Looks like he got off lightly compared to the guy from Cumbria
IMHO flying around a theme park with a quad is much more dangerous than a foam wing flyaway down river...
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2364 (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&mode=detail&nid=2364)
Frank
Just wondering how this works...
Feller post video on Youtube flying his quad copter? They find out who he is, collar him and he pleads guilty.
So what happens if you just deny it and say, no idea what you are talking about? They would need proof that you were the one actually in control of the aircraft surely?
Found the footage online, must be the same dude, November 2013.
hubsan fpv hubsan x4 fpv long distance flight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAw2xjH_buo#ws)
Maybe he has a couple of id's
Found a Mark Spencer on youtube
https://www.youtube.com/user/markspencerfpv/featured (https://www.youtube.com/user/markspencerfpv/featured)
Could be this guy, he's made a few dodgy flights, including one round Blackpool. I wonder why they didn't do him for them all
I think he probably got off lightly because he wasn't a complete idiot, and complied with the justice system instead of waving two fingers at it and essentially saying "hit me with what you've got, I don't give a toss".
Funny that.
He got a punishment that fit the so called "crime", and based on his attitude throughout the course of the proceedings.
He didn't go onto a public forum crying about it, he didn't slag off the CAA at every turn, and I imagine he sought and followed legal advice (which is provided free of charge in this country if you so wish) instead of being a fool.
However, saying all that.... just how proportionate is the punishment? take speeding for example.... 62mph in a 50mph zone, get a letter asking to either attend a driving safety course or pay a fine of £60 and have 3 points on my license.
in both cases, no-one gets hurt but arguably the driving incident would have posed more of a risk to life than a quadcopter.
speeding worst case.... driver loses control, causes a crash, people die, thousands of pounds worth of damage, road closed, all 3 emergency services attend, panic and mayhem.
FPV over Alton Towers worst case.... pilot loses control, crashes quadcopter, someone gets a nasty gash on their head, gets stitches.
OK, add children into the mix and it gets MUCH worse, but still... I think a £150 fine for each offence is a bit extreme.
I'm just wondering how they actually get hold of you in person from a YT video...? Perhaps the CAA are paying trolls to monitor forums and YT looking for infractions.
£100 fine now Chris, went up the other day, ask me how I know :(
Quote from: bignose13 on June 02, 2014, 09:30:59 AM
£100 fine now Chris, went up the other day, ask me how I know :(
gutted lol
What height do you estimate he was flying at over Alton Towers and whats the definition of a "Congested Area?"
Quote from: darlofranco on June 02, 2014, 12:26:54 AM
IMHO flying around a theme park with a quad is much more dangerous than a foam wing flyaway down river...
I guess the moral of the story in life you are always prosecuted for your attitude and not your offence and from what was posted here, he was pretty cooperative with the authorities. Plus the law regards violation of Restricted Military Areas as being more serious than the safety of a few kids and their Mum's and Dad's. :-X
Quote from: Paul881 on June 02, 2014, 10:26:01 AM
What height do you estimate he was flying at over Alton Towers and whats the definition of a "Congested Area?"
The CAA usually defines such things and this is no different.
ANO Part 33 Article 255
'Congested area' in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes;
I would add however that they do not define surveillance, which was referred to in the 2nd charge brought against him - Flying a small unmanned surveillance aircraft over or within 150 metres of any congested area.
However in CAP 722 they state
"The provision of images or other data solely for the use of controlling or monitoring the aircraft is not considered to be applicable to the meaning of 'Surveillance or Data Acquisition' covered at ANO 2009 Article 167 for SUSA."
There's an arguable point, if you are brave enough. :+
I don't think the video Dogzilla posted is the one in question. It doesn't seem like the same guy to me.
This is interesting:
Quote
(1) Not maintaining direct, unaided visual contact with a small unmanned aircraft
Articles 166(3) and 241(6), Air Navigation Order 2009
How do they know? Do spotters not count anymore?
Keukpa
Well... If you look at what the video was (assuming the same one I recall)
The launch site was quite far from Alton towers.
Now.. If you can see a small quad at 0.5km, while it flies through the park... That would be impressive.
Not sure why every one gets defensive. Its not like you don't all know the risks in advance. The rules are quite clear.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
I know a man who could!! He has Carl Zeiss eyes! ;)
But yeah, you're right, doing this is stupid and clearly irresponsible.....
