Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By chevvron
#1663854
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Grandstanding

As someone wrote above - operating near aerodromes was already against the law.

Don't know why they bothered with the '1km from an airfield' when the law already said they couldn't operate in an ATZ without permission from the aerodrome authority.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1663895
Joff wrote:Just out of curiosity when you last sold an aircraft did you ask to see the buyers pilot licence?


The buyer doesn't need one, only the pilot needs one.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By MichaelP
#1663940
Perhaps drones capable of flight above 400 feet and more than 2,000 feet or 1km horizontal from the operator should be registered upon purchase.

Like guns, the higher performance drones are capable of doing a lot of damage.
If drones were registered then the legal owners would take more care.

That leaves illegal gun/drone owners.
Like spotting someone with a gun the police could challenge the operator of a drone.

Operation of a drone within a built up area where there may be hazards to people under the drones flight path should perhaps require permission.
If we need to do low level stuff we need a dispensation to do it, aerobatic displays for instance.
A drone gone awry does not have a pilot inside to prevent it crashing into a puppy farm.

Trouble is that a drone can be programmed to be a cruise missile by those of a zealous disposition.
Like for buzz bombs we need some counter measures...

As for Amazon, perhaps they should be told no go to their plans...

I was guilty of the drone hazard myself as a teenager... The free flight model aeroplane buzzing along behind the Cox 049 over the built up area, chased by kids, to bounce off a roof top and land in someone’s garden.
User avatar
By Hawkwind
#1663974
chevvron wrote:
Don't know why they bothered with the '1km from an airfield' when the law already said they couldn't operate in an ATZ without permission from the aerodrome authority.


Not all aerodromes of course have the protection of an ATZ (i.e: North Weald), but would probably want protection from someone flying a drone so close.
User avatar
By Gertie
#1664126
MichaelP wrote:Perhaps drones capable of flight above 400 feet and more than 2,000 feet or 1km horizontal from the operator should be registered upon purchase.

Yeahbut the capability at point of sale only lasts until the buyer gets it home and hacks it.
By jacekowski
#1664542
Legitimate users that have done everything by the book and registered will be the first ones police visits in case anything happens and as usual will be presumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent (like in case of gatwick drone).
Another knee jerk reaction from the government that should really focus on completely different issue.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
User avatar
By Squadgy
#1664585
chevvron wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Grandstanding

As someone wrote above - operating near aerodromes was already against the law.

Don't know why they bothered with the '1km from an airfield' when the law already said they couldn't operate in an ATZ without permission from the aerodrome authority.


Are you sure about that ? The ANO definesclasses of ‘Aircraft’ in a table (see link - Schedule 4).

‘Unmanned aircraft’ are in a separate category, outwith the table together with ‘unmanned free balloons’

Rule 11 of the Rules of the Air Regulations , which sets the rules for flights with ATZs applies to ‘Aircraft’.

The example that @Hawkwind of North Weald isn’t really valid, as North Weald is unlicensed and is therefore not a ‘Protected Aerodrome’ - the only legal protection that I can see offered (currently or proposed) at unlicensed aerodromes is the laws around endangering an aircraft.
By Ragwing
#1665870
Just put a blanket ban on the silly things...no ifs no but...public cannot be trusted with such things.

Hard cheese if some people use them responsibly....the risks are to great....if you caught with one after a certain date you go to jail.

Sorted.
PeteSpencer liked this
By Crash one
#1665874
Ragwing wrote:Just put a blanket ban on the silly things...no ifs no but...public cannot be trusted with such things.

Hard cheese if some people use them responsibly....the risks are to great....if you caught with one after a certain date you go to jail.

Sorted.


Yeah quite right, anything that flies, under 200tons, ban it.
Now we can all go home!
townleyc, KeithM, Pilot Pete liked this
By Colonel Panic
#1665878
Ragwing wrote:Just put a blanket ban on the silly things...no ifs no but...public cannot be trusted with such things.
Hard cheese if some people use them responsibly....the risks are to great....if you caught with one after a certain date you go to jail.
Sorted.

Just for clarity, are you talking about light aircraft or drones? Just askin' ... :roll:
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
By cockney steve
#1665882
WRT the mysterious Gatwick and thiefrow (long memory! :wink: ) uncorroborated Drones, -Mr. Cynic puts forward this hypothesis.

A computer -system outage /radar/radio/admin. breakdown/fault are likely to give rise to Pax compensation claims, not to mention Airlines with screwed- up schedules and unusable slots.

A Drone incursion is "beyond their control" and thus offers the Airport a "get-out-of-jail- free " card

Of course, they would never stoop to this sort of action, Oh, no. They'd simply open the cheque- book and sign -out the odd few million to keep all the disadvantaged customers happy.......or maybe not. :twisted: