yes just read that…so the only way is to refer to
https://register-drones.caa.co.uk/drone-code/where-you-can-fly
Paragraph 5
Also CAP 722 PAGE 170 A1.2.2
Yea that would be a stretch would make for interesting case law though.
I do believe we need something like 240 for for SUAV’s but maybe with an exception in that allows a police officer in uniform to request you land. Some may suggest that enforcement officials would need to be given that ability too but where would the line be drawn?
Would mean that we would have some protection from those that want to have a full on conversation while you have the drone in the air.
Someone stated earlier that he was flying a Mini 2. So there is no 50m rule. The only legitimate legal issue in this situation would be if it was flown above the crowd (UAS.OPEN.020), or flown in a manner that created a risk to persons or property (UAS.OPEN.060).
The officer, had he known the law (and clearly he can’t possibly do so), could invoke the second of those to ground the flight even if the drone never flew above the crowd.
1 Like
“You’ll have to watch out I’m not allowed to land it near people” but it’s OK to fly over a large crowd in an enclosed space 
“I know exactly where I’m allowed to fly it” 
Good catch at the end.
2 Likes
I would suggest that the wording of Schedule 9 of the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 is very much on the side of the officer here.
(1)A constable may exercise the power conferred by this paragraph in relation to a person (P) if the constable—
(a)has reasonable grounds for believing that—
(i)a flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place or has taken place, and
(ii)P is or was the remote pilot of the unmanned aircraft for the flight
“A flight by an unmanned aircraft is taking place” is repeated seven times in the schedule.
If a police officer approaches you whilst you’re flying and asks for evidence of competency/registration/etc the only sensible response is to land the aircraft and provide the information.
P is guilty of an offence if—
(a)P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide information, documentation or evidence
For what it’s worth, I think both behaved well here. The officer was right that the flight shouldn’t have been taking place (even if he got the wrong reasons for that) and politely asked the pilot to land and the pilot politely obliged.
Storm.
Teacup.
4 Likes
OMG - the comments on that video though… the ‘internet experts’ are out in force.
I hadn’t looked because I know what to expect to be fair.
This one stuck out got to love a keyboard warrior 
I’m just getting visions of a Mini 2 making a suicide run against a police Matrice or Inspire now…
2 Likes
The 50 meter rule applies to railways is the tram not classed as a railway ? If not why is it highlighted in yellow the same as a railway ?
Regards
I don’t know if a tram would be considered like a railway, but National Rail only politely request that drones are not flown closer than 50m to rail infrastructure without their permission.
But depending on circumstances you may have to keep 50m from a train full of people depending on what you were flying. (A2 legacy UAV perhaps?)
I have no idea why your app is highlighting railways as requiring 50m separation, it has no basis in anyone’s regulations. Perhaps try a different app!
There are 50m separations in Open A2 but the flight here was not in Open A2.
Yes, tram lines are a ground hazard, but I think the people on the street are more at risk!
2 Likes
End if the day, it all comes down to a judgment call on making a safe flight … Go or No-Go
Most of the time I think people make the right choice, but sometimes people get it wrong, either by mistake or by lack of experience. And in most of those cases nothing bad happens … however if it did, the authorities would have a big stick to hit you with.
1 Like
To be fair, DroneScene highlights railways in yellow as a hazard. Although this is more to ask those operating within 50m to contact Network Rail to coordinate their flights as opposed to any airspace restriction.
2 Likes
I thought MAY be mistaken but the Policeman said " The FAA guidelines…etc etc…in fact this was picked up by Geeksvana… So…he (policeman) quoted the wrong authority,
Not very professional either,talking and chewing at the same time!
It sounded more to me like he said FIA guidelines, which is even more wrong. At least the FAA take care of drones in the states. The FIA is the governing body for international motorsport… 
I have very little issue with the officer.
He with the right intentions was trying to safeguard public safety.
He lacked the full knowledge but he’s not a drone expert his a public order one the same way we don’t get traffic officers dealing with sexual offences we have specialists for that.
Let’s not forget he was fundamentally right and he was also very fair had we had a more clued up officer that chap may have been a lot more trouble and almost certainly would have lost his mini 2 at least for the length of an investigation.
Clearly more knowledge is needed across all elements of policing if not least for the fact their use in various elements of criminality is ever increasing but that’s a lot of officers who are already jack of all trades for the most part.
Personally I think we have a part to play in this education, if challengef I think rather than take umbrance at it take the time to educate, not be cocky and know it all but turn it in to a positive interaction between the police and a UAV operator and we might start changing people’s views.
2 Likes
Agree…
Sorry, it really wasn’t my intention to come off as cocky. That’s what I get for writing a hasty reply!
I completely agree that he did a good job under the circumstances, and I think my comments above would support that.
I just found the FIA slip of the tongue amusing as an F1/motorsports fan.
1 Like