Anything illegal here?

[Richlizard]

I guess the BBC can do what they want, but surely this footage breaks so many rules!!??

[Richlizard]

The link would help, I guess. I am only guessing anyway...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26143668

[e.chipev]

And the footage is crap...

[tony]

ill think you will find its 1 of 2 two things 1 is a rc helicopter so not governed by drone law are its under 100 grams meaning its a toy and not governed by any laws

[dockman]

I would say there are a few potential issues.  Flying over a public road, it might have been closed but it is still out of your control.  Also flew over houses, unless they got permission from each home owner that could be against the rules.  Last, they did get some what close to some people by the road, they might have been part of the news crew but still sorta close.

I would have cordoned off the road at least 10 meters each side of the track and made sure there were no people in that area and not fly over anyone';s property, just over the tracks.

[kogashuko]

Its a multirotor not a Kracken unless it falls 200 feet and hits someone in the head it isnt anymore dangerous than a bird. As far as damage to property I am sure BBC could cover anything it hits. Now if they are running an 800mm quad with wooden props that might be different.

Unfortunately, I can see the laws going this way in the US soon. That video of the DJI phantom that fell out of the sky in NY outraged people. However, no one stopped to think about all of the stupid stuff that falls from those buildings, thrown, dropped, or knocked off all the time and hurts no one and is a lot more dangerous. Has anyone seen what those pebbles they put on the rooftops do to a car windshield when knocked off by birds? Yet they make multirotors of all things illegal.

[dockman]

Its a multirotor not a Kracken unless it falls 200 feet and hits someone in the head it isnt anymore dangerous than a bird. As far as damage to property I am sure BBC could cover anything it hits. Now if they are running an 800mm quad with wooden props that might be different.

Any multi big enough to carry a camera like a gopro even from 30 feet could injure someone with ease.  And property damage.. does not matter that the BBC can pay for it, it should be avoided at all times regardless. 

[Richlizard]

Thanks for the reply Koga.

I wasn';t really asking which falling object is best for causing damage. Just wondering if the BBC are flouting the laws we all have to abide by no matter how dumb they are at times.

[flybywire]

I think it';s good footage, what';s the problem?

[kogashuko]

Thanks for the reply Koga.

I wasn';t really asking which falling object is best for causing damage. Just wondering if the BBC are flouting the laws we all have to abide by no matter how dumb they are at times.

Oh yeh, our news people do that too. One of them went on TV last year doing a very highly political piece in Washington DC with a 30round AR15 magazine. They are highly illegal there for some reason but he never got into any sort of trouble.

[GdLookinMingeR]

The pilot is BNUCS Certified
enabling him to make a judgment on if it';s safe to fly at the location.
With his logs and liability insurance, proving that himself and his flight machine is suitable for work in the air.

Similar to a fully qualified pilot flying over your home in a full size machine.
He has the paperwork.

As for the footage he has got a bit of a waggle on for sure :-)

[Hands0n]

As for the footage he has got a bit of a waggle on for sure :-)

Windy day? It hasn';t stopped here - and the one time I did fly over my house for a quickie roof inspection it was a pig to keep steady, even with it being a Naza M Lite FC.   I';m sure even BNUCS pilots bend to the laws of physics and nature ::) 

I think its nice to see this kit used more and more as it will impinge upon the conscious of the general public, they won';t see it as the big bad thing that the media generally portray it as.

[CAndrewGreen]

Judging by this story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24712136
from last October it would appear that they';re doing it by the book.

Andrew

[guest2350]

Judging by this story:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24712136
from last October it would appear that they';re doing it by the book.

Andrew

not a bad "drone" that, is it?

[steve fh]

The pilot is BNUCS Certified
enabling him to make a judgment on if it';s safe to fly at the location.
With his logs and liability insurance, proving that himself and his flight machine is suitable for work in the air.

Similar to a fully qualified pilot flying over your home in a full size machine.
He has the paperwork.

As for the footage he has got a bit of a waggle on for sure :-)

Wrong!

BNUCS and CAA permission just let';s you fly for reward. It does not alter the law or the restrictions on clearance from people and property not under your control or rules for over flying a congested area

[Balders]

Just to point out, that footage of flooded train tracks was not produced by the BBC...it';s a 2 man outfit called "Heliscan". Even has their name bottom right of the still on the article. I saw it broadcast on BBC news 24 at the time and it had footage from Heliscan all over it or words to that effect. I remember thinking at the time, they need to sort that yaw wobble out :)

[Ross]

Wrong!

BNUCS and CAA permission just let';s you fly for reward. It does not alter the law or the restrictions on clearance from people and property not under your control or rules for over flying a congested area

CORRECT......The fact you have passed an exam written and oral does not exempt you from the rules as laid down by the ANO.

Lots of people trying to make a buck with a UAV...and hoping to get away with it,  paperwork or not