in a session headed "The risks posed by drone technology to both manned aircraft and individuals."

However the government TV (which is freely available to all members of the public) makes no such contextual qualification. Indeed the official title of the hearing was "EVIDENCE HEARING: Commercial and Recreational Drone Use in the UK.". This title again implies no such contextual qualification.

Sage goes on to suggest "I was trying to talk about the misuse of drones and how different types of misuse should be dealt with differently."

I have listened to the full meeting a number of times. It is patently untrue that this is what he is trying to suggest.

I would suggest that a Court would accept the more plausible explanation, given his facial expression and an accurate context, that Sage was repeating an often used clever phrase employed widely and internally at NATS in the hope of besmirching hobbyist anateur and registered professional drone users. In so doing he has inadvertently revealed the in-house prevalent prejudice against drones within NATS.

1. I call for his resignation from his post as Head of Unmanned Traffic Management for National Air Traffic Service.

2. I call for a far wider publication (in a vehicle which is likely to be seen by the general public, for example a full page advert in the national press) of a revised and unreserved apology from the chairman of NATS confirming the launch of an independent investigation into this revealed prejudiced attitude of staff within NATS to drone users, and commitment to action to root out such staff from the organisation.

Yours faithfully,
 
I am surprised that US-Authorities do apologize. Normally, they claim it was "fake news" and the "fake press" is responisble.
 
That excerpt was taken from 'Real' Douche news.

Im not sure what the 'fake" Douche News had to say about him
 
I actually think there is a defamation case to answer. Anyone got access to a lawyer with experience of slander? We could share the cost across hundreds of drone fliers, hobbyist and commercial. Think of the headlines.....

We regard drone users in three categories; clueless, careless and criminal

In the USA, the plaintiff in a defamation case must prove the statement at issue is false whereas in Britain the defendant must prove it is true. Burden of proof could make a big difference here! It would be highly entertaining to watch this trial in either venue! Wonder who they would call as eye and expert witnesses? If anyone shows up around here with a subpoena Im not answering door! :)
 
Good thing: we got a glimpse of his thinking about drone usage
Bad thing #1: he's quite in a high position with power
Bad thing #2: media will not make the fine differentiation, he put to us.

What now follows is just appeasement and twist of facts. But that's not rather surprising, is it nowadays?
Hope this somehow has some aftermath but I doubt it in the positive sense for the drone community.
 
As others have said and to reiterate, I think it is poor that this man represents UAV users in the UK at a consultation to decide the future of licensing and costs to UAV owners.
Can you imagine the outcry if the CEO of DJI said that?
My concern now is that UAV owners will not get fair representation at any future consultations. He may have apologised, but he did not apologise to the people he said this too. They have been left in the belief that the head of NATS thinks that all UAV flyers are Careless, Criminal and/or Clueless. And they are just about to start licensing UAV's!
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
130,599
Messages
1,554,241
Members
159,603
Latest member
refrigasketscanada