Drone near miss at Heathrow

viv1969 said:
What, like it stops some middle aged men who find themselves with some disposable income from going out and buying a GSXR1100 and thenthrowing their new toy around country lanes on a bank holiday monday?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, but think how much worse it would be if I could just go and buy a GSXR1100 with on license or test required, and think about how the death toll would simply go through the roof.
 
Pookeyhead said:
No it doesn't, but think how much worse it would be if I could just go and buy a GSXR1100 with on license or test required, and think about how the death toll would simply go through the roof.
Click to expand...

Oh I agree, but you said licencing stops people using things as toys and that's not the case. :(
 
Pookeyhead said:
No it doesn't, but think how much worse it would be if I could just go and buy a GSXR1100 with on license or test required, and think about how the death toll would simply go through the roof.
Click to expand...

Even with a licence. My brother had a Kawasaki ZRX1100 for a while. He sold it because he knew that if he didn't, he would soon be dead.


Steve.
 
boyfalldown said:
Not sure how they claim ownership of it over the land either
Click to expand...

Lazy journalism would be my guess - I work for the Trust although not at Studland (all opinions are my own yadda yadda) and Ive never heard of them doing that ... the general Trust position as I understand it is that operators require permission to operate drones/radio controlled aircraft from their land ... that is taking off or landing on NT land or where the operator is on their land....

As you point out a landowner doesn't own the airspace so if its being flown from elsewhere the Trust have no control over it (although if it is very low or being recklessly flown, or being used to invade privacy etc I'd guess they could complain if the owner was identifiable, just as a landowner could in the case of manned aircraft)
 
Steve Smith said:
Even with a licence. My brother had a Kawasaki ZRX1100 for a while. He sold it because he knew that if he didn't, he would soon be dead.


Steve.
Click to expand...


I agree with ALL of this, but if you didn't have to take a bike test, obtain a license etc. how many more deaths do you think they'd be? Licensing will not stop all foolish behaviour (with bikes, or drones) but it will greatly reduce it, and that can only be a good thing. Anyone who still NEEDS to operate a quad-copter can still do so, they'd just have to pass a test and obtain a license. It probably would put off the majority of impulse buys and people who just want to play with it as a toy.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I agree with ALL of this, but if you didn't have to take a bike test, obtain a license etc. how many more deaths do you think they'd be? Licensing will not stop all foolish behaviour (with bikes, or drones) but it will greatly reduce it, and that can only be a good thing. Anyone who still NEEDS to operate a quad-copter can still do so, they'd just have to pass a test and obtain a license. It probably would put off the majority of impulse buys and people who just want to play with it as a toy.
Click to expand...

Sure, cause everything we enjoy, we need to do, right?
 
True.

And just to add: My brother didn't buy the Kawasaki as some sort of mid life crisis thing like some do. He has a motorcycle workshop, repairs, customises and buids them and owns many others himself.

It was a logical and sensible decision on his part to sell it.


Steve.
 
boyfalldown said:
Sure, cause everything we enjoy, we need to do, right?
Click to expand...

No... but if you're serious about something that CAN be harmful if mistreated, you need some form of regulation. You can be serious about things you like you know. It's not about NEEDING necessarily, but it's about taking it seriously. So long as you can just pay your £700 and fly a DJI Phantom, you're going to have people who treat it like a toy with no thought about consequences. If you have to pass a test and obtain a license, you'll reconsider how serious you are about it. It has the capability of causing damage and injury if misused, so it shouldn't not be something you can just buy, and use with no regulation.

I don't NEED to operate ham radio equipment - I enjoy it. It's not my job or anything, but it has the capability of causing a great deal of problems if I didn't know what I was doing, so it's regulated. I had to pass a stringent exam that included RF theory, electronics, radio licensing regulations, and even a morse code test to see if I can send and receive at 12wpm minimum. You think someone who just thought it would be a giggle would have done all that? They can just buy a CB or PMR if they want, as that is deregulated. The serious stuff is regulated because of the frequencies and power levels available.

With drones... those that couldn't be arsed doing all that, probably want one because it just looks like a giggle. That's not something that sounds like a good idea to me... people using them to have a bit of fun only. There are just too many idiots for these things to be unregulated if you ask me.

Steve Smith said:
True.

And just to add: My brother didn't buy the Kawasaki as some sort of mid life crisis thing like some do. He has a motorcycle workshop, repairs, customises and buids them and owns many others himself.

It was a logical and sensible decision on his part to sell it.


Steve.
Click to expand...
I know.... you're missing my point. If someone so serious about it realises it's dangerous, then clearly if there was no license, or test, there would be a whole host of idiots who do NOT realise the dangers routinely killing themselves. Hence.. it's regulated.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
you're missing my point
Click to expand...

