Another drone owner proves their brain cells lack content:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/04/26/trainspotters-urged-keep-drones-away-flying-scotsman-near-miss/ (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/04/26/trainspotters-urged-keep-drones-away-flying-scotsman-near-miss/)
Apologies if it's been posted before.
with the police track record, not much risk of the s**m**g being caught.
as usual, lots of huff and puff by plod, but no action or results.
ain't british policing b****y marvellous ?
The bit I cant get my head round is: "Had it hit, it could have damage vital equipment, costing thousands to repair and causing hours of train delays. In the worst case, it could have caused serious injury or death".
The Flying Scotsman isn't exactly built like a boeing 737 is it? :confused1:
Quote from: class37025 on April 27, 2019, 07:12:47 PM
with the police track record, not much risk of the s**m**g being caught.
I'm still trying to work out what word you've censored!
It is certainly irresponsible, but I do agree it seems a bit sensationalist. Even the most substantial of drones is pretty unlikely to do any damage whatsoever to a moving train!
the mast that is positioned to the side of and above the support coach ?um ......telegraph poles ? any other ideas
Quote from: njee20 on April 27, 2019, 07:49:29 PM
It is certainly irresponsible, but I do agree it seems a bit sensationalist. Even the most substantial of drones is pretty unlikely to do any damage whatsoever to a moving train!
Especially one that weighs around 100 tons and is made of steel. I really fail to apprehend how something made of plastic carrying a little battery and camera could cause such devastating damage! :confused1:
Perhaps the 'vital equipment' referred to belongs to the engine driver who, leaning out of the cab to spy the pesky drone, is struck in a sensitive area by said device when its operator loses sight and control of his craft due to the enveloping cloud of smoke issuing from the Scotsman. This 'serious injury' would cost 'thousands to repair', and lead to 'hours of train delays' while he"s recovering.
Perhaps.
Quote from: crewearpley40 on April 27, 2019, 07:54:57 PM
the mast that is positioned to the side of and above the support coach ?um ......telegraph poles ? any other ideas
Tis the posts for the overhear electric cables, obviously on an electric route for that piccie.
best wishes
Simon
OHLE - overhead line equipment - okay worth a thought
"I'm still trying to work out what word you've censored!"
think of that green stuff you find on a pond, or the stuff around the bath, and what you take your shopping home in :thumbsup:
Ahhh. Is that rude enough to censor?! :worried:
Quote from: crewearpley40 on April 27, 2019, 08:31:18 PM
OHLE - overhead line equipment - okay worth a thought
Not between Farnborough and Woking!
I was watching trains at Didcot one evening last summer and saw a drone fly across all four lines near the east end of the station UNDERNEATH the OHLE.
Needless to say there will be no action taken against these clowns until people get killed.
Pete @ EGLM
Quote from: njee20 on April 27, 2019, 10:27:24 PM
Ahhh. Is that rude enough to censor?! :worried:
Quote from: crewearpley40 on April 27, 2019, 08:31:18 PM
OHLE - overhead line equipment - okay worth a thought
Not between Farnborough and Woking!
Maybe not betwwen those places but defo OHLE in the image used.
best wishes
Simon
looks like somewhere else but yes its a serious issue that is being taken seriously. just like trespassing onto the railway tracks to gain a photograph.
Hi All,
Needless to say not a real surprise to me! Some people are idiots and just have no idea of the potential dangers, some people are just too enthusiastic and then finally the worst of the lot just too arrogant to give a rats :censored:!
Now something that gets me military drone operators including the guys that use the small hand launched ones all have to have a pilots licence to fly them, so why don't they make it mandatory for all of them and well make it a criminal offence to buy / operate one without a licence full stop. You know just like driving a car?
Do some simple lessons and a theory test and off you go so then people can't play the "I didn't know card".
It would soon reduce the issues, I know it won't stop them altogether but if you slap a £1000 fine on people who disregard the laws then they will soon think twice!
Quote from: Pete @ EGLM on April 27, 2019, 11:35:27 PM
I was watching trains at Didcot one evening last summer and saw a drone fly across all four lines near the east end of the station UNDERNEATH the OHLE.
Needless to say there will be no action taken against these clowns until people get killed.
Except for the people they arrested for interfering with Gatwick in December, despite no one even being injured.
Drone operations certainly brings new challenges for policing, it's easy to say "they must all be licenced" but where's the line? Little £10 quadcopters you can only use inside? Isn't that like mandating a driving test for using a remote control car? You currently don't need a licence if you're only using it recreationally. The problem being that's probably the people who are using them recreationally who are doing the idiotic stuff.
Fining or otherwise penalising people being idiots isn't that easy, as with the Gatwick issues the people can be remote from the drone, and how do you track them? Even if they're close by that's quite resource intensive.
"Isn't that like mandating a driving test for using a remote control car?"
oh no, don't give them ideas, please :worried:
that would be a fee for the theory test, another for the practical test, not to mention all the driving schools with their r/c cars with L plates on !
I remember in the days of CB radios, which were illegal at the time, the government charged VAT on the equipment you bought, like sets, aerials etc.
so, were they living on the proceeds of illegal earnings :)
Hi all,
The reason I say having a licence is actually based on something that has proven itself in the past else where.
