Drone Zapper

[FPVSteve]

Agree ^

[Loopdreams]

This is being trialled at airports ostensibly in order to prevent an accident more serious than any which would likely arise from the drone falling to the ground (whether *you* think that it will or won't is irrelevant to the discussion).  If you think that any court in the land is going to hold the authorities responsible after making that call and instead maintain that they should have let the drone continue it's flight potentially coming into conflict with a full size aircraft well then I think you're being a bit daft.

[BlueFlyer]

Scenario...

Drone is flying towards an airport. Airport authority uses this device.

Drone falls onto a road and causes incident

Airport authority is responsible for that incident not the drone pilot, they decided to use the device whilst the drone was over a road instead of somewhere safer.

I'm not sure where you're getting your logic from.

[Coyote]

No the drone pilot would be responsible. There would be no drone to shoot down if the operator was flying legally.

[BlueFlyer]

There would be no drone pilot if his mother hadn't given birth to him...  Should his mother be held responsible?

Heck, make dji responsible because they made the drone.

Yes there's a chain of events leading up to the incident but ultimately it was the most recent action that directly caused it.

Either way, what I will agree with us that it is not our place to make the ultimate decision in the courts.

[Loopdreams]

Scenario...

Drone is flying towards an airport. Airport authority uses this device.

Drone falls onto a road and causes incident

Airport authority is responsible for that incident not the drone pilot.

I'm not sure where you're getting your logic from.

From the obvious and well established principle that the Police/authorities are allowed to take certain risks with public safety if they can demonstrate that they did so in good faith and in order to prevent a greater danger.  If this principle was not in operation then a huge range of Police operations would not be possible.  As you rightly pointed out they have to operate with care but it doesn't alter the principle one iota.

[FPVSteve]

There would have been no road accident if the operator was left in control....

Your move.

[wgt40w]

Wouldn't like to come across one of these !

   http://chinanecom.en.made-in-china.com/product/MvWEcihVANkf/China-Uav-New-Drone-Remote-Controls-High-Power-Jammer.html

[iPeel]

That thing's likely to disable the fillings in your teeth let alone your drone! No-one's going to be able to browse the Internet, unlock their car or open their garage within 10 kilometres of that thing.

I especially like the way they got to the total power output (127w), by totalling the power at the different frequencies together, a sign they really know what they're talking about.

[Coyote]

There would be no drone pilot if his mother hadn't given birth to him...  Should his mother be held responsible?

That's a silly argument. The operator is the one breaking the rules and therefore presenting the potential danger to an airliner. He / she is the person responsible for not flying near the airport not those protecting it.

[Coyote]

There would have been no road accident if the operator was left in control....

Your move.

The planes are supposed to be there, the car are supposed to be there, the only thing that isn't is the drone, therefore the drones operator is responsible for any repercussions through their own actions of irresponsibility.

[BlueFlyer]

the drones operator is responsible for any repercussions through their own actions of irresponsibility.

But the drone operator didn't make the drone crash/land on the road.


I think the point here is that this could go on and on, and until there's actually an incident that sets a precedent, no-one will know for sure.

[electrotor]

With direct reference to Articles 138, 166 & 167 of the ANO (UK only) I still maintain that culpability would be difficult to establish.

Article 138 – Endangering safety of any person or property
'A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property.'
All model flying activity is controlled by this article of the ANO and it is important that the operator of any model aircraft should bear this in mind at all times.

Article 166 – Small unmanned aircraft
'(1) A person must not cause or permit any article or animal (whether or not attached to a parachute) to be dropped from a small unmanned aircraft so as to endanger persons or property.
(2) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fly the aircraft if reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made.
(3) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must maintain direct, unaided visual contact with the aircraft sufficient to monitor its flight path in relation to other aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels and structures for the purpose of avoiding collisions.
(4) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft which has a mass of more than 7 kg excluding its fuel but including any articles or equipment installed in or attached to the aircraft at the commencement of its flight, must not fly the aircraft:
(a) in Class A, C, D or E airspace unless the permission of the appropriate air traffic control unit has been obtained;
(b)within an aerodrome traffic zone during the notified hours of watch of the air traffic control unit (if any) at that aerodrome unless the permission of any such air traffic control unit has been obtained; or
(c) at a height of more than 400 feet above the surface unless it is flying in airspace described in sub-paragraph (a) or (b) and in accordance with the requirements for that airspace.
(5) The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft must not fly the aircraft for the purposes of aerial work except in accordance with a permission granted by the CAA.'

Article 167 – Small unmanned surveillance aircraft
'(1) The person in charge of a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not fly the aircraft in any of the circumstances described in paragraph (2) except in accordance with a permission issued by the CAA.
(2) The circumstances referred to in paragraph (1) are:
(a) over or within 150 metres of any congested area;
(b) over or within 150 metres of an organised open-air assembly of more than 1,000 persons;
(c) within 50 metres of any vessel, vehicle or structure which is not under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft; or
(d) subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), within 50 metres of any person.
(3) Subject to paragraph (4), during take-off or landing, a small unmanned surveillance aircraft must not be flown within 30 metres of any person.
(4) Paragraphs (2)(d) and (3) do not apply to the person in charge of the small unmanned surveillance aircraft or a person under the control of the person in charge of the aircraft.
5) In this article 'a small unmanned surveillance aircraft' means a small unmanned aircraft which is equipped to undertake any form of surveillance or data acquisition.'
NOTE: The provision of data solely for the use of monitoring the model is not considered to be applicable to the meaning of 'surveillance or data acquisition'.

A great deal of this is about the person in charge. Yes I can see the justification for intervention to prevent the continued flight but if control is taken away from the original operator surely the onus is shifted or at least cannot be laid at the door of the original operator.

[Ratty]

Surely we already know that you can lose control of your aircraft, and not be in charge of it anymore, (have it fly away, nearly hit a bridge and wash up on a beach) and you can still be prosecuted?

[electrotor]

Surely we already know that you can lose control of your aircraft, and not be in charge of it anymore, (have it fly away, nearly hit a bridge and wash up on a beach) and you can still be prosecuted?

Don't get me started on that one. It was a farce and a colossal injustice not helped by the solicitor, judge, CAA inspector and, sadly, the accused.
>:(