CAA Gets First UK Conviction for Dangerous UAS Flying


A TV-repair shop owner who has become the first person convicted in the UK for “dangerously” flying a UAS says the fine and legal costs will bankrupt him. Robert Knowles, 46, of Barrow-in-Furness, was fined £800 and ordered to pay costs of £3,500 at the Furness and District Magistrate court on Tuesday after being prosecuted by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

He pleaded guilty to flying a small unmanned surveillance aircraft within 50 metres of a structure – the Jubilee Bridge on the Walney channel – and flying over a nuclear installation, the BAE System submarine-testing facility.

The CAA said that the case raised important safety issues concerning recreational flying of unmanned aircraft, which is legal as long as it is done away from built-up areas and structures.

“The Jubilee Bridge is used by vehicles – this could have hit a car and caused an accident,” said a CAA spokesperson. “People have to understand that they are subject to air safety rules and that there are potentially serious safety concerns.”

But Knowles told the Guardian that the conviction was “ridiculous”. He said that he had been flying his £1,000 drone in a field a mile and a half away from the base on the morning of Sunday 25 August 2013 when the 4 ft, kit-built drone – with a camera on board – suddenly lost radio contact during its seventh flight.

“The radio failed and it flew away down the Walney channel,” Knowles told the Guardian. “I couldn’t have controlled it. I don’t know why the radio failed. It landed in the sea channel, and the salt water ruined it.”

He said that he had been flying the drone recreationally, as he had done “for years”. His YouTube channel shows around 309 videos shot using a UAS.

The video shows that the UAS  flew on for more than three minutes after Knowles apparently lost control.

Knowles insisted that he had not been trying to hide the UAS presence or identity. “It had my name and address on it, and was in bright colours.” Workers from the nuclear facility fished it out of the channel and passed it on to police.

“I flicked the return-to-home button but it didn’t do anything,” Knowles said. “It didn’t fly anywhere near the BAE Systems facility.” But he said that he had effectively been told by the magistrate at the first hearing on 1 March that he was guilty, and that his choices at the hearing on 2 April had been “plead guilty and get a big fine, or plead not guilty and be convicted and get a big fine, or go home and get a big fine.” He said that his TV repair business was already running at a loss and that the fine would bankrupt him.

He said that his conviction relating to the nuclear facility made little sense. “A lot of people use cameras on cars and have helmet cameras and they all go past BAE,” he said. “My plane didn’t go anywhere near it. Apparently there’s a no-fly zone which covers it, but there was nothing I could do about it.”

He added: “Where I live in Cumbria, you’re always going to be near a nuclear dump – Sellafield or the BAE Systems site.”

Knowles’s case is the first conviction involving recreational use of a drone, though a caution was recently issued against a photographer from Lancashire, for “using a unmanned aerial vehicle for commercial gain without permission”. The photographer sold footage of a fire at a school to media organisations despite not having clearance from the CAA to operate the device commercially.

Source: The Guardian

One comment

  1. When did the violation take place (i.e. date and time of day)?
    How long did it take to get to the courts (i.e. months or years)?
    It demonstrates the need for validated failsafe mechanisms when flying near “restricted” or controlled airspace (I.e. Nuclear plant)…should have included an onboard “loss of link” procedure, not controller initiated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *