GB pilot gets himself suspended sentence, unpaid work and a curfew.
- Thread starter Flakey Flier
- Start date
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 8,476
- Reactions
- 7,963
- Age
- 62
Yes, very clear in the photos the drone was not far from the Hurricane at all.
Of course that is irrelevant with the NFZ in place, and he should have been known that would exist.
Besides the £3000 fine, the pilot "must pay £450 in costs, a £187 victim surcharge and complete 100 hours of unpaid work.
He must also serve a 12-week curfew at his home address in Chatsworth Road, Fairfield, from 8pm to 5.30am each day."
The curfew seems a bit like a child being grounded for being naughty though, a bit over the top and irrelevant to drone flying.
Suppose he's lucky not to get a straight out custodial sentence, even a week or a month.
Better be a good boy for 12 months, or it will be 6 months in the big house.
Of course that is irrelevant with the NFZ in place, and he should have been known that would exist.
Besides the £3000 fine, the pilot "must pay £450 in costs, a £187 victim surcharge and complete 100 hours of unpaid work.
He must also serve a 12-week curfew at his home address in Chatsworth Road, Fairfield, from 8pm to 5.30am each day."
The curfew seems a bit like a child being grounded for being naughty though, a bit over the top and irrelevant to drone flying.
Suppose he's lucky not to get a straight out custodial sentence, even a week or a month.
Better be a good boy for 12 months, or it will be 6 months in the big house.
"PC Matthew Moore, a flight safety officer with the force, was asked by the judge to answer questions in court about drone legislation. Drones are only allowed to fly up to 400ft from the nearest point to the ground"
...... is the underlined correct?
...... is the underlined correct?
Generally, yes, provided there aren't other specific restrictions or permissions in force.
Some countries it is strictly vertical distance, so the classic scenario of flying out over a 1000ft cliff edge is technically illegal. In the UK the distance can be vertical/diagonal/horizontal, so you basically have a 400ft diameter "bubble" around your drone that must contain some ground. - Source: CAP722 9th Ed, section 2.1.1.1.
(https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP722_Edition_9.1 (1).pdf)
I had to go and find the latest official docs to check! I'm sure there was a period where the diagonal 400ft line in that graphic was missing. Good to see it's back again! CAP722 9th Ed. was released in Dec 2022 so it's fairly recent... it's also a bit muddled in some areas so will likely get another update in the near future, but that's probably best discussed in a separate thread.
Whilst I agree with the fact that this man deserves all the sanctions he got for defying a NFZ and endangering an aircraft, the press are once again guilty of printing speculation as fact in order to perhaps sensationalise the conviction in their reporting of what the Police Officer said after the case.
:- Speaking outside court after sentencing, PC Moore said there would have “without a doubt been fatalities” had the drone collided with the plane.
That is extremely speculative. Yes it might have brought the Aircraft down BUT that would depend on the circumstances of the collision and which part of the aircraft was struck. The pilot already admitted that he did not see a drone, so he would hardly have taken evasive action to avoid it, in the same way that he probably wouldn't have in a potential bird strike.
The only way that the quote would be accurate would have been if the words, "and the plane crashed as a result" were added.
:- Speaking outside court after sentencing, PC Moore said there would have “without a doubt been fatalities” had the drone collided with the plane.
That is extremely speculative. Yes it might have brought the Aircraft down BUT that would depend on the circumstances of the collision and which part of the aircraft was struck. The pilot already admitted that he did not see a drone, so he would hardly have taken evasive action to avoid it, in the same way that he probably wouldn't have in a potential bird strike.
The only way that the quote would be accurate would have been if the words, "and the plane crashed as a result" were added.
Silly man. Just dangerous full stop. The report doesn’t seem to say how he, through his drone I presume, was IDd-unless he was caught on the ground mid-flight.
