CAA caught up with the Alton Towers flyer

[Paul881]

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

[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!

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

[FPVSteve]

electrotor is correct, and the exemption only applies when conducting fully legal FPV.

[BlueFlyer]

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.

[Paul881]

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

[Loopdreams]

The 400ft limit for normal LOS flying only applies to models over 7KG.

[_tj_]

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.

[FPVSteve]

Actually they have to prove you were flying FPV, they have to prove guilt not the other way round.

[Paul881]

Anyway, at 200 feet you are still flying over a congested area by the definition of the CAA.

[_tj_]

Ah.

Wasn't sure in this day and age lol

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[Gundummy]

so ...... enjoy your hobby - don't post youtoob videos, and stay legal...... :laugh:

[Charliewalker]

Hands up all those who have never flown "illegally ...........I thought so 

[Dizzy]

 :rofl:

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

[FPVSteve]

Hands up all those who have never flown "illegally ...........I thought so 

Me guv :D

[Dizzy]

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 ;)