Challenging Bad Drone Pilots In the UK

[CraigInspire2]

Now that I have passed my ground school and have an understating of the rules of using a drone in the UK , I see lot's of people braking these rules. This is, as I am sure you know a very frustrating thing as it gives drones a bad name. On the weekend my girlfriend was taking part in a raft race on a river , when a drone was flying about 1 meter above her head. what was interesting though is every one was just pointing and saying woooo look a drone. So I went and spoke to him pointing out that he was way to close and had no right to film her that close. He just looked at me with a knowing look and soon landed and stopped. So my question is do you also speak to these pilots if you see them or was I being over the top ?

 

[Jimmykjimmy]

Lucky your not here in the US, the crazies like guns, you could get shot[emoji11]

 

[giumick]

Now that I have passed my ground school and have an understating of the rules of using a drone in the UK , I see lot's of people braking these rules. This is, as I am sure you know a very frustrating thing as it gives drones a bad name. On the weekend my girlfriend was taking part in a raft race on a river , when a drone was flying about 1 meter above her head. what was interesting though is every one was just pointing and saying woooo look a drone. So I went and spoke to him pointing out that he was way to close and had no right to film her that close. He just looked at me with a knowing look and soon landed and stopped. So my question is do you also speak to these pilots if you see them or was I being over the top ?

You will find plenty of PFco operators flaunting the rules too pal. I have had quite a few clients walk away and go with some one else who is not getting land owner permission etc etc as they could do the job quicker.

You also see shed loads of portfolio vids breaking rules. I personally wont do it but plenty do.

I give it a few weeks and youll be ranting a raving like the rest of us about it been pointless even been qualified haha

 

[Jimmykjimmy]

States are the same way, surprised President Crazy pants isn't promoting doing away with the regs.

 

[Dejan Smaic]

Lucky your not here in the US, the crazies like guns, you could get shot[emoji11]

Not every gun owner is crazy Just like one bad drone pilot does not make the bushel bad, or does it?

 

[Donnie Frank]

Gentlemen;

I think its erroneous to assume all the rules are good, right and work for the best interest of all involved. The FAA rules are like a pig **** (excuse my French). They were written by pilots, NOT drone pilots, which as different as night and day. So I find the enforcement of these ridiculous rules - and the self-proclaimed FAA police - a little ridiculous.

Consider this:

1) Drone rules were written by people who have never flown a drone. So ridiculous paradigms - like FPV flying is dangerous - make it into the rule books. FPV is a PROFOUND instrument of safety. And I would challenge anyone to do some field tests and try to recover a malfunctioning drone with and without FPV. I'll take the FPV safety net ANY day. I NEVER fly without having my goggles on my head. I may not use them, but if **** goes wrong, the first thing I'm doing is putting them on and getting a PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE of my bird. Ask any pilot if they'd rather fly their 747 remotely, or from the cockpit.

2) There's no practical test. None. So you could literally be a housewife who has never flown a drone in your life, and be FULLY CERTIFIED by the FAA. Ridiculous.

So...until the FAA (and UK equivalents) get their proverbial **** together, I think it would behoove us to use our common sense, follow AMA rules, be courteous, and PRACTICE FLYING. YOUR SKILL is the ONLY thing between you and an accident. At this point of the game, we ALL OWN OUR OWN SAFETY. NOTHING the FAA has done or said is making drone flying any safer than it was 10 years ago. Paperwork, certificates and procedure to NOT a safe drone pilot make.

That's my 2 cents. Agree or disagree if you wish. I'll let my 30+ years of RC flying speak for itself.

D

Edited by moderator for language

 

[Dejan Smaic]

Gentlemen;

I think its erroneous to assume all the rules are good, right and work for the best interest of all involved. The FAA rules are like a pig xxxx (excuse my French). They were written by pilots, NOT drone pilots, which as different as night and day. So I find the enforcement of these ridiculous rules - and the self-proclaimed FAA police - a little ridiculous.

Consider this:

1) Drone rules were written by people who have never flown a drone. So ridiculous paradigms - like FPV flying is dangerous - make it into the rule books. FPA is a PROFOUND instrument of safety. And I would challenge anyone to do some field tests and try to recover a malfunctioning drone with and without FPV. I'll take the FPV safety net ANY day. I NEVER fly without having my goggles on my head. I may not use them, but if xxxx goes wrong, the first thing I'm doing is putting them on and getting a PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE of my bird. Ask any pilot if they'd rather fly their 747 remotely, or from the cockpit.

2) There's no practical test. None. So you could literally be a housewife who has never flown a drone in your life, and be FULLY CERTIFIED by the FAA. Ridiculous.

