Drone Zapper

[BlueFlyer]

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?

In that particular instance, control was not taken away from the pilot by a second party.

If you can't setup an APM properly and that results in a fly away then of course you're responsible.

[Coyote]

If you can't setup an APM properly and that results in a fly away then of course you're responsible.

And if you are flying in controlled airspace illegally, you are also responsible as well.

[FPVSteve]

Responsible for flying in restricted airspace, not for causing an accident on the ground when someone had taken control away from you.

[FPVSteve]

Bad analogy #13290:

You're riding your bike on the pavement illegally, but safely. Policeman decides to grab you, you lose control and speed wobble into a pushchair, sending bits of small child everywhere.

Who's fault is it?

[Loopdreams]

It would depend I guess on what actions the court deemed reasonable and what the copper said about the incident.  However, you'd get laughed out of court when you started trying to argue that you were riding safely on a pavement or flying safely over a road in front of an airport.  In both cases you were an accident waiting to happen and the authorities are legitimately entitled to act if they believe that by doing so they were protecting the public.  Even if their actions in that one instance caused an accident.  This really isn't difficult.

[Coyote]

Bad analogy #13290:

You're riding your bike on the pavement illegally, but safely. Policeman decides to grab you, you lose control and speed wobble into a pushchair, sending bits of small child everywhere.

Who's fault is it?

Yours for riding a bike on a pavement illegally obviously.

[FPVSteve]

Obviously? Even if, had the policeman not reacted and caused the accident, you could have gotten past with no incident?

It seems to me that the policemans actions in that case only escalated the situation from an inconvenience to a horrible accident. Which is pretty much how this drone-killing could pan out.

What's worse? Someone riding illegally but going on their way and noone getting hurt, or someone riding illegally and getting pushed into the path of a pram while someone tries to stop them?

Same with the drone - let it fly illegally until it comes down under control (then deal with the pilot), or take it out and potentially hurt someone.

Also, how is this not "endangering an aircraft"?

:+

[Coyote]

Obviously? Even if, had the policeman not reacted and caused the accident, you could have gotten past with no incident?

Yes obviously, I would have thought it would be easy enough to understand. Getting past with no incident does not make it correct, right or just to do. With your impaired logic you are then saying that speeding in a built up area in your car is absolutely fine "as long as you get away with it." See how idiotic that sounds ?

Honestly, this is why the legal system is so pathetic with people trying to split hairs and try to dodge responsibilities and avoid consequence for their actions.

Laughable attitudes.

[iPeel]

I think a more appropriate example would be when a police "stinger" is deployed to bring a suspect's car to a halt as safely as possible. In this case there are risks with the car losing stability after the tyres have been punctured and I would imagine that the suspect would be still considered to be responsible for the car at that point.

In the case of deploying a stinger, my understanding is that authorisation needs to be obtained prior to deploying it, which probably has a rudimentary risk assessment carried out during the authorisation process. It's this part which may well be missing in something like the anti-drone technology.

[FPVSteve]

Coyote - illegal doesn't always mean dangerous. But creating danger while trying to enforce legality seems counterproductive to me.

I'm sure you'd have something to say if you were casually flying your tricopter, one of these guys took it out and you landed in prison for manslaughter after it landed on a car causing them to pile into a lorry.

Or to put it another way...

Are you honestly telling me you've never ridden a bike on a pavement in your life? Would you have felt responsible for the accident if someone tried to enforce the law and ended up pushing you head on into a push chair that you'd have otherwise missed? You'd blame the person who pushed you - surely?

[electrotor]

Whilst the UAV is in the control of the modeller, he is clearly in charge of it and responsible for any illegal flying or incidents.
After control has been taken over by another party I cannot see how the modeller can be held responsible for the actions of that other party.
With reference to the ANO the onus is on the person in charge. Whilst the actions of the other party may be entirely justified, the ANO very clearly places the responsibility on the person in charge, not the person who was previously in charge.

The stinger analogy fails because after its deployment the police are NOT in control of the vehicle. Its all about who is in control at any one time.

[Coyote]

Coyote - illegal doesn't always mean dangerous. But creating danger while trying to enforce legality seems counterproductive to me.

Counterproductive it might be, totally unnecessary as well because the person acting illegally shouldn't have been. That's why its called illegal lol

I'm sure you'd have something to say if you were casually flying your tricopter, one of these guys took it out and you landed in prison for manslaughter after it landed on a car causing them to pile into a lorry.

I wouldn't have anything to say if I was flying in restricted airspace illegally, that was my choice to and I would face the consequences of my actions. You seem to be forgetting, none of these "examples" would have ever been a situation of any kind if the person was not committing an illegal act. End of story, no ifs or buts, it was their own willful action.

If however I was flying in a totally legal manner then I would not admit responsibility because I was doing nothing wrong to instigate the response.

Are you honestly telling me you've never ridden a bike on a pavement in your life? 

Of course I have.

Would you have felt responsible for the accident if someone tried to enforce the law and ended up pushing you head on into a push chair that you'd have otherwise missed? You'd blame the person who pushed you - surely?

The person who pushed was at fault, but the person who pushed my couldn't have pushed me if I was not there like I should have been in the first place.

You seem to have a great problem with taking responsibility for your own actions. It seems you are only interested in passing the blame to get yourself off the hook for something you instigated. As long as you can blame someone else for you doing something wrong in the first place you are happy with that.

[FPVSteve]

Steady on fella, getting a bit personal there - Of course I take responsibility for my own actions (flying illegally) but I wouldn't be happy if I was up in court for hurting someone because someone else saw fit to take my control away and then caused an accident.

Not entirely sure why THAT is so hard to understand to be honest.

Their actions would amplify both my illegal action, and the potential consequences of it - supporting that course of action seems a bit bizarre to me.

[Spookfish]

Try looking at it another way.

Let's say you are off on your hols and as you're driving up to the airport a Phantom type quad comes smashing through your windscreen, injuring you or a member of your family.

Who would you hold more responsible?? The authorities for trying to protect the busy airspace or the Phantom pilot who shouldn't have been there in the first place?

[BlueFlyer]

Try looking at it another way.

Let's say you are off on your hols and as you're driving up to the airport a Phantom type quad comes smashing through your windscreen, injuring you or a member of your family.

Who would you hold more responsible?? The authorities for trying to protect the busy airspace or the Phantom pilot who shouldn't have been there in the first place?

easy one that... I would hold responsible whoever was in control of the phantom at the moment it impacted my windscreen.