[AlanM]

So, did anyone actually get prosecuted over this?

The CAA for their seemingly laissez-faire approach perhaps?

[Jonzarno]

Investment advice: buy gold!

I have a feeling the CAA will be using a lot of it following this shambles.

[Stampe]

I think it is important to remember that whilst this investigation into what is most probably the most serious airspace infringement ever in this country the investigated were carrying out their own “reign of terror” against GA including many false and marginal allegations.They handed out rough justice using none of the “just culture” which the CAA and it’s incompetent and unqualified staff and management are conveniently shielding themselves with now!
Fly safe because they do not! Stampe

[Dave W]

...what is most probably the most serious airspace infringement ever in this country...

You'd struggle to make that stick, I think.

For example.

This was obviously an incredibly serious infringement - a non-transponding 95kg vehicle 1,000ft into Class A above a VOR that forms part of a Gatwick hold - but sadly it's got some company in the records.

[Kittyhawk]

Do we know if any heads have rolled at the CAA over this dangerous fiasco?

Deputy Heads perhaps....

[Morten]

By sheer coincidence, this one popped up on my linkedin feed... monkeying around with UAVs

[Jonzarno]

By sheer coincidence, this one popped up on my linkedin feed... monkeying around with UAVs

Somehow this quote comes to mind.....

[NigelC]

So it appears that if you remove the pilot from the aircraft it is no longer necessary to have a qualified engineering type to inspect and sign off your aircraft as airworthy thereby risking his licence if it transpires this was untrue.
The CAA has arrived at a situation in which manned aircraft are basically airworthy without any engineering input required just processing the payments for the approval of the engineering types and the paperwork for the aircraft, seems a shame they appear to have tried to reinvent the wheel.

[Sooty25]

something has just occurred to me. This Airspeeder was a scaled down prototype version of the intended aircraft. The final design is a manned aircraft for racing. If they had built a full sized prototype, it would presumably have had a pilot, so would have needed I'm guessing.... CofA? Unless they produce them as a sub 51% kit, then a PtF? but what does a multirotor kit aircraft come under?

Whatever the real thing would have been, it would have been pilot controlled, inspected by a third party and presumably fitted with an on board isolator and BRS.

If they'd have gone 100%, this would never have happened.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Any post flight test manned aircraft in the UK, and most other European countries, needs a CofA or PtF - that isn't open to negotiation.

What is less clear is the safety standard needed to enable issue of that document - various documents do exist, although some special arrangements would be needed. However, it is certain that that standard would not be lower than any present PtF aeroplane or helicopter. Which is to say, clearly much much higher than was the case here.

G

[GrahamB]

something has just occurred to me. This Airspeeder was a scaled down prototype version of the intended aircraft. The final design is a manned aircraft for racing. If they had built a full sized prototype, it would presumably have had a pilot, so would have needed I'm guessing.... CofA? Unless they produce them as a sub 51% kit, then a PtF? but what does a multirotor kit aircraft come under?

Whatever the real thing would have been, it would have been pilot controlled, inspected by a third party and presumably fitted with an on board isolator and BRS.

If they'd have gone 100%, this would never have happened.

You are making the assumption that the person being carried would be the pilot!

[Kirkbymoorside]

Any post flight test manned aircraft in the UK, and most other European countries, needs a CofA or PtF - that isn't open to negotiation.

Unless it is SSDR?

[Genghis the Engineer]

Fair point, yes, unless it is under a weight limit that negates any requirement for airworthiness approval. That covers SSDR, parachutes, paramotors, hang-gliders, and a few lightweight motorgliders.

I think it's highly unlikely to include any manned VTOL drone however.

G

[NigelC]

The great British public isn't I would imagine too bothered whether the aircraft flying above him has a human on board or not provided it is built and maintained in such a way that there is a tiny risk it will fall on him. There should be no difference in the regulation of build and maintenance standards of flying machines due to where the pilot sits above a certain weight, not sure what that weight should be but I would suggest 95kgs is above it.

[VRB_20kt]

... above a certain weight, not sure what that weight should be but I would suggest 95kgs is above it.

The SSDR limit is 300kg (though rotorcraft can't be SSDR)