No. I totally get and agree with your point. I just didn't want to do my brother a disservice by painting him as someone who got a stupidly powerful motorcycle on a whim.

Not that he's ever likely to read this!


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Even with a licence. My brother had a Kawasaki ZRX1100 for a while. He sold it because he knew that if he didn't, he would soon be dead.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Steve Smith said:
True.

And just to add: My brother didn't buy the Kawasaki as some sort of mid life crisis thing like some do. He has a motorcycle workshop, repairs, customises and buids them and owns many others himself.

It was a logical and sensible decision on his part to sell it.

Steve.
Click to expand...


Seems strange, especially to someone in the trade and therefore knowledgeable. You make it sound as though he couldn't control his urges to push the bikes to it's limits, in which case it's probably best he gave up riding.

There's no issues in riding large bikes, nor bikes in general, provided you ride sensible and within limits or the bike and your capabilities. In all situations it's your decision as to where you place the vehicle, that includes interaction with other road users. Don't feel comfortable, don't place the bike there, although you generally get an indication of the other road users around you. You can tell what they are going to do (generally), you can spot the person not paying attention, on the phone etc.

Only incident's I've had where this wasn't the case was the chap who rear ended me at a junction (sorry mate didn't see you) or the old bloke who decided to clout my bike as he pulled out a parking spot and try to drive off.
 
Pookeyhead said:
No... but if you're serious about something that CAN be harmful if mistreated, you need some form of regulation. You can be serious about things you like you know. It's not about NEEDING necessarily, but it's about taking it seriously. So long as you can just pay your £700 and fly a DJI Phantom, you're going to have people who treat it like a toy with no thought about consequences. If you have to pass a test and obtain a license, you'll reconsider how serious you are about it. It has the capability of causing damage and injury if misused, so it shouldn't not be something you can just buy, and use with no regulation.

I don't NEED to operate ham radio equipment - I enjoy it. It's not my job or anything, but it has the capability of causing a great deal of problems if I didn't know what I was doing, so it's regulated. I had to pass a stringent exam that included RF theory, electronics, radio licensing regulations, and even a morse code test to see if I can send and receive at 12wpm minimum. You think someone who just thought it would be a giggle would have done all that? They can just buy a CB or PMR if they want, as that is deregulated. The serious stuff is regulated because of the frequencies and power levels available.

With drones... those that couldn't be arsed doing all that, probably want one because it just looks like a giggle. That's not something that sounds like a good idea to me... people using them to have a bit of fun only. There are just too many idiots for these things to be unregulated if you ask me.
Click to expand...


They're not unregulated. There is a whole heap of legislation around radio control models in general. I'd agree it does need stricter enforcement, but the very fact that people are being prosecuted for flying over nuclear power plants, football stadiums and airpox reports (and strenuous efforts to find the pilot) says it is being acted upon.

I would agree that a form of licence (or rating) to fly one and showing an understanding of the rules is a good idea. A £700 DJI is little more then a toy though. So an appropriate exam is a good idea. You could base it on weight (like legislation now). And forcing 3rd party insurance.

As an aside I have no licence for my paraglider, or hang glider. Both could do much more damage but there is no licence (in the UK) There are ratings, which I hold...but thats different.

But banning them because they are toys is not an answer
 
shotgun , problem solved
 
boyfalldown said:
They're not unregulated.
Click to expand...

I can buy one, and fly one with no training, monitoring, license, or anything else. By definition, that's unregulated.
 
Pookeyhead said:
I can buy one, and fly one with no training, monitoring, license, or anything else. By definition, that's unregulated.
Click to expand...


No, by definition unregulated means there are no regulations surrounding their use. Which there are. So regulated they are then. There's even a handy link earlier in the thread. Here it is again for you. https://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1995

Or are you seriously arguing those laws don't exist? Chess/pigeon springs to mind, again. Jeez

And at a quick glance I can buy ham radio gear online, without showing any form of licence, and probably set it up and use it too. Without training. Or is that unregulated now?
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
And at a quick glance I can buy ham radio gear online, without showing any form of licence, and probably set it up and use it too. Without training. Or is that unregulated now?
Click to expand...

You'd get prosecuted for operating it without being qualified to do so in short order though, as you'd not have a callsign to identify yourself... or when your neighbours complain about the RFI you'd be clueless to diagnose or fix.
 
