In his dreams 
5 Likes
no he wasn’t pulled on it, I just saw it in his extensive list of videos and wondered what the height was and Wikipedia spat out 453 ft tall / 138m.
I have never heard of a building height measured from sea level … of the houses in Nepal would probably be the highest buildings in the world.
I’ve been meaning to survey / model the wigwam so I may pop down for a flight… on my to do list, curious what the tallest Liverpool structure is now while I type is the st John’s beacon … AHH west tower
just curious which one they must have done him for breaking 400 ft / 120m … was it the cranes over the stadium or something (I’m guessing they can’t be that high as the stadium is not high but just large)… maybe it was contour and his return to home flight on the other side of the mersey at 120m (tend to adjust mine between 50 and 75m depending on what is about as it is also set if I loose signal or it looses me)
It threw me too, thats why I went and checked that flight I did years ago now. Only reason I can think is theyre trying to make the viewing area sound more impressive than it actually is 
1 Like
Give me a shout when you do. Interested in seeing how the modeling is done.
1 Like
A stadium, does after all have a crowd. If there’s a match on.
Stadiums don’t tend to have crowds in them when they are under construction.
3 Likes
His video response to the situation. Just watching it now.
Sites under construction do however usually have a team of construction workers though.
That’s not the same as a densely packed crowd.
1 Like
does not need to be a densely packed crowd, it is “assemblies of people”, the number of people is not specific, but the basis is an assessment whether people will be able to get out of the way and become aware that you have a problem and they need to get out of the way. if they cannot get out of the way (say they are kneeling down and fixing something down, then it will take time for them to get up and out of the way so they could be considered to be an assembly of people (I say could as it will all be decided after the fact in a court and by the courts view as to what would be considered a reasonable assessment, but not by the passanger on the clapham omnibus as it would be an assessment that should have been made by a competent remote pilot UAV operator).
I’d suggest the 1:1 rule would apply.
Back on topic, it was a very interesting watch from the guy who was convicted and an acceptance of the fines, although not without question, and I expect that at least 1 or the height excursions above 120m by a little could have been down to gps error / correction (as GPS on it’s own has an accuracy of 10-15m) our drones are NOT considered to have suitable GNSS for manned aviation (they use a correction system called SBAS which corrects the signal to within 1 meter vertical and lateral).
The visual line of sight was also interesting in both cases as in the Anglsey case he stated that he had moved with the drone (somewhat) and although that was accepted and the line of sight was probably not as great as the flight logs showed it was still too far. The second instance where he flew out over the Mersey and returned backwards (i.e. drone pointing away from him so he was correctly orientated with the UAV (left on the stick is left and right on the stick is right) is actually the recommended way of flight return for commercial flights was probably a bit harsh.
The victim surcharge was also interesting (as I questioned it above) so it will be interesting to see if he has to pay that as it was not disclosed in the sentancing as there was no victim.
But what was really really interesting is that they did all this following a traffic stop where they confiscated his 2x drones (for 9 months now and counting) and searched his flight logs and I think and agree with him that was unfair and I would question if they had the right to do that given it was a fishing experdition (like he says they could conferscate your dashcam footage to use it to convict you of any number of infractions (yes that 20mph zone IS 20mph and a limit not a target!!!) I guess the police would say that where they have reason to suspect a crime has been or is being comitted they have the right to obtain evidence. But it was a traffic stop (and given someone mentioned he had a discussion with the police at an earlier event they probably listed him as an auditor (lets face it he looks like one in that video wondering along with a go-pro, talking to a DJI osmo / pocket with a DJI mic strapped to him and a drone in a bag) he may have been targeted to show the full force of the law (which is totally unacceptable as it is intimidation and we should not accept if from anyone!!)
had he not had the 2x drones in the car they would have not been able to obtain the flight logs and go on the fishing expedition.
3 Likes
Yeh. I was going to comment on how weird the situation was with it being a traffic stop. Police searched his car and took the drones to forensically search through the data on them. I wonder what actual reasoning they had.
I always thought the police had to be careful about how they gather evidence. Someone that knows more legally may be able to tell us if the whole thing could have been thrown out if court over that. Or not.
The video of the police stopping him isnt on his channel now. I remember it was very negative towards him but he just stood his ground without being rude. A lot of accusations until he told them he had an A2CofC and had multiple take off points. Made him show his insurance but not his A2 cert. They changed their tune once they spotted he had a gopro on a chest mount and left him alone. He didnt start dissing the police after it though just uploaded it as an interaction he had. But i do wonder if they took it to heart.
1 Like
Ooft. Fined for breaking the ANO on a commercial job! 
I did not know this, and assumed (probably wrongly) that the drone assesed it’s height AGL using the downward sensors. Thinking about it, which I haven’t done before, 120m is a big distance for sensors not much more than 1cm apart to assess accurately over, and the accuracy would likely be at least as loose as the 10-15m GPS signal and perhaps more.
I will now set my maximum height parameter to be 105m to be on the safe side! It’s nice to go high for the views, but a ballpark 15% reduction in the ceiling is not going to make much of a difference!
100% from gps triangulation unless very close to the ground.
I work with various sensors for measuring on machines. The ones that would work on a drone for any sort of distance require a reflective plate to work against and you are looking at ~£10k
1 Like
DJI don’t tell you that the GPS may not be accurate to less than 15m in the user’s manuals, to be fair!
Yeah GPS is pretty much spot on nowadays.
The variance in GPS used to be down to the US military and their special frequency that wasn’t available in commercial units. That gave the 12m accuracy offset. I think it was the mid to late noughties when the restriction was lifted.
DJI’s manual for the Mavic 3 puts it at +/- 0.5m vertically
Interesting timing for this to come up as an advert. Looks like if Mr drone had gone higher he might have just got a £1200 fine 
“We understand drones is a great hobby.”
Need reporting to the grammar police if you ask me…
8 Likes
If they dont proof read the regs as they change them theyre not going to waste time on a simple advert.
1 Like