I understood from a pervious report that he was traced after putting flight footage on You tube, combined with the photographer reporting seeing the drone in his photo??
spsphotos
Well-Known Member
Actually, you cannot tell from the photo how close it was. I'm going to say it was not as close as you would think. THe image was taken with a zoom lense which compresses the background and foreground. This means things that are in the background look far closer then they appear (sort of like your side mirror on an car...).
The fact remains that there should not have been a drone in the air at all.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 8,476
- Reactions
- 7,963
- Age
- 62
It's fully understood the effects in that photo, but clearly the drone is at the same altitude, and as an apparent Mavic style aircraft size, it'd be reasonable to expect that was VERY close in aircraft proximity terms, whether 100m, 200m etc.
I don't have much sympathy for the fellow. He chose to fly at an event with 15,000-20,000 people congregated and airplanes would be flying low, fast, and close. He knew that a NFZ was in effect, but didn't know the enforcement time and was unable to check it at the site. He chose to ignore it and fly anyway.
The fine and curfew for an apparent first offender was rather stiff compared to what's been meted out in the US in similar situations. I think the court may have been trying to draw a line in the sand and let the public know that regulations are serious and can't be ignored.
To his credit, the drone operator acknowledged that he had done something seriously wrong and dangerous. He recognized that the outcome could have been deadly. He apologized and took responsibility for his actions. No whining. No excuses. I respect that and I wish that it was more common.
The fine and curfew for an apparent first offender was rather stiff compared to what's been meted out in the US in similar situations. I think the court may have been trying to draw a line in the sand and let the public know that regulations are serious and can't be ignored.
To his credit, the drone operator acknowledged that he had done something seriously wrong and dangerous. He recognized that the outcome could have been deadly. He apologized and took responsibility for his actions. No whining. No excuses. I respect that and I wish that it was more common.
I'm no English scholar, but if that is what PC Moore said, it's gibberish. Drones are only allowed to fly 400 ft above a point, on ground, directly below it, would have been more accurate. A drone would not be flying within the rules if it was flying 400 ft from the edge of a cliff or escarpment (the nearest point on the ground) which was 401 ft or more high. I'm no lawyer either, but if his brief accepted that statement without tying the officer up in knots, the defendant might have a case against the law firm.
I should have read the full thread first as I've said much the same thing, plus a little extra.
LoudThunder
Part 107 Licensed
I am in the US so I have no real knowledge of UK Drone Laws. I did not see in the article if the Drone was confiscated by the authorities nor if he was properly licensed, nor if his license was suspended or revoked.
I do not know how serious the "12-week curfew at his home address" is in the UK, but here in the US, we call that "House Arrest" and the person may only leave their residence for limited purposes, such as: to go to work, school, doctor appointments, and other approved activities during specified times. In reality, it's not very strict…
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 8,476
- Reactions
- 7,963
- Age
- 62
Yes, I too wondered about the drone and perhaps some sort of license penalty, seems like they didn't go that far.
The house arrest thing I feel was a bit like sending a naughty child to the corner of a room, a bit strange for an adult penalty.
A more meaningful and relative penalty would have been drone confiscation, and or a license penalty for a year or whatever.
I suppose the suspended sentence sends a fairly strong message, they might get to do 6 months jail time if they are caught doing anything illegal in that 12 month suspended period.
Anyway, good reminder about possible penalties for drone users seeing such articles in the general media.
Hopefully more of such reports don't make the public hysterical about drones when they see them.
LoudThunder
Part 107 Licensed
What worries me the most is when really serious and blatant violations like this occur; they often take on a life of their own and may become a rallying cry for heavy handed drone restrictions and laws.
- Joined
- May 25, 2017
- Messages
- 8,476
- Reactions
- 7,963
- Age
- 62
Yes, reading the 2 recent posts about US States getting a little heavy on state legislation is a concern.
If they do manage to get such things through, it takes time, $ and a battle by someone to get the flawed laws repealed.
Similar threads
DJI Drone Deals
New Threads
-
-
-
-
-
I think the FAA is missing it with the 107 requirements
- Started by edmartin123
- Replies: 3
Forum statistics
