Drone near miss at Heathrow

Yes but at the time of actually flying the thing and shooting the video, it would be a perfectly acceptable amateur only pursuit.

Selling the video at a later date does not make the earlier flying more dangerous. At the time the flying takes place it was non commercial.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
What if they did it on amateur basis for their own use only but at a later date were offered payment for use of the video?

That's what makes the licencing for commercial use only complete nonsense.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Yep. That's pretty much exactly what is happening right now. Except some of it isn't quite that innocent ;)
 
Steve Smith said:
Yes but at the time of actually flying the thing and shooting the video, it would be a perfectly acceptable amateur only pursuit.

Selling the video at a later date does not make the earlier flying more dangerous. At the time the flying takes place it was non commercial.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Depends on the flying doesn't it. The same rules apply.
 
Steve Smith said:
Yes but at the time of actually flying the thing and shooting the video, it would be a perfectly acceptable amateur only pursuit.

Selling the video at a later date does not make the earlier flying more dangerous. At the time the flying takes place it was non commercial.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Depends on the flying doesn't it. The same rules apply.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Depends on the flying doesn't it. The same rules apply.
Click to expand...

The same rules certainly should apply regardless but there seems to be a distinction between amateur and commercial use which is really an irrelevance where safety and/or privacy is concerned.


Steve.
 
Another inventive illegal use of a drone.

700x394



A drone loaded with packages containing methamphetamine lies on the ground after it crashed into a supermarket parking lot in the city of Tijuana on Jan. 20, 2015. Authorities said it was not the first time they had seen drones used for smuggling drugs across the border.

(AP Photo / Secretaria de Seguridad Pública Municipal de Tijuana)

When 28 pounds of heroin made it across the U.S.-Mexico border near Calexico in April, it didn't come by the usual methods of car, truck or tunnel. It came by drone, federal authorities said Wednesday, making it the first cross-border seizure by U.S. law enforcement involving the new smuggle-by-air tactic.

Two men pleaded guilty Tuesday to retrieving the drugs near California Highway 98 in Imperial County, a pickup that was captured on Border Patrol cameras on April 28, according to court records.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-drone-drugs-20150813-story.html
Click to expand...
 
Ricardodaforce said:
Concerned about drones and privacy? http://petapixel.com/2015/08/21/are...nses-for-spying-the-answer-may-creep-you-out/
Click to expand...
That's a good point well made. (Even if it is a bit off topic. We were talking about safety here, not privacy.)

A couple of years ago I hired out an 800mm lens and a 2x teleconverter to a chap whose company acted as subcontractors to police forces and intelligence agencies. He needed it for a covert surveillance job. If you work out how far away you can be from your target and still be able to take a recognisable photo with that kit, the answer is quite astonishing.
 
Last edited:
Slight foot shooting in that post too, Ricardo. While a lightweight drone may bounce off an aircraft windshield, a 70-200 f/2.8 with a telecon mounted is more likely to go through it! Very much worst case scenario, I know but does bear thinking about. Not sure how explosive LiIon batteries are when mashed (as in how they would "react" to being minced in a jet engine.)
 
Nod said:
Slight foot shooting in that post too, Ricardo. While a lightweight drone may bounce off an aircraft windshield, a 70-200 f/2.8 with a telecon mounted is more likely to go through it! Very much worst case scenario, I know but does bear thinking about. Not sure how explosive LiIon batteries are when mashed (as in how they would "react" to being minced in a jet engine.)
Click to expand...


The lens attached to the Phantom was there for illustrative purposes only.
 
It shows people will believe anything.
I'd be surprised if it could lift that lens an inch off the ground.

The batteries are separate cells bound into a pack of similar size to half a pound of butter.
The material is somewhat malleable almost like hard plasticene, you can mark it with your nail.
I think it would just go through an engine and burn up
 
Last edited:
The point of the article is that a dslr with a zoom lens is much more intrusive than a drone.
 
Hi again, earlier in the thread I mentioned I was thinking of buying a phantom 3. I made the purchase in the end had used it 69 times without any issues. I religiously followed the correct preflight procedures and all was well until Wednesday evening when flying in gps mode at 80ft an error message appeared on my screen and it flew to a height of 420 ft and 1200ft away from me then crashed out of the sky. Luckily no one was hurt but it could have been a different story. I was fortunate enough find it smashed to bits and have returned it to the shop who are sending it back to DJI. The shop think they will replace it but I'm not sure I would feel confident in using it again. My point here is I did nothing wrong (I've flown many drones without gps aids) so even if I'd have been licensed the accident would have still occurred. It has made me think there needs to be some type of register to keep track of who owns these because this could have been a serious accident and I could have just walked away without saying a word ( not that I would have done but I could have done). I don't know what the answer is but something needs doing to monitor who's flying them. Sorry for the long post just thought it was worth mentioning.
 