But again, we are going to see more and more of this in the near future. I reckon this christmas is going to see litterally 100's and 1000's of phantoms being bought at maplins. :)
Keukpa
Quote from: keukpa on June 02, 2014, 11:17:51 AM
I know a man who could!! He has Carl Zeiss eyes! ;)
:laugh: I was thinking the same thing. Eagle eyes he has, I still remember the first time I met him and he was talking about his plane flying past trees and stuff. And I was looking, looking, looking - could I see it? Could I hell :D
Quote from: electrotor on June 02, 2014, 10:47:10 AM
Quote from: Paul881 on June 02, 2014, 10:26:01 AM
What height do you estimate he was flying at over Alton Towers and whats the definition of a "Congested Area?"
The CAA usually defines such things and this is no different.
ANO Part 33 Article 255
'Congested area' in relation to a city, town or settlement, means any area which is substantially used for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes;
I would add however that they do not define surveillance, which was referred to in the 2nd charge brought against him - Flying a small unmanned surveillance aircraft over or within 150 metres of any congested area.
However in CAP 722 they state
"The provision of images or other data solely for the use of controlling or monitoring the aircraft is not considered to be applicable to the meaning of 'Surveillance or Data Acquisition' covered at ANO 2009 Article 167 for SUSA."
There's an arguable point, if you are brave enough. :+
So presumabably, as long as you are above 150M then you are okay? And if you don't record the flight, thats not surveilence and so permitted? And if you are LOS thats fine too?
Therefore this guy flew beyond LOS, admitted flying without an observer, flew under 150M above Alton Towers (as defined by Congested Area) and recorded the flight. Hmmm.....asking for trouble......
I think he was going to get clobbered because of one particular sequence when he appeared to be at eye sight level with a roller coaster ride i hate to imagine what could have happened if he had flown into the face of one of those children on the ride :(
Personnally i think he should have got hit harder than the Mali issue but then i expect i,m the only one who feels this way since i,m looking at it from a different perspective but he seems to have had a lot of fun on that particular trip maybe he can afford it :D
dizzy :)
CAA statement mentions Alton towers but looks like the same person who posted the blackpool video (below - posted by Mark Spencer) which I understood CAA were also looking into.
Are CAA going after people separately for each video?
http://youtu.be/i8bOJDLnBjU (http://youtu.be/i8bOJDLnBjU)
Would be good to know the criteria CAA are looking at, I'd hope restricted airspace and public safety were the main issues they look at, or is it youtube views?
Also, if this is the same person, odd that they haven't taken this video down, I'm sure most people if contacted by the CAA would take down the video straight away ?
Quote from: jamesb72 on June 02, 2014, 01:20:30 PMWould be good to know the criteria CAA are looking at, I'd hope restricted airspace and public safety were the main issues they look at, or is it youtube views?
It wouldn't surprise me if someone had complained to them about it. In which case they'd be pretty much obliged to act I'd have thought.
QuoteWould be good to know the criteria CAA are looking at, I'd hope restricted airspace and public safety were the main issues they look at, or is it youtube views?
I'd imagine they have to follow up on any complaints, if someone sees a video that they think is irresponsible or unsafe, they have a right to report it to the relevant authorities. if a vid has a lot of view, there's a chance some of the views will be by people who dont like it.
my arguments stands about the proportionality of these punishments.
punishment for carrying out an act that could result in hitting a child in the face with a quadcopter (the "within 150m of congested area" charge) £150 plus costs
punishment for carrying out an act that could result in killing several people in a multi vehicle pile up (speeding) Speeding workshop or £100 fine
the guy from the "other" incident was very obstructive, evasive, rude, unprofessional, anti-social, and didn't even bother to turn up to court... I think there's a clear lesson to learn here.
be co-operative and you'll be treated fairly.
I thought that in that other case the outcome was broadly similar except that the CAA added thousands in expenses. It didn't originate on YouTube so they had to do a lot more chasing around to find out who it was and undertook visits etc. Nobody probably even left the office in this case.
Quote from: Paul881 on June 02, 2014, 12:09:20 PM
So presumabably, as long as you are above 150M then you are okay? And if you don't record the flight, thats not surveilence and so permitted? And if you are LOS thats fine too?
Therefore this guy flew beyond LOS, admitted flying without an observer, flew under 150M above Alton Towers (as defined by Congested Area) and recorded the flight. Hmmm.....asking for trouble......
Slight flaw in the argument Paul881.
150m = 492ft but your ceiling is 400ft. :(
Quote from: Loopdreams on June 02, 2014, 01:28:14 PM
Quote from: jamesb72 on June 02, 2014, 01:20:30 PMWould be good to know the criteria CAA are looking at, I'd hope restricted airspace and public safety were the main issues they look at, or is it youtube views?
