Quote from: BBC News
So far, the CAA has prosecuted two people for using drones - Robert Knowles, from Cumbria, who flew one over a nuclear submarine facility, and Mark Spencer, who flew one over Alton Towers.
But the CAA is now concentrating on educating people about drones, recently launching its "Dronecode", and will only prosecute in cases when there is a threat to other aviation.
Other cases will be dealt with by the police.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34269585Interesting..
What is most interesting is some :censored: idiot thought to fly his drone inside the museum.
People actually exist out in the world that are THAT :censored: ignorant and stupid.
I did think that myself ... "he actually thought it was a good idea to fly in there"?
"So far, the CAA has prosecuted two people for using drones - Robert Knowles, from Cumbria, who flew one over a nuclear submarine facility, ...."
Once again they get it wrong and perpetuate the falsehood. He did NOT fly a model over a nuclear submarine facility - it was washed up there having suffered a fly-away ending with it just missing a bridge, ditching in the water and being washed downstream to the shore beside said facility. Meanwhile idiots were openly posting their thrill seeking flights and getting away with it. The case was a complete farce for which the CAA and court should be ashamed.
I seem to remember he didn't do himself any favours by ignoring all advice and not bothering to show up in court.
They missed out the one who flew over football stadiums
The BBC seem to have appointed themselves as the experts in drone legislation and regulation and law..... they are :censored: idiots. Every day I detest journalists more and more. They are ONLY trying to sell their stories.... non of what they publish is about the truth.
They should be :censored: ashamed, hung, drawn and quartered.
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/how-can-we-prevent-drone-misuse/?cmpid=tenews_2222802
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Quote from: MarkLincs on April 21, 2016, 08:04:52 AM
They missed out the one who flew over football stadiums
No, it's in there.
Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe. Frank Zappa
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Quote from: BigT on April 21, 2016, 08:53:32 AM
http://www.theengineer.co.uk/how-can-we-prevent-drone-misuse/?cmpid=tenews_2222802 (http://www.theengineer.co.uk/how-can-we-prevent-drone-misuse/?cmpid=tenews_2222802)
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Has it actually been confirmed it was indeed a drone yet? That article seems to imply it 'was' a drone!!!
Surely if it was it'd have left one almighty gouge in the aluminium plating on a plane?
I mean I'm no rocket surgeon but I'm pretty sure I could tell the difference between metal scrapes + punctures, and bird guts + feathers.
If the plane was allowed to continue to its next destination then there simply couldn't have been anything wrong with it - you can't tell me in this day and age they'd let a plane leave with a potentially fatal issue, especially on a forward facing panel?
Sounds like a non-event to me.
Rocket surgeon LOL
Like that ;)
Quote from: Steve W on April 21, 2016, 11:24:29 AM
If the plane was allowed to continue to its next destination then there simply couldn't have been anything wrong with it - you can't tell me in this day and age they'd let a plane leave with a potentially fatal issue, especially on a forward facing panel?
Sounds like a non-event to me.
exactly do you not think they would have milked it for every column inch and grounded the plane for months to have xrays done to assess for stress fractures, this whole story stinks of BS to me.
/Steve
QuoteCAA only prosecuting when there's a threat to aviation?
Isn't that like saying: "Police will only arrest people that are committing crimes?"
And... If i'm not a threat to aviation, then i can fly as far and as high as i like; because i wont get arrested :D
I think what Steve was saying is that neither of the two prosecutions so far were any kind of a threat to aviation. Robert Knowles was a risk to some middle-management yes-man's annual bonus and Mark Spencer was guilty of showing Blackpool in a positive light on a rainless day.
Indeed - it looks like the CAA are only interested whenever there's an airprox or something similar (transgression into airport boundaries etc).
Given the small amount of resources the CAA have, it makes sense.
The moral of the story here is to stay behind a bush so PC Plod can't see you :laugh: