back to article Bloke fined £460 after his drone screwed up police chopper search for missing woman

A Russian-speaking man from Cambridgeshire has become the first person in the UK to be convicted of illegally flying a drone beneath a police helicopter during a search operation. Sergej Miaun's antics with his DJI Phantom 4 caused a search for a missing woman to be abandoned after police helicopter pilot Lee Holmes became …

Page:

      1. Mark 85

        Re: “Oh look, there's a drone”

        I'd think that if the drone were directly under the helicopter, the pilots wouldn't have seen it and also the downwash from the rotor would have created some serious problems for the drone. But still, the drone pilot was an idiot.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: “Oh look, there's a drone”

          The video was published it was below and off to one side - they spotted it quite clearly because of the infra red camera.

      2. Version 1.0 Silver badge

        Re: “Oh look, there's a drone”

        Since the drone was below the helicopter it was no threat at all - there's no way it could have risen into the force of the helicopters downdraft. The only serious risk from the drone or any other flying object (swan sized) would be if it hit the tail rotor and damaged it but the relative masses of the two objects mean that while drones are a risk, they are not a big risk. The pilot was happy to follow the drone home ... not worried about it at all.

        1. Androgynous Cupboard Silver badge

          Re: “Oh look, there's a drone”

          Reread the bit where the guy said "I only realised there was a helicopter there when it switched on the big light", revisit your tail rotor comment, then imagine your family are on the ground beneath the helicopter. Done that? Good. Still all fine?

      3. Wayland

        Re: “Oh look, there's a drone”

        The police do have a terrible record for air safety. They are supposed to have the pilot concentrate on flying and the policeman concentrate on spotting. Once the pilot joins the search they're in great danger.

        If the pilot really did give chase to the drone he would need fighter pilot skills. "Tank I need a fighter pilot program for an EC145 helicopter"

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: “Oh look, there's a drone”

          The pilot tracked the drone easily - at best the top speed was about 25ish mph. hardly a challenge.

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    And if it was a drone operated by another security service

    unbeknown to the police, all you commentards calling for this operator to be hanged, drawn and quartered wouldn't be quite so vindictive for someone else performing exactly the same actions.

    It really doesn't take much to make supposedly mature adults outraged these days. No wonder the country is so angry when it takes so little to upset people.

    1. Francis Boyle Silver badge

      No,

      in that case they'd just deserve a serious bollicking for not following the rules and coordinating with their colleagues.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: No,

        Errr, not following following the rules - as in breaking the law?!?

        Isn't that exactly what people here are getting their knickers in a twist over?

        Or are you implying some are above the law?

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Russian speaking?!?

    What has that got to do with anything?

    Is El Reg part of the state propaganda machine now?

    1. streaky

      Re: Russian speaking?!?

      Here's a question. Why _shouldn't_ they report facts? Propaganda. Lets hide who is going through the court system and just let Tommy Tippee stand outside the courts and broadcast who is who on facebook.

    2. Mayday
      Coat

      Re: Russian speaking?!?

      "His explanation was that he saw police lights over the A47"

      Perhaps he was thinking AK-47?

  3. streaky
    Black Helicopters

    Here's what's interesting.

    "The person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft may only fly the aircraft if reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made"

    You can reasonably satisfied if that's the case with an FPV drone. I'd be more comfortable at 100 miles satisfying myself through FPV that than using line of sight to satisfy myself at 400 meters. Also yes I did put it like that intentionally. There are a few absurdities in law with this stuff, which is probably why some people don't take the law seriously. I can fly actual aircraft (PPL - although my rating lapsed admittedly years ago because I wasn't getting any use out of it) and so I'm fully aware of the issues and the drone panic (albeit sometimes justified) is drowning out sensible regulation in this area.

    Also that offence isn't strict liability is it? It can't be else it wouldn't rely on a person satisfying themselves - surely they should be required to prove a person isn't reasonably satisfied that it's safe to fly.

    1. Francis Boyle Silver badge

      Re: Here's what's interesting.

      The fact that the drone operator wasn't aware of the helicopter until the pilot turned "the big light" on says otherwise.

