UAVs over Essex and Kent
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remove the word "Police". Instead, the article should read criminals illegally operated a remote controlled aircraft over a congested area. Punishment should be as appropriate and any parties who knew this criminal act was about take place obviously colluded and conspired with the criminal who actually flew the aircraft. I hope the dock is big enough for all of them. And if they get off, I'll use their defence - whatever it is. That is of course, unless there now are three sets of laws: one for the Police, one for Baroness Scotland and one for the rest of us
PM
PM
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what happened to 'see and avoid'?
The offence arises from a minor change to the Air Navigation Order which came into effect in January 2010. In that change the clause which requires permission from the CAA for model aircraft flown for commercial work was moved from the section for aircraft from 7 to 20 Kg into the main text. I don't know what their defence will be but if it were me I'd point out that CAP 658 has not been updated and still implies that CAA approval is not required for model aircraft under 7Kg.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,634
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
Do they expect all the Sh!te Hawks to have read the ANO and carry Mode S?
Guest
Posts: n/a
I don't know what their defence will be but if it were me I'd point out that CAP 658 has not been updated and still implies that CAA approval is not required for model aircraft under 7Kg.
The only aircraft operating at 400ft over built - up areas would probably be Police or Ambulance aircraft unless it is being operated close to the approach or climbout for a legitimate airfield; can you guarantee the person concentrating on 'flying' the uav would have the capacity to 'see' them?
