https://www.suasnews.com/2018/11 ... v0LZl-kRQK6X5nl-kDQ

A good outcome for somebody endangering an aircraft, and sets the standards now presumably for any court case where flying beyond VLOS is proven :-

Fail to maintain direct, unaided visual contact with small unmanned aircraft. Contrary to articles 94(3) and 265(6) of the Air Navigation Order 2016
Fly small unmanned aircraft when not reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made.  Contrary to articles 94(2) and 265(6) of the Air Navigation Order 2016

Hi PeteH, thank you for sharing this info to our co-pilots. Please take note some of the tips in Drone Laws and Regulations . We appreciate your continued support.

Thanks for sharing

He got off too easy.

ALABAMA Posted at 11-16 14:31
He got off too easy.

Make me a +1 on that. Sadly, this may se5 a precedent for any future (God forbid) incidents. A small fine and told not to do it again?

embayweather Posted at 11-16 15:37
Make me a +1 on that. Sadly, this may se5 a precedent for any future (God forbid) incidents. A small fine and told not to do it again?

The punishment does see a tad low. until you realise he lost his drone too, then it raises it somewhat, if mine got confiscated that would be worse than the fine cause it would be a very long time before i could ever afford another P4P   but then i do not fly from my garden.....

embayweather Posted at 11-16 15:37
Make me a +1 on that. Sadly, this may se5 a precedent for any future (God forbid) incidents. A small fine and told not to do it again?

Presumably if they'd been charged with endangering an aircraft then the penalty could be five years in jail.