So...until the FAA (and UK equivalents) get their proverbial xxxx together, I think it would behoove us to use our common sense, follow AMA rules, be courteous, and PRACTICE FLYING. YOUR SKILL is the ONLY thing between you and an accident. At this point of the game, we ALL OWN OUR OWN SAFETY. NOTHING the FAA has done or said is making drone flying any safer than it was 10 years ago. Paperwork, certificates and procedure to NOT a safe drone pilot make.

That's my 2 cents. Agree or disagree if you wish. I'll let my 30+ years of RC flying speak for itself.

D

Rules made by those who have no practical experience in the discipline they are trying to regulate are made out of fear, not rationalization.

 

[licensed pilot]

States are the same way, surprised President Crazy pants isn't promoting doing away with the regs.

Keep your politics in the holster. This is not the place.

 

[The Editor]

Gentlemen;

I think its erroneous to assume all the rules are good, right and work for the best interest of all involved. The FAA rules are like a pig **** (excuse my French). They were written by pilots, NOT drone pilots, which as different as night and day. So I find the enforcement of these ridiculous rules - and the self-proclaimed FAA police - a little ridiculous.

Consider this:

1) Drone rules were written by people who have never flown a drone. So ridiculous paradigms - like FPV flying is dangerous - make it into the rule books. FPA is a PROFOUND instrument of safety. And I would challenge anyone to do some field tests and try to recover a malfunctioning drone with and without FPV. I'll take the FPV safety net ANY day. I NEVER fly without having my goggles on my head. I may not use them, but if **** goes wrong, the first thing I'm doing is putting them on and getting a PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE of my bird. Ask any pilot if they'd rather fly their 747 remotely, or from the cockpit.

2) There's no practical test. None. So you could literally be a housewife who has never flown a drone in your life, and be FULLY CERTIFIED by the FAA. Ridiculous.

So...until the FAA (and UK equivalents) get their proverbial **** together, I think it would behoove us to use our common sense, follow AMA rules, be courteous, and PRACTICE FLYING. YOUR SKILL is the ONLY thing between you and an accident. At this point of the game, we ALL OWN OUR OWN SAFETY. NOTHING the FAA has done or said is making drone flying any safer than it was 10 years ago. Paperwork, certificates and procedure to NOT a safe drone pilot make.

That's my 2 cents. Agree or disagree if you wish. I'll let my 30+ years of RC flying speak for itself.

D

I think perhaps you should get your facts correct before posting up content like this.
In the UK there is already a flight test to show both competency as well as a fully conversant understanding of an individual's emergency procedures. During this flight assessment up to four 'emergencies' are thrown in and the operator must respond immediately and without reference to either their flight reference cards or ops manual. Failure in any one emergency or boldface procedure means failure overall and no certification from the CAA.
In addition to this both a ground school must be completed with an exam afterwards and then an approved ops manual must be submitted and approved by the CAA. Mandatory insurance is also required before any certification is issued.
This is a robust and sensible approach to responsible UAV piloting.
Under standard UK permissions a ceiling of 400ft agl is allowed together with a lateral flight distance from the pilot of 500m - i.e the aircraft must remain in visual LOS at all times. Unlike the wishy washy 'guidelines' of the States this is law in the UK and stipulated under the Air Navigation Order which is an act passed by Parliament.

 

[Donnie Frank]

Rules made by those who have no practical experience in the discipline they are trying to regulate are made out of fear, not rationalization.

Exactly. I'll add "political pressure" to that list.

 

[Donnie Frank]

I think perhaps you should get your facts correct before posting up content like this.
In the UK there is already a flight test to show both competency as well as a fully conversant understanding of an individual's emergency procedures. During this flight assessment up to four 'emergencies' are thrown in and the operator must respond immediately and without reference to either their flight reference cards or ops manual. Failure in any one emergency or boldface procedure means failure overall and no certification from the CAA.
In addition to this both a ground school must be completed with an exam afterwards and then an approved ops manual must be submitted and approved by the CAA. Mandatory insurance is also required before any certification is issued.
This is a robust and sensible approach to responsible UAV piloting.
Under standard UK permissions a ceiling of 400ft all is allowed together with a lateral flight distance from the pilot of 500m - i.e the aircraft must remain in visual LOS at all times. Unlike the wishy washy 'guidelines' of the States this is law in the UK and stipulated under the Air Navigation Order which is an act passed by Parliament.

I purposely specified "FAA" to avoid this kind of response. When I said "UK equivalents," I was referring to any "nonsense" rules that MAY exist in the UK. I didn't mean to insinuate a correlation between the FAA and the CAA. My bad for not making that point clearer.