      1. streaky
        Black Helicopters

        Re: Here's what's interesting.

        Bit of a leap. The helicopter's altitude would have been significantly higher than this drone. The reason he wouldn't have known it was there is they weren't in conflict which is precisely the point isn't it? The downwash from a heli would have destroyed it basically instantly if he was within hundreds of feet of it.

        I'd be interested to see the video from the heli which should have been saved as evidence to see what actually happened.

        Don't get me wrong I'm not saying the guy isn't an utter clown, but I'm interested in how much real risk there is/was.

  4. Peter Christy

    Whilst it may be arguable whether the pilot believed the flight could be made safely or not, what is not in dispute is that he flew it beyond Line-Of-Sight - a clear breach of the Air Navigation Order.

    I fly RC models - which cannot maintain stable flight beyond LOS - and unfortunately I and my fellow RC pilots have been caught up in the drone legislation through no fault of our own. This leaves me very unsympathetic to idiots who fly these things in inappropriate areas.

    I live in a semi-rural area, near the coast and with a steam railway running nearby. Twice in one week, I had idiots taking off from the pavement outside my house, flying at low level over the (busy-ish) road and my neighbours' houses to get photos of the train! One at least had the decency to look sheepish and disappear when challenged. The other claimed to be a licensed professional at first, but then scarpered pretty quickly when I quoted the relevant sections of the Air Navigation Order to him.

    From my perspective, this guy got off lightly.

    --

    Pete

    1. streaky

      It's not in dispute that he technically breached the rules. The issue for me is that the rules aren't fit for purpose and maybe if they were people wouldn't ignore them so much.

    2. Wayland

      "I fly RC models - which cannot maintain stable flight beyond LOS"

      Your RC models short comings don't apply to Drones which can be flown far beyond LOS using their built in cameras.

      Whether they should be flown that way is a different question.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Well clearly they shouldn't the rules state they should not be flown beyond LOS.

    3. DuncanLarge Silver badge

      "I fly RC models - which cannot maintain stable flight beyond LOS - and unfortunately I and my fellow RC pilots have been caught up in the drone legislation through no fault of our own."

      I would HOPE that you did finally come under such laws and regulations considering the much more dangerous activity you are involved in.

      Your so called "RC" (read unmanned) aircraft are inherently more dangerous than the typical drone today (above the lowest toy grade) as they, by your own admission, can not maintain stable safe flight beyond line of sight or even loss of signal.

      Typically a drone would have GPS onboard as well as other sophisticated devices that enable it to be aware of its position relative to launch point / waypoint, altitude and 3D accelerometers letting it know where it is headed, how far and how fast. Upon loss of signal it will attempt to navigate back to its take off point and land. It will also do this if commanded by the owner and if its batteries are getting too low. Loss of sight is an issue for the operator that can be mitigated by the inclusion of FPV on the drone that can allow the operator to reacquire sight or attempt to land it safely should a return home command be iffy due to a low battery. Also if there is loss of sight the drone can simply hover, not bothering anyone, not simply falling out of the sky or plowing into a family picnic like with your "models".

      Your so called "RC models", which is an archaic term for an unmanned aircraft these days, do none of this. They wont return home when commanded, when running low on power or when they lose comms to the controller but will happily fly about in an uncontrolled manner (as you pointed out) till they hit something or someone.

      Your "models" are highly dangerous should you lose control. What happens if you have a heart attack? What happens if you get distracted by someone who is in danger or get distracted by your kids who really need an adult. Are you going to always be able to say "hang on, try to stop bleeding while I land the thing, not long now"

      If any of those things were to happen to me I can quite simply press the RTH button. The drone, not needing my assistance, while I deal with the emergency will climb to a decent height and slowly make its way back to the launch point where it will then slowly descend till it touches the ground and shuts off its motors.

      I'd much rather be near a drone than a flying missile any day. Yep, things can happen to cause the drone to fall out of the sky like a rock but at least its designed to not do that by default.

  5. John Savard

    Incomplete

    The story doesn't say whether the missing woman, despite this, was eventually found, and found alive. That makes a difference as to whether the charges reported here are appropriate, or he should have faced vastly more severe charges instead.

