So Police Liaison Officer obviously wrong referred to the FIA and the 50 meters thing is not accurate as its a mini 2 but it is overflying a crowd which is contrary to the drone code and ANO.
Thought this was measured policing as he did have powers to confiscate and prosecute for the offence (although he didn’t quite know it).
That said not all officers are going to be experts in the same way they are not experts in other offences etc so I guess as responsible operators we need to be certain about the rules and be able to calmly demonstrate these should the need arise.
No. I think the offence of interrupting a pilot is covered by Article 245 of the ANO (“acting in a disruptive manner”), which only applies to manned aircraft.
I have heard that it is an offence… Geeksvana YT, seems to be a respected source
I guess if we are required by the CAA to be in control of the drone at all times surely it is wrong for someone to interfere with us; otherwise we could have a friendly chat for 15 minutes with passers-by?
I’ve also heard that it’s an offense, but when I’ve asked anyone to tell me what offense it is, noone has been able to back it up. I think it’s a myth.
The regulations require you to maintain safe control of the drone within VLOS at all times, and to be able to abort the flight safely if risks arise during the flight. That’s 100% your responsibility as the pilot under UAS.OPEN.060. It’s not reasonable to put any part of that responsibility onto the general public. If there was a real risk of them interrupting you, I’m pretty certain the CAA’s view is that you should not have started the flight. This is why professional drone pilots set up segregated areas and sometimes have a helper on hand.
I read CAP 2008 and CAP2012 as both saying that for even a drone of less than 250g you must not fly over a crowd/group of people. This being different to the odd uninvolved person where you can.
This to me would mean the ‘must not fly’ zone is a cylinder around the crowd from ground upwards and even being 50m above them is not allowed. A bit like the pictures in the drone code but without the 150m dome.
I just copied this excerpt from the Drone Safe website.
Quote:
Speak to the Pilot. If you can see the pilot, just go and have a chat. It’s important that you wait to do this until the drone is on the ground as it’s both illegal and potentially dangerous to engage with a pilot while they are flying.
End quote.
I’d still like a definite answer if anyone has more on this
I think thats the A6 / Store st junction. Directly over the tram I think So the 50 metre rule applies there also. If he had checked out Drone assist he could have seen that. I fly in city centres on a regular basis (legally) I would have not attempted that flight. He should have stayed over the buildings.
Even though the bobby was quoting bollocks he was right to do what he did and wS very reasonable about it.
Whilst that is true, when that person is a police officer acting in the interests of public safety then they need to be able to communicate to the pilot the need to land. Otherwise people could do absolutely anything with a drone and carry on regardless of who was asking them to stop.
In my view the officer very quickly explained the need to land the drone, and the interaction was relatively civil. He needs a bit of revision of the laws and agencies involved (i.e. the FIA is a motorsports governing body), but the fact is that the operator was flying over a crowd and also operating from the middle of a road that hadn’t been officially closed.
I agree …the Police have the right to stop you flying, but they must stand back until the aircraft has landed and been stowed. The person flying the UAV was in the wrong and was flying illegally. Drone law
Exceptions from application of provisions of the Order for certain classes of aircraft
23.—(1) This article applies to—
(a)any small balloon;
(b)any kite weighing not more than 2kg;
(c)any small unmanned aircraft; and
(d)any parachute including a parascending parachute.
(2) Subject to paragraph (3), nothing in this Order applies to or in relation to an aircraft to which this article applies.
(3) Articles 2, 91, 92, 94, 95, 239, 241 and 257 (except 257(2)(a)) apply to or in relation to an aircraft to which this article applies, and article 265 applies in relation to those articles.
It took me a while to wrap my head around that article. Far too many numbers and far too much doublespeak for a Tuesday morning…
Thank you for sharing though. I wonder whether you could use Article 241 instead when faced with a particularly persistent member of the public or otherwise?
241. A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.
You could make the argument that if someone were refusing to let you land the aircraft in a safe manner, then they are in effect causing danger to persons and property. Could be a bit of a stretch though!
