Found this while browsing.
If it’s already posted here please feel free to delete but it contains some interesting info from the angle of police powers should a drone flyer get reported for whatever reason.
2 Likes
It’s something that has been posted before …. but, being dated 2015, it is a bit out of date in relation to changes in the law earlier this year.
Ah fair enough, I did wonder if it was a little out of date tbh.
Is there an updated version Ozonevibe?
1 Like
Not as far as I’m aware.
I mean - there probably is …. but we’ve not got our hands on it as yet. 
2 Likes
28 pages!!! 
Really informative, thank you Martin!
2 Likes
I didn’t know we couldn’t drop animals from them.
1 Like
Well bang goes my business ‘hamsters by drone’ delivery service 
Back to the drawing board.
5 Likes
Makes for interesting reading and great for reference. I’ll be keeping a copy. Thank you for posting it.
1 Like
Some interesting parts but procedures are way out of date.
CAA no longer investigate drone incidents and power has been passed to the police.
1 Like
No mention of FPV with spotter being allowed…grounds for an argument with an ill informed constabulary.
I think we shouldn’t read too much currency into a 2015 document.
Yes, I noticed that too. Maybe the spotter is a more recent idea, but if this is current advice to the police, there’s still a chance they could take it literally I suppose.
Huh? Page one …. 2015
Current as in “not superceded”, not current as in “I need coffee currently”
But …
a) there are bazillions more drones now than in 2015,
b) public attitudes have changed dramatically in that time, and …
c) the laws pertaining to drones have changed more than once.
How can it even be considered current?
It comes up in a search of NPCC https://www.npcc.police.uk/SearchResults.aspx?NPCC_Search=drone so how “current” it is would depend on NPCC internal rules about when they delete things. If police officers normally regard what they find here as “current” then there’s a good chance they’ll still use it. If, on the other hand, they’re used to finding out-of-date documents , they might ignore it in favour of the undated blog entry that comes back in the same search, or use official guidance issued to them by other means.
Actually, I see from 2015 that this document originally appeared as a result of an FOI request made back in 2015 so, on that basis, it would be unlikely that it would be regarded as “current” now , but who knows?
I’d imagine they treat the most recent version of any document as ‘current’, no matter how far behind the times it may be 
1 Like
I’d wager this is only the most recent to be in public circulation.
1 Like
That’s probably quite a safe bet 
1 Like