Flying Scotsman in danger

[Garfieldg]

Another article this morning regarding a drone flown too close to something, this time a locomotive. I don’t want to re-run old arguments but shouldn’t there be some balance in reporting?

Trainspotters urged to keep drones away from Flying Scotsman after near-miss — The Telegraph

Overenthusiastic trainspotters have been warned to keep their drones away from the railway or risk prosecution following a near-miss with the Flying Scotsman.

apple.news

 

[Thomas B]

Yeah, like an M2P, primarily plastic, is going to harm a 60-70 ton locomotive.

 

[¬Nomad]

The more you lot keep making excuses and dismissing iresponsible usage, the tougher the laws will get
and you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves (though given the general attitude you will probably blame everyone else)
There is a lot of growing up needed in the Drone community

 

[Mr. Salty]

The more you lot keep making excuses and dismissing iresponsible usage, the tougher the laws will get
and you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves (though given the general attitude you will probably blame everyone else)
There is a lot of growing up needed in the Drone community

Agreed 100 percent.

 

[Thomas B]

The more you lot keep making excuses and dismissing iresponsible usage, the tougher the laws will get
and you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves (though given the general attitude you will probably blame everyone else)
There is a lot of growing up needed in the Drone community

Well said, however... I made no excuse or dismissal for anything, nor did the OP, so I’m not who you’re addressing in your post.
My statement as well as that of the OP above stand as valid as your retort. Each to his own.

 

[zocalo]

Yeah, like an M2P, primarily plastic, is going to harm a 60-70 ton locomotive.

No, it probably wouldn't. It would, however, almost certainly result in an examination for any damage to paintwork or other less robust elements and repair of the same. That would take the train out of service, disrupting it's schedule and ruining the enjoyment of it for hundreds of passengers whose trips had to be rescheduled or cancelled and incurring a lot of expense (trains are NOT cheap to run).

More importantly, it's also a clear violation of the drone code's "Stay 150ft (50m) away from people and property", and probably "Crowds and built up areas – 500ft (150m) and don’t overfly" as well since a packed Flying Scotsman would almost certainly qualify as "a crowd", albeit a mobile one.

@Nomad is bang on about a general need for more maturity. We need to be responsible and openly respect the law and landowners rights, even if we don't necessarily agree with them, and especially so given the on-going consultation is likely to bring in new restrictions in the UK. We demonstrably have a number of reckless pilots out there. The rest of us need to be condemning them every chance we get to try and demonstrate that the majority are responsible and capable of good judgement over when and where to fly or we're going to find those new restrictions severely limit our ability to fly in the first place.

 

[Garfieldg]

Well said, however... I made no excuse or dismissal for anything, nor did the OP, so I’m not who you’re addressing in your post.
My statement as well as that of the OP above stand as valid as your retort. Each to his own.

I quite agree - I’m just asking for balanced reporting and not dismissing or making excuses or acting immaturely. Nomad and Mr Salty’s virtue-signalling comments do not forward the argument.

 

[zocalo]

I quite agree - I’m just asking for balanced reporting and not dismissing or making excuses or acting immaturely. Nomad and Mr Salty’s virtue-signalling comments do not forward the argument.

I don't see any issues with the specific reporting in this article other than a slight error at the end. (Other than a slight typo, they also state 250g+ drone users in the UK are already required to register with the CAA which isn't yet the case.) They're absolutely correct on all other counts; it was a violation of the drone code, and therefore a criminal matter potentially subject to fines. If the drone had been hit by the train or pressure wave and bounced into the OLE (power cables) or trackside equipment it could well have cost thousands to repair; Network Rail's paperwork and proceedures for trackside work pretty much guarantee even the initial inspection would be in the thousands.

As for the balance between pro- vs. anti drone articles in general, I actually think I've seen more pro- articles of late; people being rescued, pets being found, medical supplies being dropped, believed extinct plants being found, commercial endeavors getting started... We, as a community, only have ourselves to blame for the latter; as long as we even passively tolerate the reckless pilots amongst us, they are going to feel empowered to fly like this. If they do, that's going to mean more negative media coverage when they screw up (or come close to doing so) because drones are on the media's radar, for better and worse. I don't see it as "virtue-signalling" at all; I see it as something we *need* to be doing if we're going to tip the balance of reporting firmly into the positive we all want.

 

[Soledamcer]

Another article this morning regarding a drone flown too close to something, this time a locomotive. I don’t want to re-run old arguments but shouldn’t there be some balance in reporting?

