Jump to content

Foxton from Above


pig

Featured Posts

8 hours ago, nicknorman said:

When you implied earlier that the laws only applied to commercial operators, I cringed.

Commercial operators have strict guidelines, and need permissions to fly, and a license.

That's not the case for non-commercial flyers - their guidance is in the Drone Code:

http://dronesafe.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Dronecode.pdf

I certainly did not imply that hobby flyers should flout the rules that commercial operators obey.

Sorry for the cringe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, pig said:

Commercial operators have strict guidelines, and need permissions to fly, and a license.

That's not the case for non-commercial flyers - their guidance is in the Drone Code:

http://dronesafe.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Dronecode.pdf

I certainly did not imply that hobby flyers should flout the rules that commercial operators obey.

Sorry for the cringe.

The Drone code isn't law, and I think it is poorly worded as it doesn't deal with the congested area definition. The only relevant thing is the law. The code also doesn't differentiate between a small unmanned aircraft, and a small unmanned surveillance aircraft. Yours is the latter and brings in concepts of privacy. Anyway, you know about the law now, so you can make informed choices.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, pig said:

Commercial operators have strict guidelines, and need permissions to fly, and a license.

That's not the case for non-commercial flyers - their guidance is in the Drone Code:

Sorry but yes it is the case for non-commercial flyers. The law is the law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have nothing against drones myself, my friend has got some fantastic aerial footage but as long as it is operated safely and within the law I have no issues. My friend used to fly a kite with a lure for training his falcon and fond out the hard way about the law, I am not saying how high he could get his delta wing kite but is was very high. He now uses a drone , in an unrestricted area with the landowners permission. You would have never been aware about the restrictions about flying kites, just think how many of you have broken the law before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to make enormous kites and had to make a Meccano winch to wind em back in.  I also made big hot air balloons with a fiery ball of meths soaked cotton wool dangling below to power them. We started the launching process by hanging on to them over a boats hot chimney to begin the inflation and then lit the cotton wool.  Away they'd go usually across Thorley and Harlow or Stansted airport.  Goodness knows where they descended. We always launched at night for the visual effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jerra said:

I find it yet again fascinating that some boaters are very fast to scream CRT can't do that its not allowed by law and yet are happy to suggest laws don't need to be followed when it isn't CRT.

I assume from this that you never deliberately break any laws. I am guilty of many instances of rule/law breaking, I generally am aware of this, and don't consider I'm doing any harm. I'm not talking about seriously antisocial stuff, simply little things, like 75/80 MPH on a dual carriageway.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Hawkmoth said:

I assume from this that you never deliberately break any laws. I am guilty of many instances of rule/law breaking, I generally am aware of this, and don't consider I'm doing any harm. I'm not talking about seriously antisocial stuff, simply little things, like 75/80 MPH on a dual carriageway.

Bob

I didn't comment on breaking laws, obviously most people me included break a law occasionally.   What I was commenting on (and you seem to have misunderstood) is the attitude of squeal loudly at the slightest suggestion that CRT isn't sticking to the law exactly as the squealer thinks they should. Compared to public statements that laws are there to be bent or only used as guidance or worse totally ignored.

IMO you can't have it both ways nitpick over slight misuse of the law on one hand and deliberately suggest flouting the law when it concerns you.

I certainly don't deliberately set out to break a law and if I inadvertently do I certainly wouldn't dream of suggesting it doesn't matter or recommend others to do it.   articularly where laws concerned with the safety of others are concerned such as speed limits or aviation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, I Spartacus said:

I have nothing against drones myself

Me neither. 

I have spent many thousands of pounds hiring drone operators with their kit for various shoots over the years. Whenever I have done so the operation was always totally lawful. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jerra said:

I didn't comment on breaking laws, obviously most people me included break a law occasionally.   What I was commenting on (and you seem to have misunderstood) is the attitude of squeal loudly at the slightest suggestion that CRT isn't sticking to the law exactly as the squealer thinks they should. Compared to public statements that laws are there to be bent or only used as guidance or worse totally ignored.

IMO you can't have it both ways nitpick over slight misuse of the law on one hand and deliberately suggest flouting the law when it concerns you.

I certainly don't deliberately set out to break a law and if I inadvertently do I certainly wouldn't dream of suggesting it doesn't matter or recommend others to do it.   articularly where laws concerned with the safety of others are concerned such as speed limits or aviation.

I hope you don't put me in the "squeal loudly" category. I may criticise CRT occasionally, but only if they are IMO being unreasonable.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hawkmoth said:

I hope you don't put me in the "squeal loudly" category. I may criticise CRT occasionally, but only if they are IMO being unreasonable.

Bob

I wasn't think of anyone in particular just the fact that everytime there is something raised some people seem only too keen to jump up and say "they can't do that it isn't lawful".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Must admit that I am amazed at the lack of people or boats on the flight!    Perhaps I have only been there way in peak (if usually wet) times.    

 

I will leave the legal debate to those who know better than I.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dharl said:

Must admit that I am amazed at the lack of people or boats on the flight!    Perhaps I have only been there way in peak (if usually wet) times.    