 

[Ralph thompson]

The rules are frustrating, in Canada it can take 30 days to get approval. As a pilot & drone operator, it is frustrating. I've been operating drones since 2012, with a phantom 1. However let's be honest, show me an experienced drone operator who hasn't had close shaves, incidents & accidents & I'll show you a lier. I wish the rules could be streamlined but they are there for a reason. Drones do fall out of the sky & crash into things. How would u feel if it caused serious injury or burned down a $2 million property? I may not always get the approval but I do follow the rules as if I had approval; with checklists, site surveys, aviation charts, wx reviews, observers, transiever tuned to the vfr enroute frequency, sand bags & fire extinguisher etc. etc.

 

[Donnie Frank]

The rules are frustrating, in Canada it can take 30 days to get approval. As a pilot & drone operator, it is frustrating. I've been operating drones since 2012, with a phantom 1. However let's be honest, show me an experienced drone operator who hasn't had close shaves, incidents & accidents & I'll show you a lier. I wish the rules could be streamlined but they are there for a reason. Drones do fall out of the sky & crash into things. How would u feel if it caused serious injury or burned down a $2 million property? I may not always get the approval but I do follow the rules as if I had approval; with checklists, site surveys, aviation charts, wx reviews, observers, transiever tuned to the vfr enroute frequency, sand bags & fire extinguisher etc. etc.

I guess you would have to define "close call." Have I ever had a drone land prematurely due to a dying battery? Yes. Have I ever come close to damaging property? Twice. No property was damaged either time. Have I ever come close to injuring a person? Only myself...when I was younger and flying gas-powered helicopters. Otherwise, not even close.

I agree to some extent that "drones fall out of the sky." The secret is to FULLY TEST your equipment in places where "falling out of the sky" doesn't matter. I put at least a half dozen flights on every drone that goes into service, often times exceeding 10 or more test flights. For example, I just purchased a new battery for my Inspire 1. Now most would probably charge it and go fly. Not me. FIRST I'm going to check its firmware version. Once I know that that is correct, THEN I will fly it around an empty field at least twice. Then I'll probably fly it a couple more times before it goes into service. And that's for just a BATTERY. If any major component gets changed out, like a motor or a compass or IMU or FC or whatever, I treat it like a new bird and goes through the entire shake-down process all over again.

I just did two, 12-hour days (not in a row) flying back-to-back missions all day long with nary an issue. My birds are that reliable because everything is tested and scrutinized, including the firmwares. That's why I stopped updating FW two versions ago. I do my R&D.

D

 

[Ralph thompson]

Sage advise, agree batteries seem to cause a lot of problems in crash reports, amongst all yr advice, I also check the 6 cells in the go app at about 0 & 5' altitude just to be sure they are all close (+- 0.2v)

 

[Donnie Frank]

Sage advise, agree batteries seem to cause a lot of problems in crash reports, amongst all yr advice, I also check the 6 cells in the go app at about 0 & 5' altitude just to be sure they are all close (+- 0.2v)

Absolutely. The entire flight is dedicated to battery testing, monitoring and, if necessary, forensics. It's amazing the technology at our fingertips, including real-time battery telemetry. Wow!

 

[Donnie Frank]

There a great number of things about this industry that need to be fixed. Even the insurance companies are not sure what they are dealing with for coverage. They are selling policies to people who have passed a written test but they have no idea if the person can even see a drone when it's ten feet away.
The FAA wrote 107 without any consideration of autonomous flight and the return to home features incorporated into the current technology.
Anyone an buy drone and start flying there is no training or insurance required.
Hundreds of, "fight schools" are popping up all over and there is no certification program for them. Some training is better than no training but there is no standard for curriculum.
The manufacturers would naturally be against making the purchase process complicated in any way, but if this industry is to mature it will be necessary that the registration process (which could be handled at the State level) is required at the point of sale and transfer of ownership conducted the same way as it is for a car.
Many cities have adopted a 'no fly zone' attitude. The City of Rancho Palos Verde, CA has limited drone flight to a small park just up the street from the city offices. You can apply for a "Filming Permit" and pay a minimum fee of $299.00. If you fly over private property you must have written permission of the home owner. If you fly over a roadway they will make you pay for a road closure.
The entire Port of Los Angeles is a no fly zone. I can understand limiting flight over certain areas but you can't even fly over open water. You can apply for a permit but you have to pay for a police officer to accompany you at the launch site for the entire "event" .
The insurance requirements are as follows:
- $1 million – General Insurance
- $1 million – Auto Insurance
- $2 million – Unmanned Aircraft Liability
- Statutory Workers’ Compensation
Whimsical and onerous rules bein made up by the authorities having jurisdiction is crazy.
To legally launch and fly within a few hundred feet of the California coast you have to check with the city, it's parks dept, the California Costal Commission, and the Coast Guard. Yet any manned aircraft pilot can file a flight plan to fly over the same area without any special permission from any of those agencies.

I'll add, to shoot on a film set we have to have $5M coverage. Not sure if this is for all production companies, but this has been the norm so far.

