Obama London visit prompts drone no-fly zone The Secretary of State for Transport has imposed flight restrictions over London for US president Barack Obama's forthcoming visit to the capital, meaning aircraft including "any small balloon, any kite weighing not more than two kilograms, any small unmanned aircraft and any parachute including a parascending parachute" are …
It is perfectly reasonable for the CAA to have issued this restriction, but at the same time the likelihood of the "potential miscreants" even knowing about it is minimal, never mind their taking the trouble to read it and then observe it. Observing it will require their understanding of the coordinates and / or being able to read a map.
I will not hold my breath...
The idea is that the law abiding citizens observe the no-fly zone, so that authorities won't spread their resources too thin investigating whatever might be left. Obviously a no-fly zone won't stop a terrorist intent on flying a drone filled with C4 into Obama's motorcade, but it would be easier to notice and react quickly to if there are only a handful of drones flying about, versus a couple hundred owned by hobbyists who want to overfly his motorcade hoping for a cool picture to post on social media.
It is perfectly reasonable for the CAA to have issued this restriction, but at the same time the likelihood of the "potential miscreants" even knowing about it is minimal, never mind their taking the trouble to read it and then observe it.
Ah, but ignorance is no valid excuse, and I'm actually looking forward to getting a couple of these people locked up. Not that I bear them ill will, but the resulting sh*tstorm will be of such epic proportions that it will not only amuse me for days, but more importantly it may actually prompt a proper debate about these things. The black and white, "I want to fly my drone everywhere, even if it means killing 132 passengers" versus "you should be locked up for even thinking about buying one" debate isn't helping to find a sensible, agreeable solution.
Ah, but ignorance is no valid excuse, and I'm actually looking forward to getting a couple of these people locked up.
Perfectly true, and so am I in that order. However locking someone up can only follow them being apprehended in the first place, and I would argue that actually catching them will be more reliant on luck than anything else, and a very great deal of luck at that. While the CAA undoubtedly did the right thing by issuing this notice in the end I cannot see it having much effect on the "lunatic" end of the drone - operating spectrum.
There is little purpose in enacting laws or regulations that for almost all practical purposes cannot be enforced - in fact IMHO it brings the "law" into disrepute.
I was going to make a (poor) joke about a small surface-to-air drone, but on second thoughts, democracy and (poor sense of) humour don't go together, do they.
Not only that, but only the US is allowed to kill people on remote based on nothing more than meta data. They will take a very dim view of anyone trying to reciprocate.
@Anon, at first I thought you'd got lost in the double-negatives, but you're quite right, the actual wording of the order says the definition of banned aircraft within it includes "any kite weighing not more than two kilograms", ie. anything more than 2kg. I'd like to see someone contest it in court!
@Anon, at first I thought you'd got lost in the double-negatives, but you're quite right, the actual wording of the order says the definition of banned aircraft within it includes "any kite weighing not more than two kilograms", ie. anything more than 2kg. I'd like to see someone contest it in court!
"not more than two kilograms" == "less than or equal to two kilograms"
Which means that Milvus milvus, aka the red kite, is also banned. :-)
"Which means that Milvus milvus, aka the red kite, is also banned."
As would be, ironically, the Bald Eagle.
""any kite weighing not more than two kilograms" is banned,
Yes, that. I see similar phrases to that used in relation to rules or the law often enough to wonder if there's some special legal meaning to phrasing it that way as it seem to imply the opposite of the intent. Unless it's just another way to force otherwise law abiding people into becoming unwitting criminals so "they" can officially do away with "innocent unless proven guilty". We are all automatically guilty if the law is convoluted enough that the only way to not break one law is to break another.
So a small child with a helium balloon on a string is in violation of the order? A tad draconian, isn't it?
If its feet remain on the ground, yes. If said small child becomes airborne (think Winnie the Pooh under his balloon trying to get hold of some honey) then as the restriction is written said small child is fair game.
Mary Poppins had better watch out as well, even if umbrellas aren't mentioned.
12. In relation to these restrictions, the term ‘aircraft’ includes aircraft as classified by Part A of
Schedule 3 to the Air Navigation Order 2009 and also includes, by virtue of article 253(3) of that
Order, any small balloon, any kite weighing not more than two kilograms, any small unmanned
aircraft and any parachute including a parascending parachute, as such terms are defined in
article 255(1) of the Order.
So large balloons are ok?
I think it depends what's in Part A of Schedule 3 to the Air Navigation Order 2009, that may already count large balloons, heavy kites etc. as aircraft.
Part A of Schedule 3 actually defines "kites" as heavier-than-air aircraft, and does not mention mass at all. However, Section 1 clause 253 explicitly exempts kites of less than 2Kg from the ANO; this temporary restriction removes that exemption, which is why kites of 2Kg and more are not mentioned.
Vic.
> Mary Poppins had better watch out as well, even if umbrellas aren't mentioned.
On the other hand it probably qualifies within the description of a parascending parachute so I don't think she gets off quite that easily.
Additionally, the word 'parascending' does not as far as I am aware limit said motion to the general groundward direction so she's in trouble regardless of whether she goes up diddly up up or down diddly down down.
What did you expect, it's an article about about Flying Machines! Coat, because it doubles as a glidey suit thing.
How about paper planes? How about feeding pigeons (the food will be briefly airborne as it is thrown). Come to that, are the pigeons also grounded between the stated times?
Anyway, now that I'm not allowed to greet Obama's arrival with a fleet of drones, I'll have to organize a laser light display instead ...
"Come to that, are the pigeons also grounded between the stated times?"
What about bats armed with phosphorous bombs?
Um... Having read the manufacturer's brochure for the Skywall 100 I'm far from convinced that it offers much by way of a solution.
It claims a 100 metre LOS range, which isn't very much when you think about it; in fact it is less than the 400' maximum height that I believe the CAA allows for "normal" drone use; obviously that limit is irrelevant in the case of the arrival of POTUS. I would also imagine that just spotting a small drone even at 100 metres could be quite difficult anyway, which would render such defensive measures useless.
It also claims that it Does not affect adjacent aircraft although I would imagine that the potential of a drone plus a slow - falling parachute could very easily affect an adjacent aircraft, depending on how "adjacent" is defined.
Here in the States when El Presidente visited locally (4 years ago), the restrictions were in place for 2 hours before and after arrival and 4 hours before departure. Once AF1 cleared the airspace on departure, all restrictions were lifted. But then, 4 years ago, drones weren't the problem they are today.
I just find it interesting and perplexing that this restriction applies for the entire time AF1 is on the ground.
On a visit to The Netherlands, he was to travel by motorcade, highways were closed, traffic diverted, and all trees near the highway from Schiphol to The Hague were chopped, clear cut, police posted at every exit. And then, Obama flew by helicopter everywhere... Sad to say there was even a meme showing him and politicians laughing and saying "we had them close the highways, and then we flew."
Now that the air is being ruled an off limits zone for anything, he will probably ride a scooter, we can hope?
The only thing that is surprising is that they have not ramped up the investigation or deployed squadrons of highly trained eagles under the guise that the previous drone incident was not just a stray from Maplins, but really a dry run for something more sinister brought to you by ISIL, ISIS, BASIL or whatever made up name we are going with this month.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
