How did the pilot even fly in a NFZ? My Mini 3 Pro won't let me take off if I'm in a NFZ. I'm in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
UK Drone pilot gets $1,900 fine
- Thread starter mavic3usa
- Start date
It isn't a no-fly zone. This is one of the charges:
- Two charges of flying an unmanned aircraft in a flight restriction zone without permission
There's a small difference.
DJI Fly won't let me fly in an Authorization Zone either. Seems odd he could fly at all being so close to an airport. Perhaps DJI treats the UK and Canada differently. Or did this pilot use some kind of a 'hack' to fly regardless of restrictions?
I don't see the fine as either good or bad, it's the fact some idiot actually got caught breaking drone laws. It's the ramifications of the act which we should be worried about. The do-good crowd need nothing more than a situation they can say " See I said they were a bunch of crooks" One more instance where EVERY quadcopter pilot gets tarred with the same brush. Those who would love to see every quadcopter or drone barred from the air will be clapping their hands and dreaming of an uncluttered sky. Let's hope there aren't too many more being ignorant of the law or wanting to thumb their noses at it. The outcome will affect us all.
As for the guilty one, let's not feel sorry for him, if he managed to keep the SD Card, he'll simply post the video on YouTube and make enough money to buy a new craft and phone. That's one good reason that these numbskulls openly break the laws.
Look at Tic Tok, There's a competition being run where youngsters are told to break into private homes to steal specific items PLUS record the family asleep in their beds. If you can't get that footage you're out of the competition. Our small town is currently having homes invaded by young boys and men. Residents are showing videos taken by security cameras. These youngsters couldn't care less about being seen, mainly because the police and courts are doing nothing to stop them. Oh yes, the police are doing something, I almost forgot. They're telling us residents not to touch the little darlings, "Don't Be Vigilantes" they say.
As for the guilty one, let's not feel sorry for him, if he managed to keep the SD Card, he'll simply post the video on YouTube and make enough money to buy a new craft and phone. That's one good reason that these numbskulls openly break the laws.
Look at Tic Tok, There's a competition being run where youngsters are told to break into private homes to steal specific items PLUS record the family asleep in their beds. If you can't get that footage you're out of the competition. Our small town is currently having homes invaded by young boys and men. Residents are showing videos taken by security cameras. These youngsters couldn't care less about being seen, mainly because the police and courts are doing nothing to stop them. Oh yes, the police are doing something, I almost forgot. They're telling us residents not to touch the little darlings, "Don't Be Vigilantes" they say.
Aware of laws/rules or not, common sense could answer a lot of questions (if you let it). Let's see, I'm flying a machine with the equivalent of four rotating knives. Should I fly it over a crowd of people? Hmmmm, maybe not.
I'm near an airport with manned aircraft flying in and out.... should I fly at all? Hmmmm, maybe not. Actually, MY Mavic 2 won't even take off in a restricted zone, so I'm a little surprised his did.
There are so many things that common sense SHOULD help you answer. Basically, if you have a little doubt, just don't do it. You might not get good video, but you also might not hurt someone or get fined, etc.
At one job, years ago, I was given the task of writing a sexual harassment manual. I told my boss I could do it in one sentence, "If you have the slightest doubt about doing or saying anything around the opposite sex... DON'T!"
He smirked a bit but then I had t write a 30-page booklet anyway.
I'm near an airport with manned aircraft flying in and out.... should I fly at all? Hmmmm, maybe not. Actually, MY Mavic 2 won't even take off in a restricted zone, so I'm a little surprised his did.
There are so many things that common sense SHOULD help you answer. Basically, if you have a little doubt, just don't do it. You might not get good video, but you also might not hurt someone or get fined, etc.
At one job, years ago, I was given the task of writing a sexual harassment manual. I told my boss I could do it in one sentence, "If you have the slightest doubt about doing or saying anything around the opposite sex... DON'T!"
He smirked a bit but then I had t write a 30-page booklet anyway.
I am a member of the Air 2S Facebook page. People are constantly posting videos of flights that you pretty much know are in violation of FAA rules. When you post a comment about what idiots they are, you wouldn’t believe how many retaliatory statements are made towards your post. If you post something like, “And that’s why the FAA had to step in and make all of these regulations”, many blast you for making such a statement. Why don’t people learn that it’s the bad apples that are causing consternation for the rest of us?