It wouldn't surprise me if someone had complained to them about it. In which case they'd be pretty much obliged to act I'd have thought.
The hyperlink in the post which kicked off this thread takes you to the CAA web page which states :
"Mr Spencer, of Stoke on Trent, who was standing in the car park of Alton Towers while he flew his aircraft, was charged with the following offences, once the video had been brought to the attention of the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)."
There's your answer.
Quote from: electrotor on June 02, 2014, 01:46:08 PM
Quote from: Paul881 on June 02, 2014, 12:09:20 PM
So presumabably, as long as you are above 150M then you are okay? And if you don't record the flight, thats not surveilence and so permitted? And if you are LOS thats fine too?
Therefore this guy flew beyond LOS, admitted flying without an observer, flew under 150M above Alton Towers (as defined by Congested Area) and recorded the flight. Hmmm.....asking for trouble......
Slight flaw in the argument Paul881.
150m = 492ft but your ceiling is 400ft. :(
For FPV it is now 1000ft... so long as you have a spotter, you're fine!
Quote from: BlueFlyer on June 02, 2014, 01:30:18 PM
my arguments stands about the proportionality of these punishments.
punishment for carrying out an act that could result in hitting a child in the face with a quadcopter (the "within 150m of congested area" charge) £150 plus costs
punishment for carrying out an act that could result in killing several people in a multi vehicle pile up (speeding) Speeding workshop or £100 fine
Very fair point.
Quote from: BlueFlyer on June 02, 2014, 01:30:18 PM
The guy from the "other" incident was very obstructive, evasive, rude, unprofessional, anti-social, and didn't even bother to turn up to court... I think there's a clear lesson to learn here.
be co-operative and you'll be treated fairly.
Very unfair observation - the poor guy was caught up in something which he had real difficulty in coping with. He was badly treated by the regulators and the justice system. His case is best left alone now. The thread has been deleted and it would do no good the resurrect it.
I'm just frankly surprised they're putting energy into prosecuting these 'offences'. I have reported someone who has been living and working illegally in the uk for the past ten years, earning £1000 per week in cash and tax free. The details have been provided to the relevant authorities - do you think any steps have been taken in over three years? You guessed it!
Quote from: keukpa on June 02, 2014, 01:52:31 PM
Quote from: electrotor on June 02, 2014, 01:46:08 PM
Quote from: Paul881 on June 02, 2014, 12:09:20 PM
So presumabably, as long as you are above 150M then you are okay? And if you don't record the flight, thats not surveilence and so permitted? And if you are LOS thats fine too?
Therefore this guy flew beyond LOS, admitted flying without an observer, flew under 150M above Alton Towers (as defined by Congested Area) and recorded the flight. Hmmm.....asking for trouble......
Slight flaw in the argument Paul881.
150m = 492ft but your ceiling is 400ft. :(
For FPV it is now 1000ft... so long as you have a spotter, you're fine!
Yep, but there was no mention of the FPV or the FPV exemption in the charges therefore the 1000ft ceiling does not apply.
BTW the 150m separation distance does not have to be vertical, it can be horizontal or a resultant of both to give 150m.
I remember an excellent film called "Devil's advocate" with Al Pacino where he explored the 7 deadly sins. His favourite sin was vanity because it's so often very difficult to resist the temptation. The people posting these sorts of videos are IMO giving a display of vanity "hey look how clever I am and what I can do". I've got nothing against the occasional display of vanity, I'm sure we are all guilty of it at times, but it can come at a price.
Quote from: keukpa on June 02, 2014, 01:52:31 PM
Quote from: electrotor on June 02, 2014, 01:46:08 PM
Quote from: Paul881 on June 02, 2014, 12:09:20 PM
So presumabably, as long as you are above 150M then you are okay? And if you don't record the flight, thats not surveilence and so permitted? And if you are LOS thats fine too?
Therefore this guy flew beyond LOS, admitted flying without an observer, flew under 150M above Alton Towers (as defined by Congested Area) and recorded the flight. Hmmm.....asking for trouble......
Slight flaw in the argument Paul881.
150m = 492ft but your ceiling is 400ft. :(
For FPV it is now 1000ft... so long as you have a spotter, you're fine!