Last edited:
ritchiea2005 said:
Hi again, earlier in the thread I mentioned I was thinking of buying a phantom 3. I made the purchase in the end had used it 69 times without any issues. I religiously followed the correct preflight procedures and all was well until Wednesday evening when flying in gps mode at 80ft an error message appeared on my screen and it flew to a height of 420 ft and 1200ft away from me then crashed out of the sky. Luckily no one was hurt but it could have been a different story. I was fortunate enough find it smashed to bits and have returned it to the shop who are sending it back to DJI. The shop think they will replace it but I'm not sure I would feel confident in using it again. My point here is I did nothing wrong (I've flown many drones without gps aids) so even if I'd have been licensed the accident would have still occurred. It has made me think there needs to be some type of register to keep track of who owns these because this could have been a serious accident and I could have just walked away without saying a word ( not that I would have done but I could have done). I don't know what the answer is but something needs doing to monitor who's flying them. Sorry for the long post just thought it was worth mentioning.
Click to expand...

Nightmare! Couple of questions: Did switching to Atti mode have any impact over control? Did it drop out of the sky from that height? Did it not trigger RTH at any point?
 
Once it flew away I had no control over it at all in any mode. The return home feature would not activate. It fell from 420 ft. Strangely though I can't access any flight logs for the last 12 flights and there's a log appeared that claims I flew it to a height of over 400,000,000 ft in 1970 !! Personally I think it's a software issue but will have to wait and see what they say. Won't have an answer for 4-6 weeks though.
 
Last edited:
77,000 miles (or thereabouts.) Maybe someone dropped it a third of the way to the moon back then?
 
ritchiea2005 said:
I can't wait to see how they explain that flight data. I know there impressive things but flying it to that height eight years before I was born is proper Dr Who stuff !
Click to expand...

The timing is awful too. Tomorrow they release the new firmware with the intelligent flight modes.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
The timing is awful too. Tomorrow they release the new firmware with the intelligent flight modes.
Click to expand...

That's about typical of my luck ! I've read loads on DJI s customer service being awful so I will have to wait and see. The guy in the model shop said the customer service in the U.S is terrible but much better in Europe. Only time will tell I suppose. On the bright side no one got hurt and really that is all that matters.
 
1970 is the year that all Unix and Linux clocks count from as 0 seconds. It sounds like file corruption or something got reset at a bad time.

Edit: was it 4,294,967,295 ft by any chance?
 
Last edited:
Brian_of_Bozeat said:
Seems the CAA are starting to get concerned, airprox's on the up, they have put this out on their newsletter service this week.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/InformationNotice2015085.pdf

Effectively it is an addition to the "standard phraseology" used by radio operators to report drones in the air doing stupid things.
Click to expand...

What's even more worrying is that I have heard that a company offering aerial services has agreed to do a job tomorrow at up to 1000ft. I have no proof, but I know 2 companies that turned down the job because they wouldn't break the regs, and the potential client told them that a 3rd company had agreed to do it. If I find evidence of it, I will report it.
 
Can it be done with "prior written permission from the CAA"? Almost anything (it seems) is possible with the aforementioned!
 
Brian_of_Bozeat said:
Can it be done with "prior written permission from the CAA"? Almost anything (it seems) is possible with the aforementioned!
Click to expand...

I would have thought so, but getting that permission would show you've applied due thought to the safety of doing so.
 
Brian_of_Bozeat said:
Can it be done with "prior written permission from the CAA"? Almost anything (it seems) is possible with the aforementioned!
Click to expand...

The reason we have a 400ft max altitude is because planes have a 500ft minimum altitude. I think it would be VERY hard to secure permission for that, especially at such short notice.
 
StewartR said:
Yep. £200 for each of 9 offences = £1800, plus £620 costs, plus his drones and cameras were confiscated. Full story here:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/15/man-fined-in-first-uk-drone-conviction
Click to expand...

After reading through a lot of this thread I'm glad to see that, sheer arragorance to be flying them over built up areas where one little mistake or malfunction could end up with them crashing down onto somebody. What happened to the old days of remote planes and taking them up the common with plenty of space to fly and almost no one around, no reason they couldn't be doing the same with drones.
 
studioworks said:
After reading through a lot of this thread I'm glad to see that, sheer arragorance to be flying them over built up areas where one little mistake or malfunction could end up with them crashing down onto somebody. What happened to the old days of remote planes and taking them up the common with plenty of space to fly and almost no one around, no reason they couldn't be doing the same with drones.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has been defending his actions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top