sounds like a typical nancy boy
French teen fined for illegal drone flight
The 18-year-old French lad who strapped a GoPro to a drone 'chopper and used it to produce a noteworthy aerial video of the city of Nancy has been fined €400, Le Figaro reports. Nans Thomas bought the vehicle on the internet and sent it aloft without realising he needed proper training and air authority permission. The …
-
-
Friday 23rd May 2014 17:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: I would not regret anything ("ratfox")
Oh very good Mr ratfox... bet you thought nobody would notice that cunning fox use of words.....
"I would not regret anything" a.k.a ....... "non, je ne regrette rein"
(uneducated readers of The Register may wish to peruse the freetard's favourite encyclopaedia for the words "Edith Piaf") :-)
-
-
Friday 23rd May 2014 13:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
This is similar to the Japanese F40 video. The guy filmed himself doing 200MPH then sold the video in various enthusiast magazines. The fine was massive...but not as massive as the profits he made from the video sales. I am willing to bet that the advertising revenue from the popularity of the video (and subsequent views consider the press this will get) will more than pay for the fine.
-
Friday 23rd May 2014 13:06 GMT Anonymous Coward
Stupid bureaucrats
And then the stupid French wonder why their country is going down the toilet, when any initiative or imagination is met with fines and official harassment?
What's the betting that the same would be true here? We have legions of officials going around stopping people doing this or that without permission. SACK THEM ALL.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
-
Friday 23rd May 2014 14:31 GMT the spectacularly refined chap
Re: Stupid bureaucrats
It wasn't the imagination that was fined, it was the unlawful drone flight. Flying is regulated around the world (and the laws are pretty much the same everywhere).
The laws for UAV are inherited from model aircraft and in fact vary considerably around the world. Here in the UK the flying side of things is basically open season for models under 5kg. Law on trespass does limit the land you can fly from or over but in the case of public land that is determined by council bylaws rather than national legislation.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Saturday 24th May 2014 14:38 GMT Steve Evans
Re: Stupid bureaucrats
I would expect attempting to get permission to do something similar would get you bounced from pillar to post by a dozen faceless bureaucrats over the course of several weeks without ever finding anyone that had the vaguest clue who you need to talk to or what you need to do.
At that point you'll either give up, or just do it anyway (but anonymously!).
-
-
Friday 23rd May 2014 15:47 GMT Fink-Nottle
Re: Stupid bureaucrats
> It would be the same here; such a flight would be contrary to the Air Navigation Order.
That's not entirely true. In the Nancy case the teenage apparently lacked proper training and air authority permission to fly in an urban space. The Air Navigation Order merely states that "The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fly the aircraft if reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made."
There are more restrictive ANO rules that apply to unmanned surveillance aircraft, but using a camera to record the flight of a small unmanned aircraft does not equate to surveillance - a distinct activity carried out "for the purpose of influencing, managing, directing, or protecting" people or property.
(In Mr Knowles' case, his model aeroplane strayed into a no-fly zone over a BAE facility which is entirely different kettle of three-eyed fish. )
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
Friday 23rd May 2014 18:42 GMT Fink-Nottle
Re: Stupid bureaucrats
> "In this article ‘a small unmanned surveillance aircraft’ means a small unmanned aircraft which is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition."
> This aircraft is clearly covered.
We'lI have to agree to disagree, because I don't think it's clear at all. A camera is necessary but not sufficient to equip an aircraft for surveillance. However, if Knowles was 'done' under the 50m rule then clearly the judge was of the opinion that S167 applied.
-
-
-
-
Friday 23rd May 2014 14:36 GMT Amorous Cowherder
Re: Stupid bureaucrats
Bloody right!
Bloody nann(c)y state! Typical they just don't care about art or interesting stuff, all they care about is not having a few tourists being seriously injured by an unauthorised flying machines! How selfish can they be to only be thinking about the safety of people instead of some dingbat who should have thought the whole thing through first! Tch!
-
Friday 23rd May 2014 20:17 GMT grumpyoldeyore
Re: Stupid bureaucrats
At the start of the 20th century the French authourities became so fed up with balloons crossing the alps that they started charging the intrepid aviators import duty on the hydrogen. The same fate befell E.T Willows when he became the first person to fly the Channel from England to France.
-
Saturday 24th May 2014 13:10 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: Stupid bureaucrats
I is Frenchman. And I is totally agree.
Our country is led by shit faces people, our ministers are pedophile, everyone knows it and still they are here, TV, government everywhere, spreading their shit to crush down France.
His vvideo is beautiful, he should have been helped by the Nancy's mayor office, because that is one hell of a promotion video.
-
-
Sunday 25th May 2014 20:33 GMT Anonymous Coward
> I'm sure when Single-European-Sky comes in
I don't think you know what the Single European Sky is. In any case, UAVs, model aircraft, microlights, and a bunch of other stuff is still the remit of national aviation authorities (EASA threw them a bone, as it were) which is probably why they're going to get anal about all those things. Lots of people with jobs to justify and stuff.