Fancy an Air Commodore not knowing that! :P ;D And thank goodness we have one that does! ;D
Quote from: Paul881 on June 02, 2014, 03:00:14 PM
Quote from: keukpa on June 02, 2014, 01:52:31 PM
Quote from: electrotor on June 02, 2014, 01:46:08 PM
Quote from: Paul881 on June 02, 2014, 12:09:20 PM
So presumabably, as long as you are above 150M then you are okay? And if you don't record the flight, thats not surveilence and so permitted? And if you are LOS thats fine too?
Therefore this guy flew beyond LOS, admitted flying without an observer, flew under 150M above Alton Towers (as defined by Congested Area) and recorded the flight. Hmmm.....asking for trouble......
Slight flaw in the argument Paul881.
150m = 492ft but your ceiling is 400ft. :(
For FPV it is now 1000ft... so long as you have a spotter, you're fine!
Fancy an Air Commodore not knowing that! :P ;D
Ahem! Care to read my posting at the bottom of the previous page?
"there was no mention of FPV or the FPV exemption in the charges therefore the 1000ft ceiling does not apply"Your weekend leave is hereby cancelled for insolence. :P
electrotor is correct, and the exemption only applies when conducting fully legal FPV.
yup, unless it's fully legal fpv, then it's treated as every other LOS flight.
Therefore, the use of the camera can not be said to be used solely for the purposes of monitoring the flight of the aircraft. It is purely there as a recording device and therefore surveillance.
Quote from: electrotor on June 02, 2014, 03:03:34 PM
Quote from: Paul881 on June 02, 2014, 03:00:14 PM
Quote from: keukpa on June 02, 2014, 01:52:31 PM
Quote from: electrotor on June 02, 2014, 01:46:08 PM
Quote from: Paul881 on June 02, 2014, 12:09:20 PM
So presumabably, as long as you are above 150M then you are okay? And if you don't record the flight, thats not surveilence and so permitted? And if you are LOS thats fine too?
Therefore this guy flew beyond LOS, admitted flying without an observer, flew under 150M above Alton Towers (as defined by Congested Area) and recorded the flight. Hmmm.....asking for trouble......
Slight flaw in the argument Paul881.
150m = 492ft but your ceiling is 400ft. :(
For FPV it is now 1000ft... so long as you have a spotter, you're fine!
Fancy an Air Commodore not knowing that! :P ;D
Ahem! Care to read my posting at the bottom of the previous page?
"there was no mention of FPV or the FPV exemption in the charges therefore the 1000ft ceiling does not apply"
Your weekend leave is hereby cancelled for insolence. :P
Yes sir, sorry sir, won't do it again sir! ;D
The 400ft limit for normal LOS flying only applies to models over 7KG.
I'm just wondering,
What if,
He wasn't wearing goggles, he didn't have a screen.
It was just something like the old Flycamone2 that you strapped on,
And videoed while LOS.
If you was 200ft in the air and just hovering a quad for instance, 150m from people building etc.
Like the Green next to the lake in Alton Towers (Naturally you'd have to ask permission)
You wouldn't but just suppose.
And posted the video.
I think they would they would still say you were flying FPV and bring charges against you.
My guess is,
You would have to prove you wasn't wearing goggles or using a screen,
And the flight was LOS.
I bet they wouldn't have to prove you was wearing goggles or screen.
Quite curious on that aspect.
Actually they have to prove you were flying FPV, they have to prove guilt not the other way round.
Anyway, at 200 feet you are still flying over a congested area by the definition of the CAA.
Ah.
Wasn't sure in this day and age lol
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
so ...... enjoy your hobby - don't post youtoob videos, and stay legal...... :laugh:
Hands up all those who have never flown "illegally ...........I thought so
:rofl:
Quote from: aitch on June 02, 2014, 10:27:18 PM
to be honest if the clip posted in this thread is the one in question and as it says in the description is a hubsan???? i cant see the issue with it - other than to make an example of the guy - it wasn't low, wasn't directly over the park i could see no danger to property or person. and yes i may have flown illegally
Aitch ;D
:rofl:please ask him where he gets his hubsan lipo,s because i could do with some of those then ;D
dizzy :D
Quote from: Charliewalker on June 02, 2014, 10:16:25 PM
Hands up all those who have never flown "illegally ...........I thought so
Me guv :D
Quote from: Steve W on June 02, 2014, 11:23:55 PM
Quote from: Charliewalker on June 02, 2014, 10:16:25 PM
Hands up all those who have never flown "illegally ...........I thought so
Me guv :D
Roof tiles are out of bounds too Steve ;) :laugh:
dizzy ;)
How very dare you!
There's no way that's a Hubsan X4 in the video