Trainspotters urged to keep drones away from Flying Scotsman after near-miss — The Telegraph

Overenthusiastic trainspotters have been warned to keep their drones away from the railway or risk prosecution following a near-miss with the Flying Scotsman.

apple.news

So many wrong statements in the article. No evidence shown. Not required to register (Yet). No 250g limit (Yet). Their own drone operators/contractors have to get CAA OSC to fly over, just as others do. The railways do not own the skies. This sounds like free national publicity for Flying Scotsman project at expense of drones again. They probably want all aerial image copyrights for their own benefit.

 

[Mr. Salty]

Nomad and Mr Salty’s virtue-signalling comments do not forward the argument.

B.S. pejoratives like "virtue-signaling" are just a way to try to deflect valid criticisms of your non-argument.

Maybe address some of the valid points in the article rather than make excuses.

 

[Moon]

So many wrong statements in the article. No evidence shown. Not required to register (Yet). No 250g limit (Yet). Their own drone operators/contractors have to get CAA OSC to fly over, just as others do. The railways do not own the skies. This sounds like free national publicity for Flying Scotsman project at expense of drones again. They probably want all aerial image copyrights for their own benefit.

This started off when Surrey Live ran an article on drone footage of the Flying Scotsman going through Surrey. It is one of those websites where the article gets copied/shared to other news sites so lots of people will have seen it including me.

A still from the video is at
Drone footage of Flying Scotsman passing through Pirbright on way through Surrey

The article has now been taken down but I dare say that as it was replicated to several other sites then it can still be found?

The guy who made the flight is an amateur pilot and gave an interview with his name, where he lived and saying where he took off from, probably not the smartest move. The video was a clear breach of the drone code and showed the drone flying low and a few metres away from the moving train.

Network Rail may be using the incident to get across the message about not flying on/near the railways as the Flying Scotsman is more of a headline grabber than someone was flying a drone near the 8:24 from Woking to Farnborough train!

It will be interesting to see what happens with it being post Gatwick.

 

[¬Nomad]

Yeah, like an M2P, primarily plastic, is going to harm a 60-70 ton locomotive.

Well said, however... I made no excuse or dismissal for anything, nor did the OP, so I’m not who you’re addressing in your post.
My statement as well as that of the OP above stand as valid as your retort. Each to his own.

It was a reply to your post,

"Yeah, like an M2P, primarily plastic, is going to harm a 60-70 ton locomotive."

That sounds like an excuse to me.

 

[Bigbird48]

Trains,Planes and Automobiles have been the subjects of Photographers since the beginning of each and its just natural now that we can take photos from a new perspective that people are going to try with a drone.
I wish there were legal ways to get the shots we want with out hurting the drone world or anything or anyone else in the process. Trains and cars I don't see a problem with finding safe and legal ways to photograph them with a drone Planes well we'll probably never find a way for them .

 

[Bigglesfliesundone]

What about the Mavic PRO zoom, that has the potential using the top end of the zoom and if shot on 4K 25p (Edited on an HD timeline punching in on the 4K frame) the ability to look very close to any subject but still be at a legal distance. If I am taking video footage I try to take a shot from above to prove I am over water or a quiet field.

 

[4wd]

A still from the video is at
Drone footage of Flying Scotsman passing through Pirbright on way through Surrey

While it might not be quite 50m away the locomotive must be in far more danger from jostling hordes of amateur photographers at various locations.
Looks like spectacular example of rampant drone hate, only they happily the published the photo themselves at first.

You can tell they are desperate when they throw in casual links to disruption at Gatwick (insider job to deliberately cause chaos?) and another incident where a phantom I think hit a tree near a steam train and the ping pong ball sized camera bounced off a carriage causing no damage.
Obviously if it had struck the locomotive it might have derailed and plunged into a ravine killing 500 passengers, squashed a bus full of orphans on the road below, and slightly scared two kittens almost a mile away.

 

[AnzacJack]

I can’t imagine wanting to be closer than 50m to get a decent pic of a train

 

[Meta4]

I can’t imagine wanting to be closer than 50m to get a decent pic of a train

I can't imagine getting anything with detail of the loco from 50 metres back.

 

[AnzacJack]

I guess depends on the shot you want. Never really thought about it enough I guess, maybe it IS a job for the zoom

 

[Mavic Maveric]

The more you lot keep making excuses and dismissing iresponsible usage, the tougher the laws will get
and you'll have nobody to blame but yourselves (though given the general attitude you will probably blame everyone else)
There is a lot of growing up needed in the Drone community

Totally this. We need to keep our space separate from "their" space. Look-up and follow the local/state/country laws. The more careless people become with their drones, the more laws and regulations we'll face in the future. The fact that our drones are plastic and lightweight is never the point. It's about respecting other's space.

Stay safe everyone!

 

[AnzacJack]

For us in Australia it is 30 meters from people. Surprisingly, CASA removed the statement about 30 meters from buildings.