Yea I know the area well as I had to fly in and out few times stopping and filling my belly in the ground feeder at shawbury and definitely not a place to live near with a drone as they come in from all directions at low level miles out.
1 Like
Maybe. If he has the resources/money to fight it and is looking to set case law on the subject, then yes this might be a shot across the CAAās bows along the lines of stop taking the piss. If it looks like he will win, iād reckon the CPS would chicken out and pull their case before a judgement was passed, as it would make prosecutions of other drone pilots in similar situations somewhat more complicated with no guarantees of winning.
Filming an illegal car race, thatās unlikely to be by chance. Nice day for a flight. Oh look, an illegal car race. Might be thinking heās one of the organisers. Theyāll want a result just for that.
As always, we only know what a local advertising revenue grabbing newspaper chooses to tell us.
1 Like
If I was filming cars or anything else car sized on the ground, then I certainly wouldnāt be flying that high. 50-100ft would be my choice depending on location. He wouldnāt get very good footage from 150m unless it was a larger drone like an Matrice 30.
One thing with that, thereās no such thing as the āhelicopters airspaceā or ādrones airspaceā.
Airspace is a shared resort and ultimately unmanned is obligated to get out of the way of manned in that shared airspace.
Im guessing we donāt have the full details because itād be very hard for the police to prove a hazard based purely on the reported observations.
1 Like
He might not have been watching the race or filming it. Could have been surveilling the crowd or participants. It wouldnāt surprise me if private security operatives used tech to watch targets. We know the police and security services do so.