 

I will leave the legal debate to those who know better than I.

 

 

Note the shadows - either very early in the morning or early evening. (Can't be bothered to work out which) With the current operational hours there's plenty of daylight time when the flight is closed. 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/19/2017 at 06:59, WotEver said:

Good question, as this definition could mean that more laws were broken. 

DEFRA clarifies settlements as...

  • Urban - More than 10,000 population. 
  • Rural town and fringe
  • Rural village
  • Rural hamlet and isolated dwellings

I'm no lawyer but my reading of the above suggests that if there is a single dwelling in an area then that means it's a settlement. Is there? I don't know. 

 

The thing is, rather like the gas regs, I suspect these regs are drawn up so ridiculously tightly not for the purposes of routine enforcement to the letter, but so whenever an 'incident' occurs the operative concerned can be illustrated to have breach one or another part of the law and prosecuted. 

No matter that there could be a hundred million incident-free drone flights across Foxton locks, on the day there is a collision or something, the authorities need to put up a show of scapegoating and prosecuting someone.  

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're probably correct, Mike. I'm not a lawyer (not even an armchair one) and neither am I a cop. If someone chooses to break the law it's no skin off my nose and I only pointed out the fact that OP had done so in answer to a query by zenataomm (or however he spells his name) ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, WotEver said:

You're probably correct, Mike. I'm not a lawyer (not even an armchair one) and neither am I a cop. If someone chooses to break the law it's no skin off my nose and I only pointed out the fact that OP had done so in answer to a query by zenataomm (or however he spells his name) ;)

 

Yes. But there is definitely a difference. 

Road speed limits for example are routinely enforced as a matter of course, but gas regs and air regs only seem to be enforced in response to a life-threatening incident. 

Once something goes wrong there is a mad scramble to point the finger. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Yes. But there is definitely a difference. 

Road speed limits for example are routinely enforced as a matter of course, but gas regs and air regs only seem to be enforced in response to a life-threatening incident. 

Once something goes wrong there is a mad scramble to point the finger. 

If you can be bothered to Google for wedding videographers and take a look at their example videos you will see as many 'illegal' uses of a drone as you want. Flying over the couple, flying over the crowd, flying low over the reception venue, it happens all the time. When the guests get smacked in the head, all of a sudden the police become interested. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/2365471/wedding-guests-sue-groom-after-photo-drone-crashes-into-their-faces-while-they-dance-in-tent-at-ceremony/amp/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, WotEver said:

If you can be bothered to Google for wedding videographers and take a look at their example videos you will see as many 'illegal' uses of a drone as you want. Flying over the couple, flying over the crowd, flying low over the reception venue, it happens all the time. When the guests get smacked in the head, all of a sudden the police become interested. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thesun.co.uk/news/2365471/wedding-guests-sue-groom-after-photo-drone-crashes-into-their-faces-while-they-dance-in-tent-at-ceremony/amp/

 

Indeed. 99.99% of infringements truly are a victimless crime. It's the 0.01% that need prosecuting. Unlike say theft, where every offence has a victim. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

 

Indeed. 99.99% of infringements truly are a victimless crime. It's the 0.01% that need prosecuting. Unlike say theft, where every offence has a victim. 

Do you think we should apply the same idea to speeding?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Mike above.

Most of my life has been riddled with laws that seemed (at the time ) to have been nothing but pointless ideas dreamt up by the "Thou shalt not have fun" brigade.

Compulsory crash helmets

Decreasing bike power on L Plates from 250cc to 125cc

Rules about air guns

Boat Safety Certificates

Metal Detector usage

Flying r/c aircraft

Driving without MOT or insurance

 

Yet, if the law is passed then it doesn't matter how inconvenient it is to an individual, if you're caught or have an accident then the blind eye suddenly turns on you.

How many yacking carelessly away on a mobile while driving truly believe they could kill someone?

I'd love a drone, they look great fun, but I shan't buy one.  I can't legally use one where I'd like too, and I accept that.  About 3 years back I witnessed a r/c helicopter, battery powered, suddenly appear over the roofs of a row of houses.  It was clearly out of control and had escaped from a back garden and plummeted into moving traffic negotiating an island.  The victims were 3 cars, a cyclist and a pedestrian.  Nobody was seriously hurt, but with cars swerving to avoid something large that suddenly hit them and bounced and the cyclist being side swiped it could easily have been tragic.  The papers reported several thousand pounds worth of damage, and showed a picture of a ten year old and his Father grinning from ear to ear while holding up the shattered remains of their toy.

zenataomm .... spelt zenataomm ;)

Edited by zenataomm
Took me so long to write my reply others got in before me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 20/03/2017 at 19:03, Jerra said:

Do you think we should apply the same idea to speeding?

Not sure what you mean by 'apply the same idea'. I'm making an observation about how it is. 

And yes the same observation applies to speeding. 99.99% of cases of speeding result in no victim. I regularly drive on the motorway surrounded by motorists doing more than 70mph with no effect on anyone. Millions of victimless crimes occur every day occur on our roads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.