Pookeyhead said:
You'd get prosecuted for operating it without being qualified to do so in short order though, as you'd not have a callsign to identify yourself... or when your neighbours complain about the RFI you'd be clueless to diagnose or fix.
Click to expand...


probably, the point was being able to buy does not mean unregulated. you'd get prosecuted for flying a drone somewhere in breach of those regulations too though;). (and the Heathrow incident in this thread describes the 'drone' as an RC helicopter, I guess drone is better press though.)
 
Last edited:
I've just read this thread from the beginning as I'm thinking of buying a dji phantom 3 purely as I toy, I have no commercial use for one I just fancy one. It's interesting to see people's opinions on licensing and regulating them. Unfortunately it's only a matter of time before someone uses one to cause deliberate damage to someone or something, does that mean everyone should be punished ? For what my opinions worth I'm not sure licensing them would help, I've brought and sold many "super bikes" without ever having a licence. I've never once rode one on the road and I never would but whilst here under my ownership I could have done all be it illegally. Is this not the same as saying I should need a licence fly a drone ? Don't get me wrong if I needed one and wanted to fly one I would gladly pay the fee and sit the exam, all I'm saying is I don't see how it could be policed. To me it just seems a shame that because of a few idiots everyone else should suffer.
 
ritchiea2005 said:
I've just read this thread from the beginning as I'm thinking of buying a dji phantom 3 purely as I toy, I have no commercial use for one I just fancy one. It's interesting to see people's opinions on licensing and regulating them. Unfortunately it's only a matter of time before someone uses one to cause deliberate damage to someone or something, does that mean everyone should be punished ? For what my opinions worth I'm not sure licensing them would help, I've brought and sold many "super bikes" without ever having a licence. I've never once rode one on the road and I never would but whilst here under my ownership I could have done all be it illegally. Is this not the same as saying I should need a licence fly a drone ? Don't get me wrong if I needed one and wanted to fly one I would gladly pay the fee and sit the exam, all I'm saying is I don't see how it could be policed. To me it just seems a shame that because of a few idiots everyone else should suffer.
Click to expand...

I think part of the issue is ignorance coupled with the media being very keen to publish any bit of negativity about drones that they can. With regards to the first point, the average person just isn't aware of the rules relating to these things. The most popular brand is DJI and they do include a leaflet summarising the rules in the box, but I guess most people just give it a glance. We've had people in this thread claiming that the skies are full of drones and that they are banned in the USA, both of which just aren't true. But you see how misconceptions abound?
As I mentioned the media are guilty too. As one of the posters here pointed out, the recently reported drone/airliner near miss wasn't even a drone according to the Airprox report.
If I was you, I'd buy your Phantom 3 and enjoy it using it sensibly.
 
Ricardodaforce said:
As I mentioned the media are guilty too. As one of the posters here pointed out, the recently reported drone/airliner near miss wasn't even a drone according to the Airprox report.
Click to expand...
Indeed. But does that really matter?

The object in question was described as a "small black object" which "appeared to be a small radio-controlled helicopter".

And this one (2015024) was "a black object" which was "some kind of balloon or drone"; it was "rectangular in shape" and "appeared to be propeller driven". This one (2015052) was "a drone". Meanwhile this one (2015046) was originally "believed to be a helium party balloon" but was subsequently identified as "a drone helicopter, shaped like the number 8". This one (2014233) was "probably kind of a square-shaped; shiny white, with black accents/stripes; quite big, between 2-4ft wide, with at least 2 propellers".

The points I'm trying to make here are that (a) it can be quite hard for airline pilots to make accurate identifications of small objects which unexpectedly pass close to them; and (b) it doesn't really matter whether we call them drones or remote controlled helicopters or whatever - the fact remains that there are people flying these objects in ways which potentially cause risk to commercial airliners, and in sufficient numbers that the CAA recently amended their reporting procedure.
 
Peter69 said:
I disagree that drone owner/ pilots are not responsible
Click to expand...
Well, they kept the drone within a clear line of sight; they didn't fly above 400 feet; it wasn't a congested area or the vicinity of the airport; and as far as I could tell they stayed more than 50m away from any property, vehicles or people not involved in the filming. That's doing it by the book, isn't it?
 
StewartR said:
Meanwhile this one (2015046) was originally "believed to be a helium party balloon" but was subsequently identified as "a drone helicopter, shaped like the number 8".
Click to expand...


And that you've raised that as an example shows some if the issuse @Ricardodaforce raised earlier. The drone was in open airspace, and although he was too high it's all party's responsibility to avoid collision.
 
boyfalldown said:
probably, the point was being able to buy does not mean unregulated. you'd get prosecuted for flying a drone somewhere in breach of those regulations too though;)
Click to expand...