You don't have to go that far to see videos in violation of the FAA rules. I've seen countless videos here on the video showcase forum that are clearly BVLOS .There's also whole forum section on here about drone mods and upgrading the stock antennae and other hacks . If your gonna tell me these folk are still gonna fly within line of sight your deluding yourself. I'm not judging anyone , each to their own , just saying
I've had DJI Fly prevent me from flying where I had the legal right to do so (disused airstrip), and have no restrictions where I shouldn't even be able to take off (right beside active heliport*).
Not saying he didn't use a hack, but it could be an issue with the FlySafe database.
*Needless to say, I didn't fly there. I was prepping for a shot in the area and wanted to be aware of all the authorization zones as well as the Transport Canada restrictions— and was really surprised that the heliport wasn't in FlySafe at all.
A lot of harassing behaviour comes from people who have no doubts whatsoever that they are behaving in an appropriate manner, sadly.
DroneTats
Well-Known Member
I agree the laws are pretty balanced. I'd argue this case may be extreme and agree if there was no malicious or selfish intent that jailtime could have been waived, but I also don't know the details of how he was flying. I know the last thing I want to see when the plane I'm on is taking off or landing would be a drone not paying attention and one rule I do believe needs to be stricktly enforced is Class D airspace limits. It's literally the one rule we all know so bending it kinda means you deserve what you get if you get caught.I'm not a fan of a couple of the FAA rules when it comes to zero tolerance enforcement but overall the rules are fair and manageable as long as they are not strictly enforced. My opinion. However, I am shocked with this one. I cannot believe how lenient the punishment is because if this is me, here in the US, I'm sure it wouldn't be the same.
Again, for me, true ignorance of the law is no excuse especially when it comes to safety but I've always been a fan of leniency if no one actually got hurt or property was not damaged or nothing ended up compromised, less than 250g. I would vote for cutting the fine in half or probation instead of jail time, when it's not done on purpose for example. Plead guilty or no contest, lessons learned. But if harm comes, sucks to be you; big fines. That's my thoughts. But this guy, this takes to cake. I don't know about you but this sends the wrong message, me thinks:
Drone pilot gets $1,900 fine for 'complete disregard' for the rules
A 36-year-old drone pilot has been fined nearly £1,500 ($1,900) by a court in the UK for recklessly flying a DJI Mavic 2 near an airport.dronedj.com
DroneTats
Well-Known Member
I'm sure if his drone were sporting a DroneTatt with his reg# he'd have gotten off, lol
In the UK, your first offence for using a phone for anything while driving is a thousand pounds, currently about $1,290. plus 6 points on your license. If you do it again, I believe you lose your license for LIFE! Needless to say, almost no one uses their phone while driving now. In Europe, well Austria and Switzerland at least, it is 1,000 Euros for the first offense. It really should be much, much higher in the USA than it currently is for being found using your phone while driving, in the states that have passed that law. That would start to deter these idiots who are texting while driving. A $1,000 fine and they will think again before doing that in the future.
Last edited:
We cannot have anything like that here in America, first because "freedom" and second because our justice systems doesn't "support" those kinds of enforcement levels. I would love to tackle the problem with motorists endangering others by distracted driving but not at the expense to honest, law-abiding citizens. For example, DUI which nobody wants and nobody likes but enforcement has turned into more or less a scam here in America.
Its got nothing to do with freedom. It is a law in many states now, stating that you cannot have your phone in your hand while driving, for any reason. That is a law for safety of other drivers and has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom. That's like saying speed restrictions are attacking your freedom.
There are many accidents and deaths caused by distracted drivers, using their phones, texting while driving. You see it every day with people's heads down and drifting in lanes on the highway or driving far too slow, causing other cars to have to drive around them, as they text or chat on the phone.
We have a school zone at the end of the street and I see weekly, people heads down in school hours, as they drive through that intersection, looking at their phones and not out the window and often above the school speed limit.
You rarely get an incident such as the video you show, but it is far safer to have the rare driver stopped for what was thought to be a phone, rather than let the many thousands drive around looking at the phone and texting, putting the rest of us on the road, in danger.
I don't know how you think DUI enforcement can have been turned into a scam. You are either over the limit or you are not, if stopped. You are either stopped with alcohol in your system or you are free of alcohol in your body. Where is the scam?
Laws against driving while holding a cellphone with a reasonable fine (like $25) are ok; no problem.
