Unfortunately because of the nature of the tabloid press and the negative bias that is applied to these kinds of narratives, whether or not its true, people, much like the recent violence broadcast in the media, are inclined to believe what suits them despite any repost
2 Likes
The CAA drone code as applied to sub-250g drones (we will assume for the moment that the drone involved in this incident was a sub-250g type, based on the lightness of the injuries) prohibits flying over ‘crowds’, the definition of a crowd for this purpose apparently being something along the lines of ‘a group of people too tightly positioned together to easily move out of the way of a drone’. The question now becomes 'how tightly packed were the ‘crowds’ on Sidmouth’s ‘crowded seafront’. Were they an average of 10 feet apart? 5? 2? The victim was hit on his arm, amidships, which suggests a relatively flat drone trajectory rather than the drone falling out of control or in the process of landing, and also suggests that the crowds were not that tightly packed.
The next question is ‘was the drone under control or crashing?’ If it was crashing, then the pilot had no influence on the outcome, otherwise one has to establish to what degree he/she was in control of the drone. This opens a can of all sorts of worms; many cheap drones with no gps are difficult to control except in the vaguest sense of the word through no fault of the pilot; they’re just crap, and my view is that legislation to control their sale is needed.
Lastly, there is is possiblility that this was a decent quality drone under proper control, with sufficient battery and within the pilot’s VLOS. This scenario sounds like the pilot was indeed at fault, and deserves to have action taken against him.
But none of that can be determined from the news report of the incident. We are not even told the weight registration status of the drone or if the serial number was taken or the police involved, only that the victim would be taking matters up with the CAA. Without the pilot’s Operator ID he won’t get very far!
Basically a non-story, but it looks as if the drone pilot was not flying considerately.
1 Like
Shorter than your response ;o)
2 Likes
By a handsome margin!
Innit
3 Likes
TL:DR
Fixed it for ya
2 Likes
Had it hit me, I’d have been asking the flyer what sort of drone did this used to be 
2 Likes
Naw ye wuldnae…
Questions are for afters 
1 Like
Aye ah wid. He’d huv needed a new gimbal, new arms, new motors, new body, new electronics. Put it this way if it wiz a DJI, he’d widny be using care refresh
3 Likes
There are some VERY OBSCURE drone rules and regs from the CAA that I wasn’t aware of! LAUGHABLE RUBBISH!
… what about the drone ?? 
3 Likes
Inflammatory, unevidenced, biased (probably fabricated) bile - perhaps the reporter ‘Philippa Jones’ should go and work for Paul Dacre’s Daily Mail!! Awful lack of journalistic value
3 Likes
If the 250g drone is a lethal thing what about to be hit by a Inspire drone per se ? It will be categorized as a nuke ? How about an Agras 40 ? Somehow these statements were the source of changes in CAA’s attitude towards the drone pilots . The new regulations are a mess , allowing the bylaws to trample your pilot right .
Which Byelaws are these ?
Those made by every single council around the country . In the beginning was the CAA which regulated the airspace . Today "you need to check your local council site for any bylaw forbidding the take off in some , even huge park areas . I’m not talking about the Mini 4Pro , more like Inspire drones and Typhoon drones . I’ve done training flights , in accordance of Art 722 for years and years . Now there’s a plate forbidding anything in that park even drones . But the council tax hits the sky already …
Hardly
1 Like
Which park/council?