    1. Wayland

      Re: Incomplete

      Exactly, it should be the consequences that the punishment are based on. I suspect that if they had time to chase the drone then the more important job of finding the missing person had been successful. However if they abandoned the search in order to make £460 they have their priorities wrong.

  6. DeVino
    Joke

    Rubberdroning ?

    Only it, you know sounds a bit ... iffy?

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    This is why we can't have nice things.......

    Can't think of any thing to add......

  8. SonOfDilbert
    Coat

    Droning on

    Jeez, you guys are really droning on...

  9. Chris Parsons

    Good

    As a pilot who spent time and money learning how to fly safely, I find the fact that idiots can just go out and cause serious problems to flyers, deliberately or otherwise, more than a tad annoying.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Good

      Yep, the sky belongs to the paranoid elite. Nobody else can enjoy the sky.

      SH*T whats that! A bird? Kill them all. Air supremacy!

      I'd rather you lot stop flying anything other than large commercial jets and go back to walking across the earth while society leave the skies to the birds and small aircraft running deliveries for amazon.

      I can imagine this attitude being applied to users of smartphones with cameras that have decent resolution. How dare these kids / snapshotting amateurs take photos that could rival my shots from my expensive DSLR that I spent many coins on together with some professional qualifications in photography. The light that comes off your bodies BELONGS TO ME! I'm the photographer, with the kit.

  10. ScottishYorkshireMan

    Laws for the Lawful

    This country is wrapped up in a stigma of 'drones are bad'. Yes, the internet is full of drone muppets, its also full of idiots who climb buildings they shouldn't be climbing. Cars being driving at speeds they shouldn't be driven at. etc etc. This is the first case, there will be many more. Yet, the overall dislike of drones on this thread is I am sorry to say, pretty typical of todays news reporting. When was the last time you saw good being done by dronws

    There are idiots who drive cars, should those be banned? There are idiots who use power tools. ban those too? Muppets who climb these tall buildings? should we ban tall buildings too?

    Legislate all you like, this will only affect the lawful. The muppets amongst us, will do their own thing. Unfortunately, they will spoil it for all concerned.

    In this case, clear violation of ANO, fine levied was insufficient. However, new drone registration rules will help here. Also, the work being done by Vodafone for identification of drones in use will help too.

  11. dieseltaylor

    Hit on the head

    Seems funny that downing a helicopter is discussed but the debris from a disabled drone be it from contact or wash, is assumed to vapourise before landing somewhere.

    Possibly a person, possibly a vehicle where the driver is distracted enough to cause a serious accident.

    A friend neighbours drone crashed into my friends roof killing tiles.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As a quadcopter flyer, it is upon me to follow the rules. I check where I'm allowed to fly, I follow the drone code as set out by the CAA rules and yes I upload footage to youtube of various things.

    I dislike how these things are sold as toys (and more and more at toy prices). The manufacturers should be held jointly responsible.

    In this case, the owner of the quadcopter flew it well beyond his line of sight thus contravening the rules. The video, featured on another site, shows that he was well below and not that close to the helicopter but had it of been in the line of sight he couldn't fail to notice the helicopter close by. It's about time we started fining people, making these fines more public and removing such vehicles as has happened in this case.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Video Link

    Here you can see the video https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-england-cambridgeshire-46242032/drone-endangered-police-helicopter-in-cambridgeshire

    1. Chozo
      Devil

      Re: Video Link

      I thought the Police Air Operations Manual stated a minimum altitude of 800 ft above the highest obstruction within 5 km of the aircraft when flying at night? The data overlay on the video suggests that the police may of been way below that limit.

      I'm not defending the drone operator IMHO he's a pillock but if the police pilot is at fault should they not be reprimanded as well?

  14. punk4evr

    Oh, but how tf is it a dangerous to a helicopter? The blade wash, will knock the drone away before it could touch a copter. So... I don't understand. And its not like they travel at 300mph either. So all the panic and noise is just that. Noise, to intentionally blame and dissuade.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like