CAA caught up with the Alton Towers flyer

[keukpa]

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

[FPVSteve]

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

[Paul881]

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......

[Dizzy]

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 :)

[jamesb72]

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

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 ?

[Loopdreams]

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?

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.

[BlueFlyer]

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?

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.

[Loopdreams]

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.

[electrotor]

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.  :(

[electrotor]

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?

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.

[keukpa]

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!

[electrotor]

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.

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.

[Flyboysee]

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!

[electrotor]

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.

[Heliotrope]

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.