Man hauled before beak for using drone to film Premiership matches

Re: Not dangerous, Actually need *less* restriction and less paranoia

Tell you what you stand there and take a hit from a set of 10 inch carbon fibre props and tell me what you think afterwards.

Additionally if you haven't had a failure, props snapping, ESC burning out, loss of or a dozen other problem then you haven't spent much time flying

The point is there there are rules (and some of them are even there for a reason) and as long as you aren't flying close to or over people and it isn't somewhere stupid then you are fairly much going to be OK

I also seem to remember that this idiot also flew around Westminster (and similar locations) and yeah what possible harm could come from flying (somewhat poorly I may add) over central London streets?

Re: Not dangerous, Actually need *less* restriction and less paranoia

I have flown a typical consumer drone into myself at speed to demonstrate how safe they are. The scratches were not any worse than falling into a thorny bush. These horror stories that they are going to knock people out or decapitate them are simply ridiculous and not remotely realistic.

It is not often a post here actually gets me angry but this has managed it. I've had an electric shock on a few occasions and always gotten away with it - usually just a tingle, once a jolt, but never any injuries. From this limited anecdote and using your logic we can conclude that the entire electrical safety code is superfluous and can be dispensed with.

Widespread use of drones may be fairly new, but model aircraft are not and they share most of the legislation. There is also a track record involving property damage, personal injury and occasional deaths - only every few years on average, but yes, they have happened and will continue to do so. This is why most official model flying sites demand insurance and a BMFA certificate showing competence on the the part of the pilot.

You ignore all this, break the existing law (which, surprise, surprise, doesn't allow you to fly into people) and endanger not just yourself but anyone in three mile radius of yourself - after all you could have been incapacitated by this stunt, leaving an out of control model on the loose endangering everyone in the neighbourhood.

This does not make the case for deregulation, quite the opposite. The established model flying community shit themselves when they hear of antics such as this. They have spent decades promoting responsibility and working with regulators to get the law to the the relatively encumbered form that it is today. That is always at risk whenever stories of mindless yobs pulling reckless stunts (like your own actions) receive attention.

Re: Not dangerous, Actually need *less* restriction and less paranoia

There's plenty of instances of people being killed by radio controlled planes or helicopters - "drones" is just a modern catch-all that's made an enthusiasts' hobby acceptably main-stream; they're not just the things that weigh about as much as a gnat and startle the cat if they drop out of the sky and land on it.

Re: Not dangerous, Actually need *less* restriction and less paranoia

I'm not afraid of being hurt by them, I just don't fancy being filmed by some annoying droning, buzzing thing that won't fuck off.

If I see one over hovering over my back garden I WILL try and knock it out of the sky if it doesn't go away.

Re: Perjures?

>Interesting snippet - the plea ("guilty or not guilty?") is not taken under oath.

That is an interesting snippet. There isn't a penalty for perjury for pleading not guilty if you are then convicted, but in reality pleading guilty early will often result in a reduction of the eventual punishment.

Re: RC Drones.

Actually, with FPV flying in the UK, you must have a competent observer who maintains unaided visual line of site of the aircraft.

Air Navigation Order 2009 article 166:

(3) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must maintain direct, unaided visual contact with the aircraft sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions.

Re: The problem is complex

The rules only need changing if people flying WITHIN the rules cause (potential) accidents. If they are ignoring the rules anyway, then the rules wern't relevant to that incident. In fact looser rules would mean more people following the parts that ARE important.

I'm not suggesting that anyone should fly a drone drunk. However I'm also not suggesting that we should ban all cars from the road because very occasionally the steering breaks and one veers off the road.

Science tells us what is safe and what isn't. The rules should be based on sense, not a bunch of troglodyte mumbo jumbo.

Re: Ban them.

"I was just wondering what Mr. Lawrence would consider as valid past times for adults that offeres value for money"

As Ivor Biggun once famously sang: "It's available at any time, and it's absolutely free!"