new UK law. 1 km from any airport !!

[Thwyllo]

Yes that will work, its expensive to get a driving licence and then there are the substantial car insurance premiums, does it stop idiots, no, they simply dont bother with either and just drive anyway.

Same will happen with drones and only the drone pilots who already follow the rules will suffer, the idiots will just carry on as normal

Exactly. And not only that, but activities like that are an actual proven danger to the public, to life and limb, and to your insurance premiums. To think that drones are a bigger priority - or indeed any sort of priority - is beyond ludicrous.

 

[gnirtS]

does it stop idiots, no, they simply dont bother with either and just drive anyway.

Stop no. Deter a lot of them from doing something stupid, yes.
Risk management is about identifying risk and addressing it BEFORE an incident happens.

 

[Thwyllo]

And what's with is "those of us that are committed to owning and flying a drone" stuff? I didn't commit to anything - it's not some religious cult is it; it's a camera with propellors that, unless you're a complete divvy, all but flies itself. Sheesh!

 

[Thwyllo]

Stop no. Deter a lot of them from doing something stupid, yes.
Risk management is about identifying risk and addressing it BEFORE an incident happens.

The only thing that might stop an oik from driving an uninsured car is the very slim chance of being caught by ANPR, but for that you need to see an actual police car. If you seriously think the few plod left on the street are going to start chasing model aircraft you're off your trolley.

 

[gnirtS]

You're seriously saying that driving licences, insurance and law enforcement have no effect what-so-ever on the prevalence of people driving dangerously or doing stupid things? That if we suddenly removed all of those the accident rate and everything else would remain completely untrained?

No police wont start chasing model aircraft but it does give the regulations teeth to actually prosecute idiots (and there are many idiots around that deserve it). At the moment you can do whatever you want and unless you're a complete imbecile and post it on youtube (this has happened) and the CAA find it you won't get caught. Hell even this forum has countless photos, videos and posts from people who freely admit to breaking the laws. It'd give a lot more teeth to enforcement and punishment to get caught.

Self policing isnt working in the drone community sadly. There are too many people who think the regulations don't or shouldnt apply to them and who carry on doing stupid things because the chances of getting caught are slim and punishments near nothing. This problem is getting worse as drones get cheaper and more available. There's a problem brewing up and eventually the chances of an incident are higher. Sensible risk management should be introduced to stop that *now* rather than wait for something bad to happen.

I think registration with a mandatory liability insurance with properly enforced punishments for breaking the rules are needed. Liability insurance in particular should be needed. Pretty much everything else you end up doing in public or came have an effect on the public requires it.

 

[Thwyllo]

You're seriously saying that driving licences, insurance and law enforcement have no effect what-so-ever on the prevalence of people driving dangerously or doing stupid things? .

Err yes. There are currently more than ONE MILLION uninsured vehicles on the road with another 90,000 stolen every year and also thus driven illegally. I could start on the thousands of foreign vehicles that haven't been properly imported and registered but I'm bored now. And you're fussing about something that has yet to even scare a bunny wabbit. Your sense of proportion is totally out of whack.

 

[gnirtS]

So again you're seriously claiming that without driving licences and car insurance there's be no increase in accidents or dangerous driving? None at all? Laws are pointless?
Shall we just axe the police because there'd be no increase in crime if they didnt exist as well? Axe the drink driving laws because there'd be no increase in it at all if it were now legal?

There are people out there flying drones stupidly and dangerously. There is a risk of damage to person, property, vehicles and yes, aircraft. Its a risk that goes up as time goes on due to the number of them.
These people need reigning in. If there is a sizeable fine, drones are traceable and there is enforcement there is a deterrent effect. Once some of these morons get caught it'll put others off. Its called attempting to reduce a risk and problem BEFORE it becomes a major issue and good sensible risk management.

 

[Thwyllo]

Yes. Finished?

 

[Dizzy1971]

I sure hope it’s finished...

 

[PaperCrane]

Well that all kicked off quickly. Yet again.

Internet Discussion, n.
1. An exchange of views.
2. A pointless slanging match between two or more parties in the fervent belief that if they 'shout' their opinion more often and more forcefully it will make the others change their mind.
3. The pointless pursuit of self-validation.

