Registration Couples

I’m curious,

My wife’s uncle has recently bought a MPP, took the test and passed, now he’s got his OP and Flyer ID…
Which Is now displayed on the drone. All is good.

His wife then decided to take the test herself so she to could have a go at flying on days out, but she took the flyer ID only option.
So long story short.
They have a drone between two people with one operator ID on it? Who takes the wrap if something bad happens? ie the drone is found crashed on the motor way or similar (hope this never happens) :crossed_fingers:t4: Obviously you’d like to think they’d sort it out between them but this could throw up a grey area surely, if one wanted to throw the other under the bus. :thinking:

My understanding is that your wife’s uncle is responsible for the drone, its upkeep, and controlling who flies it.

If it falls out the sky because of shoddy maintenance then it’s on him (though I imagine there might be questions about her pre-flight checks).

If his wife takes it out and flies it straight through somebody’s front window then he’s responsible for being able to say who was flying, and she’s responsible for the flying.

3 Likes

Such a chance for a “politically incorrect” gag, there.

3 Likes

Thanks Joe, appreciate your response. I did more or less think the same in that most of the responsibility would be on his shoulders being the main owner and Operator.

2 Likes

Go for it I’m not sure there is such a thing Ask Jimmy Carr or Ricky Gervais :woozy_face: :joy:

1 Like

Not sure this opinion will help or if it’s even a valid comparison but!.. Who is responsible in a car accident, the owner of the vehicle or the driver?
Clarification welcomed!

1 Like

I suppose the reason for the accident would have some bearing. Driver error, down to the driver. Vehicle not road worthy, down to the owner?

1 Like

But it would be a case of prover the driver, in this case if the drone is found the registration links to the uncle not necessarily the aunt :thinking:

But is it not down to the driver to check the load so to speak? :thinking:

I’d say they’re pretty similar. Caveating this with “I’m not a lawyer”, the registered keeper of the car is responsible for maintaining the vehicle in a roadworthy state. And the driver is responsible for doing basic safety checks before driving: are the tyres legal, is there washer fluid, do the lights work, etc. (they’re in the Highway Code). “It’s not my car” isn’t an excuse for bald tyres. And if the driver gets flashed by a speed camera it’s not (unless they refuse to provide the driver’s details) the registered keeper who gets the points.

Along with not being a lawyer, I’m also not a mechanic, so can’t imagine what might occur to cause an accident which wouldn’t be obvious during the driver’s checks, but I know I’ve read or heard about a rental company being found responsible for an accident which was caused by poor maintenance of a car they’d hired out.

Also, I once saw an episode of one or other of the various police reality shows (“Police! Camera! Action!” I think) where they’d pulled over a lad who turned out to be driving uninsured. It was his dad’s car, and lad duly said his dad let him drive it and he (the lad) just assumed that meant he was on the family policy.

Officer calls lad’s dad and asks him if he gave his son permission to drive the family hatchback… dad says ‘yes’. Office points out it’s an offence to knowingly let somebody drive your car without insurance. Not surprisingly, dad changes his answer and now says he did not give son permission, so lad gets nicked for insurance, and for stealing his dad’s car.

Similarly, the operator is responsible for keeping track of the people flying their drone(s), including making sure that the pilot has a flyer ID. As the operator, you can’t just hand your Mavic 2 to a mate down the park who doesn’t have a flyer ID and then claim innocence if they do something stupid with it.

1 Like

As long as one of you has an operator id and pays £9 a year the other is fine with just a flyer id

Agree with most points, however, the presumption you have made is that the owner is somehow in the wrong. ie letting someone drive uninsured or the vehicle is unroadworthy.
What about if everything is legal! and the incident is purely “an accident”?
So I allow my relative, who is insured to drive my car. The car is MOT’d and fully roadworthy. During their trip they have an “accident” and drive into a third party’s car, wall or bay window (hopefully not all at the same time). Who is responsible for the accident?. I very much doubt it would be the owner (me)
I’m not trying to be awkward and do not really see this as a serious comment, but just asking or playing Devils advocate.

