Tried it for the first time, nothing unusal except for the warning message about the bottom sensor. The thick cloud did not have much effect on the GPS and RC signal in such distance.
Last edited:
Just a few drops of water on the body. It was drier than what I have expected. The internals should be dry as the temperature inside is a lot higher.Was the Mavic wet when you landed ?
I flew in fog once and my drone was literally dripping wet when I landed, I won’t be doing it again.
That was indeed beautiful footage. It is ill advised though on many fronts:Tried it for the first time, nothing unusal except for the warning message about the bottom sensor. The thick cloud did not have much effect on the GPS and RC signal in such distance.
- You have broken at least wo regulations in Hong Kong. You should keep the drone within visual line of sight at all times, which obviously was not the case. You should also never exceed 90 meters in altitude, and you were more than 3 times higher than that.
I am not aware of that. Can you quote the regulation ? which law, which chapter, etc ? Relevant links in the website of Department of Justice ( Department of Justice - Laws of Hong Kong ) will be appreciated
How's this?...I am not aware of that. Can you quote the regulation ? which law, which chapter, etc ? Relevant links in the official website of Department of Justice ( Department of Justice - Laws of Hong Kong ) will be appreciated
Dont trust everything you see on the internet, I think that's common sense. In the link you have provided, there is not even any reference to relevant laws of Hong Kong, which chapter, which article etc. I am not sure why it is so convincing to you.Drone regulations and links for people flying drones in Hong Kong. HERE
I didn't pick a random website like "Joe's Random Facts About Drones". It is the governing body over aviation in your country. If I can't trust their site then I don't know what to trust.Dont trust everything you see on the internet,
I don't know how regulations and laws work in your country,; that is true. However, if I see something posted on the FAA website here in the USA, I take that as the official word since they are the authority over aviation here. The CAD is your aviation authority there and it is clearly stated on their website.In the link you have provided, there is not even any reference to relevant laws of Hong Kong, which chapter,
The CAD specifically states " Any person who operates UAS shall observe the following general safety guidelines, unless otherwise permitted by CAD."I can take you through it but pls, don't spread incorrect information any further.
Thank you for the relevant law. That document is from 1995, so obviously it is not comprehensive enough to sufficiently give guidance for UAs flights. Even so, if an accident were to occur on the flight you took, a case could definitely be made that you were flying at least negligently if not recklessly. You had zero sight of the drone once it penetrated the clouds. If a helicopter or fixed wing airplane were to have crashed into it, then it could be considered reckless of you.The only relevant article is 48 :
Endangering safety of any person or property (L.N. 77 of 2008)
A person shall not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.
Yes it does say guidelines. Yet it also says " Any person who operates UAS shall observe the following general safety guidelines, unless otherwise permitted by CAD." So that means nothing at all to you? Does tha mean that the CAD has zero jurisdiction? Would a competent prosecutor not use that language to say that you were flying outside of accepted safety guidelines, and thus you were negligent?The key word here is "guideline". That means it just suggestions, recommendation, advices the violation of which will NOT automatically constitute infringement of laws.
The key word here is "guideline".
The only relevant article is 48 :
Endangering safety of any person or property (L.N. 77 of 2008)
A person shall not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.
As a flight instructor and IFR pilot, when I saw this video it scared the (Mod Removed Language)out of me, but I did not want to comment without checking the facts first. I have reviewed the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department information, sectional charts, IFR and VFR, GA aircraft routes, controlled airspace profiles and the general Hong Kong drone flying rules.Tried it for the first time, nothing unusal except for the warning message about the bottom sensor. The thick cloud did not have much effect on the GPS and RC signal in such distance.
EXACTLY !!! Poor IFR pilot flying in clouds that runs into a drone. It is drone pilots that have no regard for airspace and rules (OK in this case he calls them guidelines!!), that really can cause disasters. From the cockpit it is already nearly impossible to spot a small drone in perfect VFR conditions. Add IFR conditions to the mix and it gets even more dangerous.As a flight instructor and IFR pilot, when I saw this video it scared the hell out of me,
Exactly what I pointed out but an irresponsible drone pilot will try to make any excuse possible to justify reckless flying.To start with, there is nowhere in Hong Kong that you can legally fly a drone without permission above 300 feet and you were at least 4 times that height
The only point I will make (and I am totally in agreement with you about how irresponsible this was), is that the video you posted has previously been discredited as it was set up in very precise conditions to cause the maximum possible damage. Although a drone can indeed damage an aircraft, that was an extreme and somewhat unrealistic demonstration. I try my best to be unbiased on both sides so that needed to be said.Drones will easily penetrate light aircraft structures and windscreens.