In the US north Dakota to be exact where my dads side of the family come from, they trialled a licencing scheme where to have a gun you had to do some very basic lessons to hold a licence, with the introduction of the scheme (depsite the NRA trying to fight it) they found that incidents of people been unaware of the laws or idiotic decreased five fold.
Yes another form control but sadly as is proving because of the idiots it's coming more and more to light that its a matter of time before an physical incident takes place rather than airspace infringement. As for where should the rules apply well honestly that would be for the powers that be to decide so a £10 toy from a shop well I am sure we will be safe. All I can say is from where I stand and having had to deal with a drone incident myself (Vs Apache at low level over Salisbury plains) if a drone can go so far from user and so high there needs to be something in place to control things and give the idiots in the world something to think about.
As pointed out preventing an actual drone intrusion is actually an extremely challenging issue for numerous reasons, including expense, coverage (both geographical and Radio Frequency) also the type of drone (some can be programmed to run a set route independently). With all this what can we do? The only realistic area is to go after the common fact HUMANS!
Now that I have to apply for a licence to shoot feral pigeons, can I extend its scope to shoot feral drones?
Quote from: acko22 on April 28, 2019, 09:36:31 PM
The reason I say having a licence is actually based on something that has proven itself in the past else where.
Drone users do have to be licenced if they're using them for anything other than personal use. The problem, like I say, is that you're probably licencing the people least likely to do stupid things! To continue the driving analogy it's a bit like saying "we're only going to give a driving test to racing drivers", everyone else can crack on!
I drive a car for personal use only, but I have to have a licence
Has anyone actually seen this video, to determine if this is all hyperbole, or genuinely a concern? I have only been able to find one drone video of Scotsman on that day on Youtube, and the drone was absolutely nowhere near the loco.
Cheers,
Alan
Quote from: Bealman on April 29, 2019, 09:39:45 AM
I drive a car for personal use only, but I have to have a licence
Yes, I know, hence giving an analogy, rather than saying "it's exactly the same as cars"...
Quote from: Dr Al on April 29, 2019, 09:45:10 AM
Has anyone actually seen this video, to determine if this is all hyperbole, or genuinely a concern? I have only been able to find one drone video of Scotsman on that day on Youtube, and the drone was absolutely nowhere near the loco.
No, I thought that. Every news article seems to be exactly the same copy/paste text, with no footage.
Your analogy to a remote control car is a bit tenuous. They do not fly into the air nor do they generally have cameras on them
It was a tongue in cheek analogy based on the fact that many drones are used as toys and therefore licencing everyone is a flawed concept, as well as being virtually impossible to enforce.
I'm well aware that cars don't fly, but an analogy of the same thing isn't an analogy, it's a description.
Flaws in a concept does not make the concept invalid. Licensing is a reasonable starting point for control, though of course even the irresponsible can hold licences, as we see daily on the roads!
This thread is now following the lines of the previous one following the Gatwick drones situation, and is in danger of droning on ad infiniten, but just to bring things up to date here's another headline case today highlighting the problem of drones and their cost to society when used irresponsibly:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/three-planes-diverted-following-drone-sighting-at-gatwick-airport-a4128616.html (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/three-planes-diverted-following-drone-sighting-at-gatwick-airport-a4128616.html)
Quote from: daffy on April 29, 2019, 11:27:35 AM
Flaws in a concept does not make the concept invalid. Licensing is a reasonable starting point for control, though of course even the irresponsible can hold licences, as we see daily on the roads!
Indeed, but as said, they're already licenced, the issue is
who you licence. This does seem a particularly tortured thread. I'll take my leave.
The licence is for drones over a certain weight, those little indoor ones don't need a licence..
DAily Mail suggests licence fee of £16.50 for all medium 200g +/large drones and £1000 fines for evasion!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6978099/UK-drones-licences-fliers-forced-pay-16-50-fee-register-smallest-devices.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6978099/UK-drones-licences-fliers-forced-pay-16-50-fee-register-smallest-devices.html)
it's also an offence to use a mobile phone while driving, and I'm sure we've all seen this happening.
it's no good making laws, unless you enforce them.
responsible people will obey them, others won't because they know there is little to no chance of being caught.
be it speeding,
drunk driving
driving while using a mobile phone
allow your dog to foul and not cleaning it up
not even having your dog micro-chipped
or flying a drone
if no authority gets off it's backside and enforces the law, they are useless.
I am sure going further would be considered 'political' so I will stop there.
This was published a few months before the incident reported above, so I don't think it was this filmmaker... Check out his other films, they are amazing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6_SsoyGNMA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6_SsoyGNMA)
then there was this .....
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-48229400 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-48229400)
an act of stupidity,i hope they are caught , putting lives at danger.mindless
Hope they find out who they are and throw the book at them.
As I've said before, a few villages are missing their idiots ::)
And they say that age brings wisdom....?
Yeah, no spring chicken, for sure!
I'm staggered that they were even stupid enough to stay and have their photo taken, the old guy looks as though he's posing for it too, unbelievable :o :thumbsdown:
Who took their photo? Another trespasser?
Quote from: Pete @ EGLM on May 12, 2019, 09:09:26 PM
Who took their photo? Another trespasser?
It was credited to British Transport Police, so I guess, British Transport Police?
As reported by the camera man ( a railway modeller) on another railway modelling site, he was the driver of the train in shot and should have been going past at 100mph+ He took the Photo as a report as to why he had stopped..