CAA caught up with the Alton Towers flyer

[darlofranco]

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

Frank

[dogzilla]

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?

[dogzilla]

Found the footage online, must be the same dude, November 2013.

hubsan fpv hubsan x4 fpv long distance flight

[darlofranco]

Maybe he has a couple of id's

Found a Mark Spencer on youtube

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

[FPVSteve]

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.

[BlueFlyer]

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.

[Flyboysee]

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.

[bignose13]

£100 fine now Chris, went up the other day, ask me how I know :(

[BlueFlyer]

£100 fine now Chris, went up the other day, ask me how I know :(

gutted lol

[Paul881]

What height do you estimate he was flying at over Alton Towers and whats the definition of a "Congested Area?"

[Paul881]

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

[electrotor]

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.  :+

[Loopdreams]

I don't think the video Dogzilla posted is the one in question.  It doesn't seem like the same guy to me.

[keukpa]

This is interesting:

(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

[rob.thomson]

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