VLOS Help me out here as still learning.
Just say I fly my drone well within VLOS but on the way I see a disused large building without a roof and I fly inside it and then come out. I would have NO VLOS inside the building for the time I was inside it.
Clearly a disused building and no harm to public, Is that against the drone rules?
Grey
Drone code does not apply to flying inside, but is it inside with no roof, and you wouldnāt be inside
And visual line of sight is to protect other air users not the public
Correct.
What I meant was it would require one as opposed to an ESTA
Nope not at allā¦I worked at the US Embassy in London in the early 90ās and the only people who were never granted visas were those convicted of the most serious offences.
Would like to watch video but dont want to give him the views.
I mean bell-end. It was hardly the most difficult case, H 431, D15653ft. Not sure how the Police go the evidence!
Dont worry he only had an hand full before and with a few extra from here heās never going to be on any ones Rich list
I subbed
He used binoculars 3 miles away!!! I suspect he knew the rules well enough to disable warnings and got carried away with it. Most of us understand the rules and the purpose for them, and bring it back if weāve wandered beyond, but some people push well beyond the boundaries then make equally wild justifications when it goes wrong.
Loss of VLoS briefly, as long as you know where the thing is and can expect to receive that visual is probably acceptable operation. Drones are used for confined space inspection. Comes down to what is reasonable. I fly mine i. The valleys around here and have a Viglo strobe on it. At times I can see the strobe but not the machine itself (eg if the drone is facing directly toward me the strobe is slightly obscured), but with the camera and map location I can bring it back into view. Itās all about maintaining situation awareness and being able to keep things under control
there is no doubt in my mind he knew what he was doing. He is not new to drones. If you look thought his YouTube content he had a Phantom some time back and this was not a one off. He also seems to like adrenaline sports ( skydiving) so maybe this was just a way for him to get a cheap buzz that he was missing from jumping out of a plane.
Still boggles my mind how he got of so lightly
A soft bunch of Magistrates.
Really? Ā£500+ costs. Ā£800ish in total?
If someone drives through town at 15:30/16:00 (kids walking home time) in a 30mph zone @ 40mph, they likely far more likely to kill someone IMO. Whats the penalty there? 3 points, and an Ā£80 fineā¦ Happens every day!
Not defending what heās done, but seems HARSH penalty to me (though they hit him with 4 offences), as I definitely donāt defend people doing 40 in a 30 (IMO a worse offence!)
Totally agree
What would you suggest?
He paid fines for only 2 of the 4 offenses - thatās the bit that seems to be a bit lenient and he played the - āI didnāt know, not enough guidanceā card even though the BBC article suggests he had guidance from fellow hobbyist - no doubt the " Just Send It" groups you find on Facebook 
It just feels like he got off lightly when you see other articles about how dangerous drones are and them quoting 1000ās of pounds worth of fines when this is the reality that you will be told you were a naughty, naughty person - donāt do it again.
Granted the punishment should fit the crime and he was lucky in this case. I doubt others will be though.
Well thousands have been over airports and flying over stadiums.
He flew far, actually kept it in site (with binoculars, OK fine thatās not allowed). I still think itās a harsh fine (when people risk childrenās lives daily)! He also said heād never fly again and said he was an idiot, maybe that mitigated it! He somehow didnāt get in trouble for not having op ID, so maybe he did? itās not clear, says doesnāt need one, but do as it has a camera, strangeā¦ Others have been hit with that extra, and they add up!
Plus, only reason he was caught (in all likely hood) is that someone saw and reported his video, so heās a plonker.
Itās good that people are being fined and put in the news, hopefully stops others doing it, and leave us decent hobbyists who follow the rules, and stay safe without having to bring in draconian rules.
Itās probably not harsh, probably about right thinking more on it. Ā£1000s and Ā£1000s when people get away with far worse daily, or just an Ā£80 fine for putting kids at risk is worse.
WHAT, WHAT, WHAT?
The rules are already positively draconian, and penalties are not administered equally.
If we go back to the incident where someone had his Mini Drone shot out of the sky while filming a vintage car show. The outcome of this, as far as the Police have been concerned, is that the gun owner shot the drone out of the sky because he thought it was an illegal flight, and both concerned parties have apparently shook hands and made up. Sourced from a FOI application. I wonder how the authorities would respond if I started taking pot shots at cars driving through my town that Iāve found to have no tax or MOT on them?
However I do find this particular incident in Peterborough does merit disciplinary action, but also remember itās a bloody big sky. Even if an air ambulance or NPAS aircraft was operating in the area the chances of a collision would be very remote. Yes there is always a risk, but that can be said of any activity. We all accept there is significant risk of injury, or death, while walking on the pavement while 2 tonne, and bigger, metal boxes are whizzing past at speeds in excess of 30mph within ten feet of us. However this is seen as an acceptable risk. The penalty for breaking the rules should be commensurate with the risk it presents. Was there an aircraft active at the time of the incident? If the answer is no then there was no risk, and the only offence was flying at a height and distance not in accordance with the regulations. If he presented an imminent threat of injury or death as an aircraft was in close proximity then the penalty should be greater, even more so if it was intentional. In this case I think the focus has been more of what if and not on what actually happened.
Its a very good point, and considering the main points in this case were made out to be air ambulance and police aircraft.
The latter can and do land anywhere, so its always a risk.
I mean the guys flying near airports, or over stadiums with a footy match on. I was arguing against the guys stating this incident was under fined! Iām with you. Only reason he got this fine is that he posted it on socialā¦ I mean if I did 50 in a 30 and filmed that, and shoved it on youtube Iād expect a knock, and a fine (though not Ā£500 probably!)
This is why Iām so against RIDā¦ It WILL be used to retrospectively fine users eventually. Accidentally go 123m, or 500m away theyāll set a max VLOS limit at some point), nice little fine in the post. OK our GPS baramtetric might not be accurate/calibrated for this, but OK theyāll ask for the video you made on that flight, āDonāt have it? OK weāll seize your equipmentāā¦
Imagine having little black boxes broadcasting everything we did in our carsā¦ Go over 35 in a 30ā¦ boom fine in post automated, make it Ā£1000 tooā¦ Make millionsā¦ thatās a good idea actuallyā¦ Sort this cost of living out! Gunja for PM (thatās a very bad idea TBH!)!
STOP RID and over regulating our hobby! HIT BACK AGAINST ITā¦
Itās a minor conviction in the sense that he didnāt murder anyone! , not anywhere near the minimum threshold of being refused entry. A simple appointment to the Embassy with the police certificate stating the offences / conviction and the decision will be based on that. Thereās been a number of celebrities over here with convictions who have been granted visas over the years.