Andy McNabb and Chris Ryan are responsible for that popular myth....
UAV's, or drones as you called them, are rarely used for anything other than tactical reconnaisance....Even then, the quality of the imagery is so poor that it normally has to be cross-refered against previous manned sortie imagery or library imagery....
Don't you think training sorties are expensive enough as it is?
Except the aircraft were not on private land. It is unlawful for an aircraft to land on private land without the owner's permission.
He was not doing anything illegal. The most he would have been guilty of was the civil offence of trespass, and that would depend on the place and circumstance. You had no legal right to make him destroy the film because taking photographs, even on private land is not illegal unless specifically prohibited for e.g. security reasons. Neither is it a civil offence except in very narrowly defined circumstances.
If you forced him to destroy the film then it is you who have committed at least two criminal offences.
They do not, they are governed by a plethora of regulations. The air is not private property. You do *not* own the airspace above your land.
Seems your solution to anything you don't like is to commit criminal acts.
I have no doubt of that, but it does not confer the right to commit assault and criminal damage.
You are greatly mistaken and have failed completely to understand the basis for that judgement.
Total bullshit. It would in fact be perfectly legal for me to install a hidden camera and microphone in your living room without your knowlege.
Hopefully nor will the armed police team, who once came very close to shooting an idiot plane spotter at an airfield who was using the telescopic sight on an air rifle to get a better look at the landing aircraft & caused a bit of consternation amongst the pilots.
Ask Harry Stanley's widow whether there is a lot the police can do about it when they believe someone has a deadly weapon.
In article , Mike writes
Are they worth that much?. There was a Welsh farmer on TV a while ago bemoaning that it wasn't worth raising them for the price he got.
Couldn't compete with "imports" apparently ..Well so he said....
Feel free. Your solicitor will no doubt charge you to look up the relevant regulations and verify what I have said.
None except over built-up areas and other areas specifically marked as having a lower height restriction. General restrictions are based on a minimum distance (500 feet), not height. Although obviously it is prudent to stay at least 500 feet above the ground near any form of habitation so that you stand no chance of infringing the minimum distance regulations if you can do so safely. IIUC a fence is considered a "structure"
P-38 was the most successful IIRC.
Depends upon the "stunts" being performed. Formation flying is no more a "stunt" that formation driving. Which most of us do perfectly legally every day. Do you really believe that you should lose your licence for driving within 5 feet of another car at speed?
Besides being totally impractical, you appear to be under the misapprehension that you own or have some control over the airspace above your land. You don't.
Oh my god. You missed the irony.
Read it again. I was being sarcastic. The fact that maintaining a huge height over a populated area is absolutely no guarantee of safety if something goes substantially wrong.
Very few aircraft of twin or 4 engines are substantially bothered by engine failure. They do not crash from engine failure.
Things that go wrong in aerploanes either bother them hardly at all, or make them liable to land in your back garden however high they are.
Ah. And the airframe is sufficiently valuable to be worth the upgrade?
Or is it that as an 'upgraded' plane it doesn't have to pass such stringent tests as a 'new' one?
I remember reading somewhere that there are essentially no new lightplanes being produced because certification makes them too expensive.
Its to make it Safe For Our Childrunnah!
No, they were banned because they were expensive.
Actually what limits FI engines is the valve gear mostly. You can always get the RPM from smaller pistons and more of them, or shorter strokes on the ones you have...what is a problems is phsically gettiong enough air into the cylinders. .
Over here I would say they are mostly on or a little below the 250' limit...but then we are on top of the tallest bit...they are certainly below the level at which I (legally) fly my model aircraft.
We get low level stuff quite regularly - a couple of jets doing about mach 0.5 or so, chinooks amd another single rotor type, and C130's
The jets are noiseless till they have gone by BTW.
The spitfires and hurricanes and mustangs are always much higher -
1-3000 ft typically to the best of my estimation.
Not quite true, but it *is* the case that many design and instrumentation advances that would be of great benefit to light aircraft are not adopted because of the tremendous expense of getting type approval. So new aircraft are not a lot different in design to those made decades ago except where they are able to use spin-offs from the commercial aircraft sector.
You can however buy a range of *non* certified instruments, which are permitted so long as they cannot interfere with the operation of any of the other systems and are not relied on as the source of primary information.
It might have had something to do with the heat making the air density less. Just a thought.
Dave
I didn't. I asked him to destroy the film or face prosecution. He chose the sensible route.
On the contrary. My lawyer explained how we could use it in great detail.
Where do you get this absolute nonsense.
For a 707, the crew would almost have certainly got the current aircraft weight, runway condition, wind and temperature and looked up the speeds and runway lengths required for those specific circumstances before take off.
What is common though is that a mistake in the loading manifesto of baggage handlers ends up so that the pilot is given the incorrect figures for weight or balance.
It is also possible that you underestimated of the amount by which you cleared the road. Height estimation can be deceptive from the passenger window (or the ground).
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.