If it's not airport airports it a bridge! Another fool with a drone.

A man caused chaos on the M48 after climbing a tower of the Severn Bridge and attempting to fly a drone from it, a court has heard.

Alexandru Scutaru, 30, was trying to take photographs of the surrounding area by launching his GoPro drone from the bridge, which connects England and Wales. Both carriageways were closed for around 20 minutes, leaving more than 100 vehicles stranded, after bridge officials spotted Scutaru and alerted police.

District Judge David Taylor said Scutaru would have faced an immediate prison sentence if he had used his drone.The judge ordered for the drone to be destroyed and imposed a community order and curfew for 16 weeks.

He said he hoped to buy a new drone to continue taking photographs, adding that he would not climb a bridge in the UK again.

Weirdly I don't see any problem with him launching his drone from the ground close (>50m) to the bridge if that was what he wanted to do. Why climb it?

Also I don't really see why launching the drone would make the offence worse? Seems bizarre to me.

mavic2zoom-ch Posted at 2-22 01:11
Weirdly I don't see any problem with him launching his drone from the ground close (>50m) to the bridge if that was what he wanted to do. Why climb it?

Also I don't really see why launching the drone would make the offence worse? Seems bizarre to me.

Because he would have been flying directly over a motorway whereby cars with families inside are cruising at 70MPH... If his drone malfunctioned (and it was a Karma BTW) and crashed into the windscreen of a car directly below one can only imagine the outcome. Reckless, selfish, moronic and utterly illegal - that's why a prison sentence would have been sanctioned and rightly so.

mavic2zoom-ch Posted at 2-22 01:11
Also I don't really see why launching the drone would make the offence worse? Seems bizarre to me.

Perhaps this,

An unmanned aircraft fitted with a camera must always be flown at least 50m (164ft) distance away from a person, vehicle, building or structure

So he was within 50m of the bridge, therefore in breach of the guidelines.

Ken Storm Posted at 2-22 02:23
Perhaps this,
An unmanned aircraft fitted with a camera must always be flown at least 50m (164ft) distance away from a person, vehicle, building or structure

Not to mention that a busy motorway is also classed as a congested area - no flying within a 150m cylindrical radius of that road.

"ordered the drone destroyed" Who the hell does he think he is. King of England or some sort of schmear like that?

mavic2zoom-ch Posted at 2-22 01:11
Weirdly I don't see any problem with him launching his drone from the ground close (>50m) to the bridge if that was what he wanted to do. Why climb it?

Also I don't really see why launching the drone would make the offence worse? Seems bizarre to me.

Seems bizarre!  It was illegal and highly irresponsible. A custodial sentence would have been appropriate. Can't do the time, don't do the crime.

I think the only way to get a go pro that high in the air is to climb with it, lol , that must be the last go pro to be destroyed.

I think the only way to get a go pro that high in the air is to climb with it, lol , that must be the last go pro to be destroyed.

I'm in my fifties and still amazed a lot of the time.

Another idiot trying to destroy our hobby...  

Dublin airport is the latest to be disrupted due to a drone sighting. The laws in the UK have been tightened as follow: Drones will have to stay further away from airports under new rules. Airport exclusion zones will be extended to about 5km (three miles) from the current 1km, with additional extensions at runway ends. Drone users can be fined or even jailed if they fly a drone within these zones

I'm not convinced the changes will deter the foolish few .

Celsus Posted at 2-22 05:36
Dublin airport is the latest to be disrupted due to a drone sighting. The laws in the UK have been tightened as follow: Drones will have to stay further away from airports under new rules. Airport exclusion zones will be extended to about 5km (three miles) from the current 1km, with additional extensions at runway ends. Drone users can be fined or even jailed if they fly a drone within these zones

I'm not convinced the changes will deter the foolish few .

And I hope they are caught and the full weight of the law thrown at them.  Jail time and heavy fine to set an example. Flying any drone close to an airport without clearance from ATC is the height of stupidity and anybody caught should go to jail for endangering flights coming in or leaving, period.

Celsus Posted at 2-22 05:36
Dublin airport is the latest to be disrupted due to a drone sighting. The laws in the UK have been tightened as follow: Drones will have to stay further away from airports under new rules. Airport exclusion zones will be extended to about 5km (three miles) from the current 1km, with additional extensions at runway ends. Drone users can be fined or even jailed if they fly a drone within these zones

I'm not convinced the changes will deter the foolish few .

It may not deter the few, but it may make it easier to enforce with less chance of dispute over the catchment area.

This is the problem - probably 99% of us will fly within the law - but that 1% will always be around, it's human nature. Drone aside I'd be more concerned about the guy falling off the bridge tower onto a car at 70mph. Not a pretty thought!

Bill B Posted at 2-22 03:26
"ordered the drone destroyed" Who the hell does he think he is. King of England or some sort of schmear like that?