Laws against driving while holding a cellphone with a fine of $1300 zero tolerance on the first offense where there is no other laws broken are repugnant and are a direct affront to the freedom of movement and the right to travel with interference that all citizens enjoy.
The DUI racket is a scam on the American driver. Exactly the reason why I try to keep state and local governments out of drone legislation. Only bad things will happen for the drone flyer. This is what I believe.
Many laws are written with good intentions but misused by police. How is driving with a phone in your hand any different than if it's in a holder on your dash or in a shirt pocket? How is talking on a phone while driving any different from talking to a fellow passenger? Our state currently has a no text while driving law, and it includes while you are stopped at a light or in a traffic jam. So, if you are caught in a traffic jam and can't move for an hour (which has happened) you can't text your spouse to say you are ok, just tied up in traffic. Where it is illegal for drivers to use their phone while driving, is it also illegal for the police to use their radio? I doubt it.
New safety laws in the US want to mandate alcohol sensing devices in cars that will disable the vehicle if alcohol is detected. You can imagine numerous scenarios where a non-drinker can't get their car started for various reasons, including accidental or even intentional contact with alcohol (such as for cleaning).
We can legislate safety but should we? If someone wants to risk brain damage by riding a motorcycle without a helmet, or ride in a car without a seat belt, who are we to play God and tell them no? Likewise, if a person decides to ride a motorcycle without a helmet and ends up in a vegetative state, why should I foot their hospital bill if they had no insurance? We could make cars that could survive any crash imaginable by limiting their speed and incorporating computer control to limit or prevent certain action or initiate others when needed, but who would want or even be able to afford such a vehicle? Sure, such a vehicle would automatically engage the brakes when a red light is sensed, a danger or an object is detected. But what would happen if a squirrel ran across the road or a plastic bag blows in front of you? Already, drivers with adaptive cruise control report false breaking from cars detected in the next lane. Likewise, we could make cars that blocked any and all cellphone communications while the ignition is on, but would you want one?
New safety laws in the US want to mandate alcohol sensing devices in cars that will disable the vehicle if alcohol is detected. You can imagine numerous scenarios where a non-drinker can't get their car started for various reasons, including accidental or even intentional contact with alcohol (such as for cleaning).
We can legislate safety but should we? If someone wants to risk brain damage by riding a motorcycle without a helmet, or ride in a car without a seat belt, who are we to play God and tell them no? Likewise, if a person decides to ride a motorcycle without a helmet and ends up in a vegetative state, why should I foot their hospital bill if they had no insurance? We could make cars that could survive any crash imaginable by limiting their speed and incorporating computer control to limit or prevent certain action or initiate others when needed, but who would want or even be able to afford such a vehicle? Sure, such a vehicle would automatically engage the brakes when a red light is sensed, a danger or an object is detected. But what would happen if a squirrel ran across the road or a plastic bag blows in front of you? Already, drivers with adaptive cruise control report false breaking from cars detected in the next lane. Likewise, we could make cars that blocked any and all cellphone communications while the ignition is on, but would you want one?
spsphotos
Well-Known Member
I think that would definitely deter a lot of people. Don’t understand the texting issue myself. If I need to send a text while driving I just ask Siri to send a text to so and so and so, speak what I want to say and it’s sent. Never have to take eyes off the road or hands off the wheel. This is 2025 yet some people just don’t keep up on how to use the tech.I'm not a fan of a couple of the FAA rules when it comes to zero tolerance enforcement but overall the rules are fair and manageable as long as they are not strictly enforced. My opinion. However, I am shocked with this one. I cannot believe how lenient the punishment is because if this is me, here in the US, I'm sure it wouldn't be the same.
Again, for me, true ignorance of the law is no excuse especially when it comes to safety but I've always been a fan of leniency if no one actually got hurt or property was not damaged or nothing ended up compromised, less than 250g. I would vote for cutting the fine in half or probation instead of jail time, when it's not done on purpose for example. Plead guilty or no contest, lessons learned. But if harm comes, sucks to be you; big fines. That's my thoughts. But this guy, this takes to cake. I don't know about you but this sends the wrong message, me thinks:
Drone pilot gets $1,900 fine for 'complete disregard' for the rules
A 36-year-old drone pilot has been fined nearly £1,500 ($1,900) by a court in the UK for recklessly flying a DJI Mavic 2 near an airport.
Similar threads
