Absolutely Fuming!

Drone code says property iirc.

Maybe but common sense tells me that when they say property, they mean buildings. They even provide a picture of a buidling. If property meant land then you wouldn't be able to fly anywhere because the entire country is made up of property.
 
Unlike birdstrikes, which tend to be soft, mushy things when hit, drones contain far harder materials. Cranfield university have done extensive tests on this and whilst the low speed impact at takeoff and landing wouldn't damage the windscreen, other parts are more vulnerable. Birds tend to get blended into an engine, larger metal parts like motors etc, probably would cause damage to the fan blades.

Then there's the issue of the batteries. We already know when punctured they're a great source of fire.

So whilst the likelihood is small, murpheys law and statistics say that it'll probably happen at some time.

Soft and Mushy? at 300mph I can guarantee you a bird is far from soft and mushy.
 
Maybe but common sense tells me that when they say property, they mean buildings. They even provide a picture of a buidling. If property meant land then you wouldn't be able to fly anywhere because the entire country is made up of property.
Right but it was land that they were building on, bit grey maybe.

My point still stands though, if the op hadnt gone off on the defensive and had a reasonable chat with the guy it may have worked out better (and the guy probably now wouldn't be thinking that all drone operators are up their own bums).
 
my definition of property is land boundaries so basically you should only fly a drone on your ourn land/property or land you have permission to fly on.
i guess local councils etc would have to legislate on public land such s parks.
 
my definition of property is land boundaries so basically you should only fly a drone on your ourn land/property or land you have permission to fly on.
i guess local councils etc would have to legislate on public land such s parks.

I'm afraid that just isn't the case. Nobody owns the air space above their land. Whilst a land owner can prevent you from flying from their land, they can not stop you flying over it unless of course there are people, animals or buildings that you would be to close to. So flying over somebodies house is a no no, but flying over a farmers empty field is perfectly legal.
 
Sounds like this person just like to drone on about regulations.

:exit:
 
I also doubt many users would be happy if someone parked outside their house and stared filming through their living room window, which is pretty much the equivalent of what many drone users do.

Making a sweeping statement like that will be enough to get anyone on the defensive.

1. Ever tried hovering one near a wall? its actually quite difficult, as the prop wash wants to send it into the wall.
2. Cameras fitted to multicopters are wide and at altitude nothing on the ground is identifiable.
3. Then there's the noise, these things sound like a hornets nest, I'm sure it would attract attention fast.

If you really want to look through windows like in your statement above, a gopro on a broom handle is a much more effective way, silent, small and can be viewed by the wireless app, no need for a noisy aircraft.

For the record, I build and fly copters and fixed wing, have many in my fleet, all different sizes ranging from a Tiny6 micro, to a tricopter swinging 14" props, a couple of flying wings and a Bixler 2 powered glider set up with EzUHF.

I think the drone code is fine as it is and should be left alone, no need to make it complicated or overly restrictive, as that won't help anyone in the long run.

:)
 
I've recently taken the plunge with a mavic pro and so far so good, no negative experiences so far, more the reverse with people wanting to know more about it and view the footage....fingers crossed it stays this way
 
Back
Top