Hi Phantom Fandom, Thanks for agreeing with my safety concerns, if you are also a pilot I am sure you understand the risk. I am however a little curious why you believe the video was unrealistic? Some of the aircraft I fly are faster than the 206knots test speed, the speed limit at that height is 250knots and the leading edge of a Mooney is tougher than many light aircraft windscreens? It's the drone through the windscreen that will kill someone!EXACTLY !!! Poor IFR pilot flying in clouds that runs into a drone. It is drone pilots that have no regard for airspace and rules (OK in this case he calls them guidelines!!), that really can cause disasters. From the cockpit it is already nearly impossible to spot a small drone in perfect VFR conditions. Add IFR conditions to the mix and it gets even more dangerous.
Exactly what I pointed out but an irresponsible drone pilot will try to make any excuse possible to justify reckless flying.
The only point I will make (and I am totally in agreement with you about how irresponsible this was), is that the video you posted has previously been discredited as it was set up in very precise conditions to cause the maximum possible damage. Although a drone can indeed damage an aircraft, that was an extreme and somewhat unrealistic demonstration. I try my best to be unbiased on both sides so that needed to be said.
Hi,Hi Phantom Fandom, Thanks for agreeing with my safety concerns, if you are also a pilot I am sure you understand the risk. I am however a little curious why you believe the video was unrealistic? Some of the aircraft I fly are faster than the 206knots test speed, the speed limit at that height is 250knots and the leading edge of a Mooney is tougher than many light aircraft windscreens? It's the drone through the windscreen that will kill someone!
.... If a helicopter or fixed wing airplane were to have crashed into it, then it could be considered reckless of you.
Yes it does say guidelines. Yet it also says " Any person who operates UAS shall observe the following general safety guidelines, unless otherwise permitted by CAD." So that means nothing at all to you?
Without a scale and dimensions, that representation of your flight is meaningless. No, a manned aircraft pilot should not be flying that close to terrain and especially in those conditions...agreed. However it could happen. By your own admission and from the video it is evident that you were at times more than 300 meters AGL. So your point is that it is reckless and dangerous for a manned aircraft to fly in that area under those conditions, yet it is not reckless for you to do so? What kind of logic is that?Right next to to the takeoff point is a peak that is about 250 m above the takeoff. The entire area was covered in thick cloud as can be seen from the footage. Do you think any man-carrying aircraft pilots are stupid enough to fly so close to the terrain under zero visibility ? For your information this is the track of the drone in that flight :
Yes you already made that point. I believe that it would and should be very easy to convince a magistrate that you were reckless by flying in that manner. Especially with clear "guidelines" published by CAD and which you chose to disregard.In the court CAD will have to convince the magistrate that what I did could have ended up in injury to people or damage to the others' properties.
Yes that is how the law works. It is always better to err on the side of caution and safety. In such a real life example, if one were to do that at the edge of a very large and deep canyon then you could hit aircraft flying in the canyon (tourism, etc). Under your interpretation how far past the cliff would you be able to fly safely?Applying your understanding, it will be perfectly legal to fly a drone 10 meters above a 100 meter tall cliff but as soon as the drone goes beyond the edge of the cliff, it will be 110 meters above the terrian and the flight will suddenly become illegal ! Does it make any sense ?
That may be the absolute worst analogy I have ever heard or seen. Burning the flag does not put someone else's physical safety at risk. I guess you could hurt someone if you threw the burning flag at them but that would be assault. With a drone you have the very real risk of hurting innocent people flying in the sky above you.I read from the news that in the recent social unrest in US, some people burned the American flag. The behavior clearly violates the United States Flag Code but those people were not convicted at the end. This could never have happened if your understanding about laws applies.
So your point is that it is reckless and dangerous for a manned aircraft to fly in that area under those conditions, yet it is not reckless for you to do so? What kind of logic is that?
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.