I doubt it as there hasn't been a King of England since William III in 1702

Celsus Posted at 2-22 05:36
Dublin airport is the latest to be disrupted due to a drone sighting. The laws in the UK have been tightened as follow: Drones will have to stay further away from airports under new rules. Airport exclusion zones will be extended to about 5km (three miles) from the current 1km, with additional extensions at runway ends. Drone users can be fined or even jailed if they fly a drone within these zones

I'm not convinced the changes will deter the foolish few .

They have a good system at Dublin airport, if there is a drone sighting flights are down for 30 minutes, if no more sightings within this 30 minute period airport is back open , Not close the airport until they find the drone which is what caused havoc at Gatwick , and Dublin Airport is just as large an airport as Gatwick .

hallmark007 Posted at 2-22 08:40
They have a good system at Dublin airport, if there is a drone sighting flights are down for 30 minutes, if no more sightings within this 30 minute period airport is back open , Not close the airport until they find the drone which is what caused havoc at Gatwick , and Dublin Airport is just as large an airport as Gatwick .

That sounds like a more balanced response compared to what happened at Heathrow and Gatwick.

A CW Posted at 2-22 07:31
I doubt it as there hasn't been a King of England since William III in 1702

My point exactly it has been quite a while. (Queen Elizibeth's father George the VI might feel a bit slighted by that comment seeing as he was the last king, after his borther David was sent packing with his mistress to the US) Old georgy died of cancer from smoking in 1952. his daughter Elizibeth, the new queen, and holding strong. Amazing she is!

Ken Storm Posted at 2-22 02:23
Perhaps this,
An unmanned aircraft fitted with a camera must always be flown at least 50m (164ft) distance away from a person, vehicle, building or structure

is this UK laws?

Bill B Posted at 2-22 09:16
My point exactly.

Hahahahaha - Judges here at least are like tin Gods. I can imagine him instructing the drone to be destroyed as part of the sentence - you can bet your bottom dollar that the drone is being flown around by a police officers kid somewhere as I write this lol.

Lamplighter55 Posted at 2-22 06:48
This is the problem - probably 99% of us will fly within the law - but that 1% will always be around, it's human nature. Drone aside I'd be more concerned about the guy falling off the bridge tower onto a car at 70mph. Not a pretty thought!

and the media will not say, "look at this amzing footage covered by drones"

snowbird pilot Posted at 2-22 09:22
and the media will not say, "look at this amzing footage covered by drones"

Exactly, the media will stand in line to buy the footage from a drone if it will make them a buck. Then condemn us for flying.

Celsus Posted at 2-22 05:36
Dublin airport is the latest to be disrupted due to a drone sighting. The laws in the UK have been tightened as follow: Drones will have to stay further away from airports under new rules. Airport exclusion zones will be extended to about 5km (three miles) from the current 1km, with additional extensions at runway ends. Drone users can be fined or even jailed if they fly a drone within these zones

I'm not convinced the changes will deter the foolish few .

I'm not convinced the changes will deter the foolish few .

That!  A proven fact.

Bill B Posted at 2-22 09:24
Exactly, the media will stand in line to buy the footage from a drone if it will make them a buck. Then condemn us for flying.

I see a plastic bag, must be a drone!

A CW Posted at 2-22 09:20
Hahahahaha - Judges here at least are like tin Gods. I can imagine him instructing the drone to be destroyed as part of the sentence - you can bet your bottom dollar that the drone is being flown around by a police officers kid somewhere as I write this lol.

Judge ordering drone to be destroy may be only option there?  But it sure seems un Judge like.  
The drone didn't do anything wrong.  Destroying drone is going to help.  Instead, Judge could have ordered drone confiscated.  Then given drone to police to use, added drone to charity auction, or added drone to Christmas hand out stash.

HedgeTrimmer Posted at 2-22 09:31
Judge ordering drone to be destroy may be only option there?  But it sure seems un Judge like.  
The drone didn't do anything wrong.  Destroying drone is going to help.  Instead, Judge could have ordered drone confiscated.  Then given drone to police to use, added drone to charity auction, or added drone to Christmas hand out stash.

Welcome to the English judicial system mate - one of the oldest in the world. It's a very different world too. These Judges still wear wigs and robes like they did when your country was a colony of the British Empire Under George III - half of um still probably think you are lol Having a drone destroyed is nothing to these people - to say they are removed from reality is an understatement though things are slowly improving.  

Bill B Posted at 2-22 09:16
My point exactly it has been quite a while. (Queen Elizibeth's father George the VI might feel a bit slighted by that comment seeing as he was the last king, after his borther David was sent packing with his mistress to the US) Old georgy died of cancer from smoking in 1952. his daughter Elizibeth, the new queen, and holding strong. Amazing she is!