 

[Casey53]

There a great number of things about this industry that need to be fixed. Even the insurance companies are not sure what they are dealing with for coverage. They are selling policies to people who have passed a written test but they have no idea if the person can even see a drone when it's ten feet away.
The FAA wrote 107 without any consideration of autonomous flight and the return to home features incorporated into the current technology.
Anyone an buy drone and start flying there is no training or insurance required.
Hundreds of, "fight schools" are popping up all over and there is no certification program for them. Some training is better than no training but there is no standard for curriculum.
The manufacturers would naturally be against making the purchase process complicated in any way, but if this industry is to mature it will be necessary that the registration process (which could be handled at the State level) is required at the point of sale and transfer of ownership conducted the same way as it is for a car.
Many cities have adopted a 'no fly zone' attitude. The City of Rancho Palos Verde, CA has limited drone flight to a small park just up the street from the city offices. You can apply for a "Filming Permit" and pay a minimum fee of $299.00. If you fly over private property you must have written permission of the home owner. If you fly over a roadway they will make you pay for a road closure.
The entire Port of Los Angeles is a no fly zone. I can understand limiting flight over certain areas but you can't even fly over open water. You can apply for a permit but you have to pay for a police officer to accompany you at the launch site for the entire "event" .
The insurance requirements are as follows:
- $1 million – General Insurance
- $1 million – Auto Insurance
- $2 million – Unmanned Aircraft Liability
- Statutory Workers’ Compensation
Whimsical and onerous rules being made up by the authorities having jurisdiction is crazy.
To legally launch and fly within a few hundred feet of the California coast you have to check with the city, it's parks dept, the California Costal Commission, and the Coast Guard. Yet any manned aircraft pilot can file a flight plan to fly over the same area without any special permission from any of those agencies.

Yeah, I went through all this nonsense before too up in Ventura. You had to pay the city as they controlled the DRY sand, but if you crossed over into the WET sand it was the California Coastal Commission's permit. Not only that, but the Ventura Roads Dept. wants a cut too and they were absurd to deal with, like $1,600 to park your car in a paved pullout for three hours in the Las Padres National Forest area where anyone else can park for a $5 Adventure Pass, plus you have to pay the Forest Service $210 or so for the day and maybe a monitor/ranger too. I read somewhere where Cal-Trans is getting into the roads action for dollars too with drones. Permits are months in advance too with all involved needing the other's okay.

Some of the anti-droners policies in Hollywood may be coming from those within the union with a commercial (real) helicopter license where drones cut into their business. Generally, the bureaucracy has gone completely mad and why so many (including the studios) shoot guerilla-style at times and run. No doubt you are breaking some local or state ordinance around CA now that they can pull out of their gray-area legal hat if needed, short of staying within an AMA sanctioned flying field - if you are even allowed by that field's members to fly drones there too.

 

[Dejan Smaic]

If rules and laws were made with common sense, there would not be soo many illegal flights and guerilla style shoots. The trend will continue and increase until the FAA and local governments come down to earth.

 

[3pa4ok]

Gentlemen;

I think its erroneous to assume all the rules are good, right and work for the best interest of all involved. The FAA rules are like a pig **** (excuse my French). They were written by pilots, NOT drone pilots, which as different as night and day. So I find the enforcement of these ridiculous rules - and the self-proclaimed FAA police - a little ridiculous.

Consider this:

1) Drone rules were written by people who have never flown a drone. So ridiculous paradigms - like FPV flying is dangerous - make it into the rule books. FPV is a PROFOUND instrument of safety. And I would challenge anyone to do some field tests and try to recover a malfunctioning drone with and without FPV. I'll take the FPV safety net ANY day. I NEVER fly without having my goggles on my head. I may not use them, but if **** goes wrong, the first thing I'm doing is putting them on and getting a PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE of my bird. Ask any pilot if they'd rather fly their 747 remotely, or from the cockpit.

2) There's no practical test. None. So you could literally be a housewife who has never flown a drone in your life, and be FULLY CERTIFIED by the FAA. Ridiculous.

So...until the FAA (and UK equivalents) get their proverbial **** together, I think it would behoove us to use our common sense, follow AMA rules, be courteous, and PRACTICE FLYING. YOUR SKILL is the ONLY thing between you and an accident. At this point of the game, we ALL OWN OUR OWN SAFETY. NOTHING the FAA has done or said is making drone flying any safer than it was 10 years ago. Paperwork, certificates and procedure to NOT a safe drone pilot make.

That's my 2 cents. Agree or disagree if you wish. I'll let my 30+ years of RC flying speak for itself.

D

Edited by moderator for language

wrong info!!!!!

 

[Donnie Frank]

wrong info!!!!!

Who could argue such a well-written response? You convinced ME.