First ever UK prosecution for dangerous driving of a DRONE: Man fined £800 for illegal flying of unmanned aircraft
- Robert Knowles, 46, was found to have flown his homemade aircraft into restricted airspace over a nuclear submarine facility
- He also flew his drone, which was equipped with a video camera, too close to a vehicle bridge in an illegal manoeuvre
- Both offences breached the UK’s Air Navigation Order and he was found guilty on April 1 and fined £800 at Furness and District Magistrate Court
- The UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) said the conviction sends a message to recreational users of drones that they are subject to aviation safety rules
A man has become the first person in Britain to be successfully prosecuted for the dangerous and illegal flying of an unmanned aircraft (UAV).
Robert Knowles, 46, was found to have flown his homemade aircraft into restricted airspace over a nuclear submarine facility, as well as flying the drone too close to a vehicle bridge.
Both offences breached the UK’s Air Navigation Order.
Beware incoming: A man from Cumbria has become the first person in the UK to be successfully prosecuted for the dangerous and illegal flying of an unmanned aircraft (UAV). A stock image of a quadcopter drone is pictured, but Robert Knowles' UAV was homemade
Mr Knowles, of Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria, was found guilty on 1 April and fined £800 at Furness and District Magistrate Court following the prosecution by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), who said the case raised important safety issues concerning recreational flying of unmanned aircraft.
THE CAA’S RULES FOR OPERATING UAVS WITHIN THE LAW
- A drone must never be flown beyond the normal unaided ‘line of sight’ of the person operating it. This is generally measured as 1,640ft (500m) horizontally or 400ft (121m) vertically.
- A UAV fitted with a camera must always be flown at least 164ft (50m) distance away from a person, vehicle, building or structure.
- A UAV fitted with a camera must not be flown within 492ft (150metres) of a congested area or large group of people, such as a sporting event or concert.
- Consideration must be shown to other airspace users. Therefore unmanned aircraft should not be used in the vicinity of airports or within restricted airspace.
The court heard that on 25 August, a UAV was recovered from water near to a submarine testing facility in Barrow-in-Furness, operated by the defence company, BAE Systems.
The aircraft is said to have flown through restricted airspace around the nuclear submarine facility before it crashed.
A spokesman for the CAA told MailOnline that the UAV was more like a model airplane than a helicopter-style aircraft and was built from scratch, with a small video camera attached to its body.
The police were called to investigate whether the video footage was a security concern and while they decided the flight was not a significant security breach, analysis of the video footage taken from a camera fitted to the device subsequently revealed that during its flight the drone had skimmed over the busy Jubilee Bridge over Walney Channel.
The UAC was well within the legally permitted 164ft (50metres) separation distance required, according to the CAA.
After it was recovered, the UAV was traced to Mr Knowles who admitted to building the device himself and operating it on the day in question.
He was charged with flying a small unmanned surveillance aircraft within 164ft (50metres) of a structure and flying over a nuclear installation.
The CAA said the conviction sent a message to recreational users of UAVs that the devices are subject to aviation safety rules.
Punished: Mr Knowles, of Barrow-in-Furness, was found guilty on April 1 and fined £800 at Furness and District Magistrate Court. The court heard that on August 25, a UAV was recovered from water near to a submarine testing facility in Barrow-in-Furness (pictured) operated by the defence company, BAE Systems
A spokesman for the authority said: ‘Anyone operating an unmanned aircraft for their own private use should be aware that they have to abide by certain rules.
'These rules are in place to protect the safety of the public, and simply require operators to maintain a safe set distance between their unmanned aircraft and any people, buildings or vehicles in the vicinity. Followed correctly, these rules will not interfere with the ability of an individual to fly an unmanned aircraft recreationally.’
The conviction of Robert Knowles follows the recent case of a photographer from Lancashire accepting a caution for using a UAV for commercial gain without permission.
Lawrence Clift had sold footage of a school fire taken from his quadcopter to media organisations, even though he did not have authority from the CAA to operate the device commercially.
Anyone using unmanned aircraft for ‘aerial work’ requires special permission from the CAA, which the body claims ensures safety standards are being adhered to and that the operator of the UAV is fully insured.
Found: The drone was reportedly found crashed in water near to BAE Systems' submarines testing facility in Barrow-in-Furness (pictured). After it was recovered, the UAV was traced to Mr Knowles who admitted to building the device himself and operating it on the day in question
Comments
I know its an old post
The ONLY reason i was convicted of this was because
I couldn't afford a lawyer, so was given one that had no clue (his own words) about aviation laws. so on the day of the court he told me plead guilty and ill get a big fine, plead not guilty and get a big fine, or dont go into court and get a big fine, im quit an anxious person and felt i could handle speaking up in court so i went home.
Facts:
I took full responsibility!