2 Likes

Oh heck, seems it’s the bus option :rofl::rofl:

1 Like

Seems like a lot of valid points have been made here, but is it safe to say then really that this is another grey area regarding the registration :thinking:
Hopefully nothing like this will ever happen, it was more a point of finding out and protecting them if something did happen for example telling the aunt to pay the £9 too and stamp 2 OP ID’s on the drone.
I guess then it would still be a case of “who was flying” regardless. :thinking:

lol - you mean like “what the flipping heck is he doing letting a female near it ?” - you can tell I live abroad 8 months of the year where there is absolutely no PC - :slight_smile: Im standing by to get flamed lol

1 Like

No, no. There are some circumstances in which the vehicle owner would be the one in the wrong/responsible… but the fact we don’t hear about that regularly would, given the number of shared/lease/hire cars on the road, suggest it’s pretty rare. In the main, if there’s an accident/collision/crash/offence committed then the driver of one of the vehicles involved is responsible*.

I’d imagine (have there been any test cases?) the same is going to be true of drones under the registration scheme. 99% of the time, the operator and pilot will be one and the same, but where not the operator will be responsible for identifying the pilot, who will be responsible for their actions whilst flying.

Where I can see the difference between drones and cars is the degree of regulation/testing makes it much less likely your car is going to fail due to a design/software issue**. Drones seem more susceptible to firmware issues and the consequences are pretty catastrophic. Assuming there aren’t existing safety notices, the operator has maintained the firmware and the pilot is sticking to the drone code then they’ve mitigated the risks as much they can (and are required to), so the ‘blame’ would then go up the chain to the manufacturer.

(*I’m not a fan of the idea that there are ‘no-fault accidents’ … either somebody has driven beyond their skill, disregarded/misjudged conditions, or they haven’t been paying sufficient attention. The rare event of mechanical problems causing accidents must either be poor maintenance or poor build/design. No such thing as an ‘Act of God’, IMHO)

(**Of course, all that’s going to change as self-driving cars become more popular. There have already been fatalities in the US where autonomous cars have run over and killed pedestrians due to software glitches - or more accurately, the decision making routines ignoring ‘jay walkers’ because that’s what they were programmed to do. At the moment, that’s still the driver’s responsibility because they are supposed to be alert and ready to override the vehicle, but that requirement won’t last forever)

1 Like

The key things where registration is relevant to prosecution are:

Regarding what happens if the drone crashes and causes damage or injury, Air Navigation Order 2016 s.241 covers this broadly:

A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.

It says nothing about the operator or the pilot, it’s any person who can be prosecuted. That could include the operator (gave the drone to somebody who they knew was not going to fly it safely), the pilot (flew it negligently), or indeed a bystander (recklessly jostled the pilot while they were attempting a tricky manouevre).

ANO 2016 s.94(2) & (3) cover the need to be sure the flight can be made safely, and the need to maintain VLOS. Those requirements are clearly assigned to the “person in charge”, which in the 2018 amendment is now clear as being the remote pilot. So the operator can’t be prosecuted under 94(2) and 94(3) but can be prosecuted under 241. At least, that’s my reading.

Short version: if the Aunt (remote pilot) endangers someone and the Uncle (operator) didn’t know about, the Uncle is in the clear. If the Uncle did know about it and “permitted” it to happen, he’s potentially in the shit.

That’s just the criminal law under the ANO; I imagine that if the drone actually did cause damage or injury, a claim in civil law could also be raised against anyone involved.

3 Likes

Thanks for the info,
Think my query is though, not just in the case of aunt and uncle but anyone who flys a drone that isn’t displaying there own OP, but does have a flyers ID.

Another scenario:
I see a guy flying around the local field with his OP and FID and I get chatting and friendly, to the point he offers me ago knowing I have FID too. I then ditch the drone on a road causing an incident. Okay it was my fault maybe for causing the crash but… the police pick the drone up and link the OP the owner, he then gets a knock on the door. Mean while I’m still running home claiming no idea to what’s happened.

I guess the he’d be in the shit as it was his drone and his OP that led the police to him.

Maybe to get over this we should have to enter our own FID on a OS to be able to fly. Then at least the guy could of said “yeah you can have a go enter your FID” to continue.

This might read back as total BS but makes sense in my head lol.

Same logic applies as before. It’s the wording of the law that matters. If your park pal negligently permitted you to endanger people, he can be arrested. And so could you. S.241 of the ANO doesn’t care who is the registered operator, it only cares about who was reckless or negligent. Of course, if your park pal can’t find you, he’ll face the law alone. Moral: never lend your drone to somebody you don’t know and trust.

2 Likes

For what it’s worth I once had a boss say to me when it comes to the ‘blame game’ the questions asked of you are :-

Where you negligent?
Where you diligent? Can you prove it?

Other than that here’s hoping the one sitting in judgement isn’t having a bad day :frowning_face_with_open_mouth:

2 Likes