King of the United Kingdom mate. The act of union under Queen Anne brought together England and Scotland into one country - Great Britain. There has not been a specific King of England since 1702. To say Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of England is like calling Donald Trump President of Texas.

Latin: Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor

English translation: Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith

The local paper seems to suggest it was forfeited rather than specifically destroyed.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/ne ... affic-drone-2571313

Aardvark Posted at 2-22 13:37
The local paper seems to suggest it was forfeited rather than specifically destroyed.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/m48-severn-bridge-traffic-drone-2571313

Definitely in a coppers back yard then

A CW Posted at 2-22 13:41
Definitely in a coppers back yard then

The following statement in the article implies he had no choice in the matter. "He was also made to forfeit his drone, pay £85 costs and an £85 victim surcharge for causing a public nuisance". Either way it's best that he does not have the opportunity again for his own sake if nothing else. He also caused a serious injury to his foot getting off the bridge. A very painful lesson!

A CW Posted at 2-22 13:30
King of the United Kingdom mate. The act of union under Queen Anne brought together England and Scotland into one country - Great Britain. There has not been a specific King of England since 1702. To say Queen Elizabeth II is Queen of England is like calling Donald Trump President of Texas.

Latin: Elizabeth II, Dei Gratia Britanniarum Regnorumque Suorum Ceterorum Regina, Consortionis Populorum Princeps, Fidei Defensor

"brought together England and Scotland into one country - Great Britain"

Brought together under one monarchy and parliament (two of the united Kingdoms), still two separate countries. Scotland has always had a separate legal system, and now its own parliament with some powers now devolved from Westminster. Including some manipulation of income taxes.

Great Britain is the largest of the 6,000 plus islands that form the British isles.

Edit:- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_of_the_United_Kingdom

Celsus Posted at 2-22 13:58
The following statement in the article implies he had no choice in the matter. "He was also made to forfeit his drone, pay £85 costs and an £85 victim surcharge for causing a public nuisance". Either way it's best that he does not have the opportunity again for his own sake if nothing else. He also caused a serious injury to his foot getting off the bridge. A very painful lesson!

£170... is that all? Ridiculous - I would have had his drone destroyed with hammers in front of him and slapped a couple of zero's on the end of that fine or six months behind bars. This was obviously a magistrates decision and not a real Judge.

Aardvark Posted at 2-22 14:03
"brought together England and Scotland into one country - Great Britain"

Brought together under one monarchy and parliament (two of the united Kingdoms), still two separate countries. Scotland has always had a separate legal system, and now its own parliament with some powers now devolved from Westminster. Including some manipulation of income taxes.

Two countries brought together under an act of union into one sovereign state - guess that is why my passport states United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and not England and equally, why QEII is not the Queen of England independently to Scotland and neither has any British monarch since Queen Anne.

Aardvark Posted at 2-22 13:37
The local paper seems to suggest it was forfeited rather than specifically destroyed.

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/m48-severn-bridge-traffic-drone-2571313

I’m not sure why the would take his property away from him, do they take cars away from people who are driving dangerously, maybe banning him from flying a fine etc, I have seen very dangerous driving on major roads but were cars taken away, I suppose if you had it on HP car doesn’t belong to you what then.

hallmark007 Posted at 2-22 14:31
I’m not sure why the would take his property away from him, do they take cars away from people who are driving dangerously, maybe banning him from flying a fine etc, I have seen very dangerous driving on major roads but were cars taken away, I suppose if you had it on HP car doesn’t belong to you what then.

"do they take cars away from people who are driving dangerously,"

They do if they're not insured, and also have the authority to send them to the crusher.

https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/advi ... -without-insurance/

A CW Posted at 2-22 14:12
Two countries brought together under an act of union into one sovereign state - guess that is why my passport states United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and not England and equally, why QEII is not the Queen of England independently to Scotland and neither has any British monarch since Queen Anne.

Have you ever wondered why it's not a 'Queendom' ? someday perhaps

Aardvark Posted at 2-22 15:12
"do they take cars away from people who are driving dangerously,"

They do if they're not insured, and also have the authority to send them to the crusher.

I understand that, it’s the dangerous driving as against the dangerous flying, you need insurance to drive a car you don’t need insurance for a drone. I don’t think your car can be taken from you for dangerous driving once you credentials are in order .

hallmark007 Posted at 2-22 15:26
I understand that, it’s the dangerous driving as against the dangerous flying, you need insurance to drive a car you don’t need insurance for a drone. I don’t think your car can be taken from you for dangerous driving once you credentials are in order .

https://www.gov.uk/stopped-by-po ... -seize-your-vehicle

Aardvark Posted at 2-22 15:25
Have you ever wondered why it's not a 'Queendom' ? someday perhaps

Hahahaha - may be one day. She's been a better Queen than any King - that's for sure.