I was flying next to a model flying club (owned by BAE) 1.5 miles outside a no fly zone
I did all the normal checks, range, batteries, ect
I had BMFA and my own public liability insurance
i didn't have any fpv gear on or with me on telem
The model was traced to me because it had my name and address on it
I had 6 previous LOS flights with no issues
the model went on its merry way and ENDED UP in a no flight zone, at no point was i in control of the flight in a no fly zone, how many people can see a flat wing 1.5 miles away?
i'm not a malicious person and have flown models for years previous, the toxic comments i saw for years after was pretty dumb over what was (an accident)
At the end of the day money talks, If id had a lawyer it wouldn't have gone the same way.
A pilot at an airshow crashed his plane on to a motorway and killed all those people, "On 8 March 2019, Hill was found not guilty on each of the 11 counts of manslaughter by gross negligence. The jury reached unanimous decisions on each of the counts following seven hours of deliberation. The judge also formally acquitted Hill on the count of negligently or recklessly endangering the safety of an aircraft,"
Serves me right ? yea i guess, i should have been a criminal with less fines :)
Anyway stay safe guys :)
@ Cosha Now abreast of all the facts I do feel he was a bit unlucky actually, I've heard of far less responsible behaviour.
I'm actually pricing a job to fly over a crowd with a 7kg hexacopter, you can imagine the thought (and invention) that's having to go into this... My insurance company wants inches of paperwork. I suppose hitting an 8ft thick concrete nuclear proof building with a foamy carries far less risk in many ways.
Bill, I've never heard of anybody being fined before.
Even in the litigious US, when a boy was flying helicopter over a crowded public park, intentionally buzzing a girl to harass her, then crashing into her doing serious injuries, there were no legal repercussions at all. He claimed it was actually an accidental loss of control, and they didn't have anything to prosecute on.
All agreed here, but....
Is this REALLY the first time in a century or so that a hobbyist has been fined?
Or just another sensationalist headline?
Having reread CAP 658 no mention is actually made to the word 'control' in this context. The flight from start to finish is the responsibility of the operator so loss of 'control' is of no relevance regarding the rules.
I think the big difference between the CAA/Court and the modellers on various forums is what 'control' means. I keep reading that he lost control of the aircraft and therefore where it ended up flying wasn't his fault. I don't believe that is what 'control' means in regards to the rules. As the operator of the aircraft for that flight he was in 'control'. Whether or not he had direct influence over the flight path is something else. Rocket modellers and other free flight have no direct control over the vehicle past launch but are still in 'control' and responsible for the flight.
RTH is a handy flight mode but is terrifying as a failsafe mechanism where aircraft have no sense and avoid and even more terrifying when it goes off in some random direction. In fact the guidance given is all about bringing the aircraft down as soon as possible once the operator has lost direct 'control'. 3 minutes of flying once he lost radio link certainly isn't a failsafe.
I do feel for the guy given the large costs involved. Shame it had to come to this and wasn't simply a large public berating. If nothing else it will stir up some discussions here amongst modellers and may well improve our knowledge of the environment we operate in.
Expect aviation authorities to demand more robust flight termination systems of private and commercial systems. George Duncan is very well aware of what current systems can do and is a very nice chap. If you do something wrong put your hand up and say sorry they have in the past been very lenient. In this case with it being a nuclear installation I expect their hands were somewhat tied.
The UK has PPL(U) and CPL(U) in place holders in the AIP so expect them one day if you are in the UK.
*craft
We have to be careful of the law of unintended consequences.
a) He was fined for "loss of control". If he was within the recommended paramaters of his system, then the liability is with whoever manufactured the component which caused the loss of control. When will DJI, xaircraft or 3DR start getting sued? Naturally, loss of control would need to be proven...
b) People will now fear being falsely accused of crossing into restricted airspace, even in genuine loss of control events. So the "good practise" of putting identifying contacts numbers will stop. And people will be more vigilent about being identified in videos.
c) Right now, the lawyers will be looking at how to exploit this. Would the rules/fines be different if a "mayday" was issued by a 1:1, and as a consequence the aircraft crashed on/near the base? The intrusion was unintended and unavoidable...will they be sued. What if you genuinely *did* crash into the sea outside restricted airspace, and the current put your crash into the base compound. Surely intentional intrusion cannot be proven?
A) He was flying LOS at all times
B) He was only recording onboard
C) The aircraft lost signal and failsafe kicked in
D) He did not launch or fly over restricted airspace
E) His aircraft (while in failsafe) flew over the bridge
F) His aircraft landed in the water with no damage to persons or property
G) His aircraft while in the water drifted over to the BAE yard
H) A BAE member of staff picked the airframe from the waters edge inside the restricted airspace
I) There has been lots of people over the years flying from the same place as this outside of the airspace
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next