First UK conviction for illegal use of an unmanned aircraft by the CAA.
- Thread starter Benjamin Kenobi
- Start date
Bartman
Welcome to MultiRotorForums.com!!
Benjamin Kenobi
Easy? You call that easy?
That advice is the UK law which is very similar for hobby and commercial alike. I never understood why the FAA didn't just adopt the same rules since they are working regs.
I believe the penalties were an £800 fine and £3500 court costs. The chap has been posting on a UK forum and I think he also mentioned legal fees of £5000 but may have got legal aid, is wasn't clear from the posting.
This is the flight that led to the conviction, is was a fly-away:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i796x3lTzc
Oops, just checked, he's made it private 30 minutes ago. It basically showed his fixed wing losing control, flying in a straight line for about a mile, skimming a bridge and entering a no-fly zone near some nuclear submarines (you don't see the submarines) before hitting the water. No one was nearby and no one was hurt. It was purely the area his aircraft flew into (uncontrolled) that caused the issue.
So this case basically represents a hobbyist experiencing a fly-away and being prosecuted (successfully) because his aircraft enters a no-fly zone.
I believe the penalties were an £800 fine and £3500 court costs. The chap has been posting on a UK forum and I think he also mentioned legal fees of £5000 but may have got legal aid, is wasn't clear from the posting.
This is the flight that led to the conviction, is was a fly-away:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i796x3lTzc
Oops, just checked, he's made it private 30 minutes ago. It basically showed his fixed wing losing control, flying in a straight line for about a mile, skimming a bridge and entering a no-fly zone near some nuclear submarines (you don't see the submarines) before hitting the water. No one was nearby and no one was hurt. It was purely the area his aircraft flew into (uncontrolled) that caused the issue.
So this case basically represents a hobbyist experiencing a fly-away and being prosecuted (successfully) because his aircraft enters a no-fly zone.
Good to see the CAA did a swift, clean job - unlike the Pirker case in the US 
Because, according to the FAA, US Airspace is "uniquely complex"
Because, according to the FAA, US Airspace is "uniquely complex"
flydontdie
Member
If it was a flyaway, he needs better legal advice.
flydontdie
Member
Could you be convicted for a firework heading off in a direction you didn't intend ? very very worrying story.
Benjamin Kenobi
Easy? You call that easy?
I've been reading his posts for the last month leading up to this case and he seemed to just lie down and give up. He didn't even go to the hearing. His legal advice was just terrible!
Anyone in the UK who needs a specialist lawyer for this kind of case ask for Peter Lee.
flydontdie
Member
This could be a total game changer and the end of most peoples flying, if you can be held responsible for a flyaway then it has to be game over or do you risk £4 every time !
I can prove that I do everything possible to avoid a flyaway using the kit I have, would that be enough ? is a failsafe system such as whats available in the A2 and the like good enough to negate the chances of being prosecuted, if not, then I am selling a lot of kit very soon.
I can prove that I do everything possible to avoid a flyaway using the kit I have, would that be enough ? is a failsafe system such as whats available in the A2 and the like good enough to negate the chances of being prosecuted, if not, then I am selling a lot of kit very soon.
Benjamin, do you know what safety precautions this guy had in place? Did he have a failsafe set up? What flight controller was he using?
Very worrying that the CAA should put this amount of effort into prosecuting a flyaway when there far more serious cases of blatant idiotic and irresponsible flying posted all over you tube. I saw a video of a guy in N Ireland flying at 2500 ft within Belfast CTA and he couldnt understand what he was doing wrong. To me, this is the sort of case that should be the top of the CAA prosecution list.
Benjamin Kenobi
Easy? You call that easy?
The problem the CAA has is lack of evidence in many cases. In this case the pilot is seen in the video and the aircraft was recovered by someone else, I believe.
He was flying APM 2.5. He lost visual contact and initiated failsafe which failed. This is the point the CAA picked up on. You must maintain visual contact and must make sure your failsafe is in working order.
I was surprised by this case as we have all seen far worse uses of a UAV.
If anyone has seen a UK show called 'Kirsties Best of Both Worlds' they are flying over main roads, down high-streets and over members of the public all the time. And these guys are qualified.
He was flying APM 2.5. He lost visual contact and initiated failsafe which failed. This is the point the CAA picked up on. You must maintain visual contact and must make sure your failsafe is in working order.
I was surprised by this case as we have all seen far worse uses of a UAV.
If anyone has seen a UK show called 'Kirsties Best of Both Worlds' they are flying over main roads, down high-streets and over members of the public all the time. And these guys are qualified.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting you should mention "Kirsties Best of Both Worlds". I had been worndering how LA Media had gained permission to do some of their extreme shots and what safety case/mitigation they would have to present to the CAA.
Well....... I gotta say, yes, he was responsible. A deliberate attempt to break the law, or cause harm, "NO". If you shoot a bottle rocket into the air, and it lands on someones home, and causes damage, "AND" there is no doubt that "YOU" set it off, yes, you are responsible. Same thing if you shoot a gun into the air. Say the bullet comes down and kills someone. "IF" it gets linked to you, say by ballistics, yes, you are responsible. I don't know the whole story, but the poor guy must have come forward, and claimed his mistake.
One thing I was taught about guns and bullets, is that once you let it go, there ain't no calling it back.
One thing I was taught about guns and bullets, is that once you let it go, there ain't no calling it back.
Benjamin Kenobi
Easy? You call that easy?
No one was hurt. It landed in a small stream and didn't go near any people. It was the fact it landed in a no-fly zone near a nuclear submarine site that prompted the case, as it was considered surveillance.
But yes, looking over the facts of the case it does seem guilt was proven.
But yes, looking over the facts of the case it does seem guilt was proven.
well, just checked, they are BNUC-s with a Cinestar8, http://www.lamedia.co.uk/about/ I had been wondering the same thing, are they part of ARPAS ben??
Carapau
Tek care, lambs ont road, MRF Moderator
The fact that they are BNUC-S qualified is a bit alarming really if it proves that they didn't have the correct permissions or if there isn't another perfectly acceptable explanation. I will have to check on the ARPAS register to see if they are members but I am pretty sure they are not. Either way, the CAA are aware of what they have been doing and I believe are looking into it.
Benjamin Kenobi
Easy? You call that easy?
As Carapau said, they're not with ARPAS as far as we know.
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
jimmygixxer
Member
Silly place to fly.
Just looking at the advice given on the CAA link
"An unmanned aircraft must never be flown beyond the normal unaided ‘line of sight’ of the person operating it. This is generally measured as 500m horizontally or 400ft vertically."
Does this include if the user is using FPV? Technically speaking his line of sight is actually on the quad. Just trying to be a smart @rse
You have to admit though, the bridge crossing was low enough to hit a vehicle.
"An unmanned aircraft must never be flown beyond the normal unaided ‘line of sight’ of the person operating it. This is generally measured as 500m horizontally or 400ft vertically."
Does this include if the user is using FPV? Technically speaking his line of sight is actually on the quad. Just trying to be a smart @rse
You have to admit though, the bridge crossing was low enough to hit a vehicle.