PERSON ARRESTED FOR FLYING FPV PLANE IN THE UK

[frankstrudel]

To clear up further, he wasn't flying FPV. He was flying visually (LOS) on UHF, with an APM2.5. Control signal was lost. The APM failsafe was set up to be either straight and level or RTH - with 'H' being somewhere miles away that he'd flown at before.

The CAA doesn't seem to mind that he lost control as far as I can tell, as he seems to generally have conformed to CAP658, including fitting a failsafe. What seems to have bothered them is that it flew into a no fly zone, so they had to mount an investigation and subsequent legal case that has finished and needs paying for, to the tune of £6k.

I think the morals of the story for all aeromodellers are to;
a) be aware of the relevant authorities - CAA in the UK, but they will happily let BMFA take a role in the paperwork.
b) be aware of the rules - the relevant legislation in the UK is CAP 393, the air navigation order (ANO). The upshot of it from an aeromodellers standpoint is 'use common sense'. But seeing as that leaves a sizable grey area, and they enforce this legislation, they've helpfully negotiated with the various aeromodelling SIG's in the UK to create CAP 658. This lays down a clear, but some say restrictive, line inside which you're definitely in the right and outside you're in the murky fields of interpretation.
c) notify the authorities if anything goes wrong - In CAP658, they tell you what to do if an 'incident' (such as a flyaway) occurs, including a list of contacts. What the CAA are trying to bill the guy for is the cost of investigating the recovered airframe, plus the cost of the legal case [speculation] that arose when he didn't want to pay it the first time round. I suspect that, had he let them know in advance of it being discovered, this would have ended at a verbal warning. [/speculation]
d) make sure to set up your failsafes appropriately - coming down in the water is better than RTH if between the airframe and home are facilities for building nuclear submarines.

As always on the internet, IANAL.

 

[frankstrudel]

Even the British news is rife with misinformation and sensationalism.

'Even'? I'm afraid UK journalism, particularly on science and technology, is a shambles. War reporters censored by the MOD, libel law used by big business to silence threatening stories, phone hacking of public figures... then just plain fiction. BBC generally better at finding people actually knowledgeable in a subject but apparently not in local news.

 

[xuzme720]

'Even'? I'm afraid UK journalism, particularly on science and technology, is a shambles. War reporters censored by the MOD, libel law used by big business to silence threatening stories, phone hacking of public figures... then just plain fiction. BBC generally better at finding people actually knowledgeable in a subject but apparently not in local news.

You have to understand that most of my info on British doings come from Monty Python, Benny Hill and John Cleese. I wrongly assumed that along with keeping a stiff upper lip, the media would be more biased towards the truth rather than ratings. Thank you once again for throwing some light under here where the mushrooms live!

 

[Freaky_1]

In any land, the news is always the worst place to catch up on the news. It is however the most relaible drama of sensationalism to be found short of little.

The primary difference in Flite Test and its foundation laid so well by Chad. Here the views come from all angles. Ah media as it should be.

 

[xuzme720]

This is true. I have pretty much given up on the news and am much happier now. I get my drama from movies when I need some and get the rest of my info from Wiki!

right..., don't do that. That last was just a joke.

 

[frankstrudel]

Haha, yes, at least everyone knows wikipedia has no minimum standard for their authors! (It is genuinely a useful place to get a brief overview of concepts though)

 

[xuzme720]

Agreed!

 

[tomcat]

hi thanks for the message i really appreciate it . everything that you said is true but if you look at it a different way it was only a ascendent but its possible to happen to everyone you said it was over the flying club an he lost control over the model an the model crashed on army base first thing i think if this model filed close to the base that one is a big possibility to happen an its wrong if that club don't have contact with this army base second thing he bought that model or built it an payed lots of tax over the parts next thing if your membership of this club you pay money for membership for insurance if you crash or damage your model im from Czech Republic but i live in the uk for 2 years an im try to be a member of one of these clubs an im telling you its a little bit expensive but if i don't do that then i wouldn't be able to fly over the club field
so i still think that it is a scheme to get more money off people an destroy this hobby told everyone with bbc news how a drone is dangerous for that i think we should all come together as one community an try to help this situation this is why i have post this message over the Flite test thankss , Richard

 

[frankstrudel]

The club is actually full of employees from the submarine yard. He had contacted them, but they didn't support FPV so he didn't join them. He also didn't contact them - or anyone else - about this incident either, until months later when the investigation found him and billed him.

I can't afford any of my local clubs, so I too have my own insurance and fly in public areas, but if I had a flyaway and didn't see where it went down, I would notify my association and the CAA, in case it made it to the flight paths of any of the local airfields. Also if they found it, they wouldn't need to mount an investigation into it, which is the reason for at least £3000 of what he's been ordered to pay.

If he'd taken the precaution of checking his RTH he probably wouldn't have had the flyaway, and if it had flown away in any other direction the CAA probably wouldn't have taken the time to charge him, so he has been unlucky. But if he had notified them before they found it, this case wouldn't have happened.

We obviously want good press for the hobby, but I don't think we'll get that from supporting this guy. He ignored local advice, he misprogrammed the failsafe, he failed to notify authorities of the flyaway, and he failed to appear in court. From a publicity viewpoint, the press just need to show the footage where it flew out of control at child head height over the bridge and there will be uproar against us. I think our safest bet is to let this one fade away and later encourage some positive news stories.

 

[jhitesma]

Bottom line sounds like an irresponsible person who just keeps digging himself deeper.

Flying at a club field - even as a club member - only gives you protection if you follow the rules. Even if you're a club member and flying at a club field if you don't follow the rules then the clubs insurance won't help you.

But a non member flying at a club field, next to a military installation, with an improperly setup model, generating RF in a licensed band without a license, and then to top it all off hoping that simply ignoring the problem will make it go away....there's just so much wrong going on.

I'm pretty sure we're all in this hobby to have fun. And having to deal with rules and regulations is decidedly not fun. But even less fun is having to deal with legal consequences if you ignore the rules and get caught doing so. If anything this should be a reminder to simply be informed and responsible and if you do screw up then own up to it and address the issue rather than simply trying to hide from it.