Only if you get caught, which is after the fact if it had caused an accident or injury. Regulating their sale and operation would go a long way to prevent a great deal of problems. People who object to this are those that can't be arsed jumping through a few hoops and just want to buy one and use it with the minimum of effort on their part. Are we really interested in pandering to casual users of something that is potentially dangerous? If there was a license required, and a test to be taken, and that puts you off buying one, then you probably were never that interested any way.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Only if you get caught, which is after the fact if it had caused an accident or injury. Regulating their sale and operation would go a long way to prevent a great deal of problems. People who object to this are those that can't be arsed jumping through a few hoops and just want to buy one and use it with the minimum of effort on their part. Are we really interested in pandering to casual users of something that is potentially dangerous? If there was a license required, and a test to be taken, and that puts you off buying one, then you probably were never that interested any way.
Click to expand...

False assumption. I am against it and I went through the hoops.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Only if you get caught, which is after the fact if it had caused an accident or injury. Regulating their sale and operation would go a long way to prevent a great deal of problems. People who object to this are those that can't be arsed jumping through a few hoops and just want to buy one and use it with the minimum of effort on their part. Are we really interested in pandering to casual users of something that is potentially dangerous? If there was a license required, and a test to be taken, and that puts you off buying one, then you probably were never that interested any way.
Click to expand...

Is that not true of every law or regulation everywhere. Neither does having a license preclude you from breaking the law. You can't get prosecuted for something you haven't done yet. Would you restrict sales like ham radio gear, or another way?

I actually have no objection to a proportionate exam and licence prior to use. I've said this before. But it needs to be proportionate, maybe based on weight and usage. Just like the regulations are now. Mainly because I don't wish their to be, or see the need for stricter regulation as many call for.

The potentially dangerous does remind me of Lynn Faulds-Wood.
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
Is that not true of every law or regulation everywhere. Neither does having a license preclude you from breaking the law.
Click to expand...

Of course not, no, but you have to admit, it WILL stop casual buyers from doing so. I've never once said that being licensed STOPS anyone from being a dick, but it may put some of those dicks off actually buying one in the first place. I'm still waiting for you to actually refute my argument in some meaningful way instead of just pointing out that peopel can still be dicks when licensed.

What, if any, negative aspects are there to licensing the use of these things?

Ricardodaforce said:
False assumption. I am against it and I went through the hoops.
Click to expand...

On what grounds are you against it? What are the negative aspects to licensing their use?
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Of course not, no, but you have to admit, it WILL stop casual buyers from doing so. I've never once said that being licensed STOPS anyone from being a dick, but it may put some of those dicks off actually buying one in the first place. I'm still waiting for you to actually refute my argument in some meaningful way instead of just pointing out that peopel can still be dicks when licensed.

What, if any, negative aspects are there to licensing the use of these things?
Click to expand...

Had you managed to read everything you would have noted that I've said

boyfalldown said:
I actually have no objection to a proportionate exam and licence prior to use. I've said this before. But it needs to be proportionate, maybe based on weight and usage. Just like the regulations are now.
Click to expand...

as said before chess/pigeon spring to mind
 
boyfalldown said:
Had you managed to read everything you would have noted that I've said



as said before chess/pigeon spring to mind
Click to expand...


Then why are you arguing with me if you have no objections to an exam and license system? Seems like a great waste of time arguing with someone who agrees with you.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Of course not, no, but you have to admit, it WILL stop casual buyers from doing so. I've never once said that being licensed STOPS anyone from being a dick, but it may put some of those dicks off actually buying one in the first place. I'm still waiting for you to actually refute my argument in some meaningful way instead of just pointing out that peopel can still be dicks when licensed.

What, if any, negative aspects are there to licensing the use of these things?



On what grounds are you against it? What are the negative aspects to licensing their use?
Click to expand...


I believe the current system pertaining to commercial use is perfectly adequate. With regards to recreational use, the rules and regulations are already there. Rather than legislate I think the onus should be on the owner to operate within the existing regulations. To help them I do think the flight control software shouldn't allow flight that breaks those rules, but the average person who spends hundreds of pounds on a Phantom for fun really doesn't need to learn the same things that a professional operator needs to learn.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Then why are you arguing with me if you have no objections to an exam and license system? Seems like a great waste of time arguing with someone who agrees with you.
Click to expand...

it does, for once I agree. You seem to wish to argue and not read though...Pot, kettle and black
 
boyfalldown said:
it does, for once I agree. You seem to wish to argue and not read though...Pot, kettle and black
Click to expand...


What? You've done nothing but reply to every post I've made with comments about how licensing will not stop people using them irresponsibly... LOL That's been my standpoint from the first post I made in this thread: That they should be licensed and an exam needs to be taken.


You OK? You been drinking?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top