 

[Thwyllo]

Then almost four weeks after the exchange of views has finished, someone with absolutely nothing to add to the discussion makes a supercilious and frankly superfluous comment. Way to go. Happy now?

 

[PaperCrane]

Thanks for that. When I need you to organise my social life to suit your needs or there's a desperate shortage of condescension in my life I'll be sure to let you know.

Afterthought: and thanks for proving my point so eloquently.

 

[Thwyllo]

Aww diddums. What did you expect when you troll a thread that died a month ago, with some sarcastic, patronising comment?

 

[PaperCrane]

Further afterthought (I went to get coffee):

I did contribute to the discussion. In fact, if you actually bother to check, mine was the comment you took umbrage at. If the fact that I took some time to reply offends you, then an apology you may have. I've been busy. Next time my boss needs me to write a report, I have to attend to a call of nature, or my wife wants to take me back to the bedroom, I will of course clear it with you first.

My comment earlier today was because my previous post seems to have been taken as an excuse for people to yell at each other again. Hence my comment about things escalating quickly. You'll notice that I haven't actually replied to what you said. Your attitude (not you alone, granted) is the reason why. When you learn to how to particpate in discourse like a civilised human being, I'll engage.

 

[Snapthis]

UK drone users face safety tests or fines

And flying over 400ft will be ILLEGAL from the 30th of July

Isn’t that only height?

 

[gnirtS]

400ft above ground level altitude.
Line of sight isnt strictly defined by they claim 400-500m maximum distance from operator (unaided line of sight, no vision aids allowed).

The new rules are here:
http://dronesafe.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Dronecode_2018-07-30.pdf
Basically the old recommendations but now with legal weight behind them.

 

[Snapthis]

400ft above ground level altitude.
Line of sight isnt strictly defined by they claim 400-500m maximum distance from operator (unaided line of sight, no vision aids allowed).

The new rules are here:
http://dronesafe.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Dronecode_2018-07-30.pdf
Basically the old recommendations but now with legal weight behind them.

Cheers for that. Always good to update yourself.

 

[Thwyllo]

400ft above ground level altitude.
Line of sight isnt strictly defined by they claim 400-500m maximum distance from operator (unaided line of sight, no vision aids allowed).

The new rules are here:
http://dronesafe.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Dronecode_2018-07-30.pdf
Basically the old recommendations but now with legal weight behind them.

There are 110 instances of the word "surface" in the ANO 2016 yet nowhere is it defined. So in theory, you cannot fly from the beach below Beachy Head (531ft) to the top, even though there won't be aircraft within several hundred feet of the cliff face and there's a new "surface" at the top with its own 400ft ceiling above. Or can you? And if you fly from the top and stray a mere foot out over the edge, again you've broken the law. Or have you?

Thanks HM Government for the clarification I don't think.

 

[gnirtS]

ANO specifies it as above ground level which is the ground level directly below. So correct, you couldn't fly it up beachy head in theory. If you fly from the top and over the cliff in THEORY you're too high. The problem stems from the rules which were sane applied to VFR aircraft but not small planes that can launch from anywhere.

Their argument being if you fly to 400ft high then off a 400ft cliff, you're now at 800ft AGL and well into the territory where manned flights can legally operate regularly. (The national trust gestapo trying to stop you flying from beachy head is another issue completely!).


There was a blog from 2016 stating above takeoff height but that appears to have been removed for the above reason.

Edit:- The current ANO does indeed specify above surface:-

(c) at a height of more than 400 feet above the surface unless it is flying in airspace described in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) and in accordance with the requirements for that airspace.

ANO 2016, Article 94, Paragraph 4 (c)

The Air Navigation Order 2016

Surface is the standard aeronautical usage. Its the ground. Legally accepted, valid and proven in court many times in prosecutions for altitude violations and such. Other than the ultra pedantic i think the law is perfectly clear on the matter.

 

[Thwyllo]

Then again, if a cliff like BH had even a 1° slope to it then there's a "surface" above which it's legal to fly 400ft all the way up...