-
-
-
Saturday 24th May 2014 17:03 GMT Anonymous Coward
There isn't. Spain just recently disallowed all drone flights everywhere; except in special 'permitted zones'.
Frankly, it should depend on the type of drone...a petrol-powered monster is an entirely different proposition to -say- a Parrot. A Parrot isn't going to chop anyone up even if it does fall on them...especially if it's got the bumper on.
-
Monday 26th May 2014 08:43 GMT Anonymous Coward
Not knowing anything about France I couldn't say whether there is more or less bureaucracy than Spain but I doubt it could be any slower. In Spain it would be quicker to grow wings than get permission for just about anything.
We are currently coming up to the first anniversary of possibly many of submitting a planning application for a new house in a village of 21 habitants. The back of the house will be more than 14m from the road so we need special exemption from the rules firstly from the town hall then from the regional junta. The town hall says that the planning rules are going to change and they are not processing any applications untill after they have, this could be years. That's the latest excuse because they didn't know about the rule changes until four or five months after our applicaction.
-
-
Friday 23rd May 2014 13:29 GMT Destroy All Monsters
400 EUR!?!!
Well, that kind of money sure will go towards rebuilding all those train stations suddenly discovered to be "too narrow" for the GDP-boosting new rolling stock.
"In Hollandaise France, GDP boosts YOU!"
-
Friday 23rd May 2014 13:32 GMT RainForestGuppy
I read that as...
illegal Drone fight!! Much more interesting.
I think that could be the next big spectator sport drone fighting. Sort of Robot Wars 3D, "This time its vertical".
Hands off Sky, Bernie Ecclestone et al, I thought of this first!!
I'm also thinking of ProCeleb Drone fighting....
In the blue corner, The USAF 174th Fighter wing with a Reaper MQ-9 vs Danny Dyer with a Parrot AR. v2
-
Friday 23rd May 2014 13:52 GMT Anonymous Coward
Re: I read that as...
FPV racing that's the next big thing. Hide a quad/hex or bunch of them on some multi-storey roofs, solar panels natch. Come the race time all your mates down the pub watching real time as UAV, (or cars/bikes) appear in the town centre and battle to the death while the CCTV tried desperately to work out where the users are hidden.
-
Saturday 24th May 2014 10:22 GMT PC Paul
THIS is a racing quadcopter
There is a newish design of quad that is designed for extreme stunt flying and 3D racing - for instance a course marked out down the side of a cliff...
http://vimeo.com/78559200
Unlike normal quads that use a variable speed motor per rotor and fixed pitch props, the Stingray 500 uses a single larger motor with belt drive to each corner (well proven in 4x4 racing buggies) and collective pitch on each rotor.
It gives it amazing manoeuvrability compared even to acrobatic quads. Want.
-
-
-
Friday 23rd May 2014 16:13 GMT Steven Roper
What about a kite?
He could just as easily have attached his camera to a kite. and taken some photos, at least then he wouldn't have been fined. Unless flying kites is now illegal. Given the ongoing erosion of basic freedoms and simple pleasures that has characterised this century so far, it sadly wouldn't surprise me.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Friday 23rd May 2014 17:05 GMT RobHib
Spectacular, but at what ultimate cost?
Now, I've been to Nancy quite awhile ago but I don't remember seeing the city in such a spectacular way.
Wow, with images of that quality possible and drones now cheap, this is only the beginning. Even if illegal, reckon there'll be those who'll even be prepared to sacrifice the hardware for such high quality data.
With anonymous radio links and drones dumped in some inaccessible place at the end of a run (in the ocean etc.), then the evidence about perpetrators might be difficult to come by. One thing's for certain: with high definition cameras and tiny drones now easily available, we can say 'we ain't seen nothin' yet.'
And with the privacy issue already with us and spiraling out of control--not to mention its potential to put Google Earth to shame (such as flying 'disposables' over military targets already blanked out in Google Earth thus exposing them) then I reckon this technology is in for a very rocky ride.
(Remember, the US classified encryption as a munition and it got Phil Zimmermann into a lot of trouble when PGP was exported. This camera/drone technology has incredibly powerful uses and there's huge (and easy) potential for it to be abused, thus it could easily come under similar control. Seems to me that unless there's some resolution about how it's to be used then governments are likely to make its possession by the hoi polloi illegal. Let's hope that doesn't happen.)
...Meanwhile I'll drink to Nans Thomas for a splendid effort.
-
-
Saturday 24th May 2014 13:51 GMT Steven Roper
Re: The Nancy Chamber of Commerce and Tourism should have paid his fine ...
Why would they do that? That way they incur the cost of his fine and have to pay him for the footage.
Instead, they can now confiscate his footage as the proceeds of criminal activity, therefore he forfeits all rights to it. The government gets to use his footage for nothing, they can even charge the Nancy Chamber of Commerce for the use of it and pocket the profits themselves, AND he has to pay them for the act of obtaining it.
That's how the world works these days. The benefits of copyright and ownership of things are only for our lords and masters, not for the likes of you and me.
-