Drone Hits Flying Scotsman

[Train2Win]

After the incident at York last month with tresspassers on the line . It seems Man amd Machine both love this iconic train !.

Source:http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/14351263.Drone_hits_Flying_Scotsman_on_North_Yorkshire_Moors/

TRANSPORT police are investigating after part of drone collided with the Flying Scotsman on the North Yorkshire Moors Railway.

The device was flying next to the steam train as it passed between Grosmont and Pickering on Sunday when its camera became dislodged after the device struck a tree.


British Transport Police has warned people to keep drones at least 50 metres away from trains or they could face prosecution.


Inspector Bob Moody of British Transport Police said: "While no damage was caused to the train, we would like to point out that the use of drones, or any other small unmanned aircrafts, within 50 metres of a train is prohibited and is an offence due to the fact that they can cause an obstruction and endanger the safety of the train.

“We have identified the person responsible and officers will be speaking to them in due course."

Insp Moody also called for people to stay clear of the railway and keep a safe distance from the tracks after trespassers forced the train to stop last month as it travelled to York from London's Kings Cross for the first time since it was refurbished.

“There are lots of safe vantage points to view and take pictures of the train without the need to use drones, and we would urge people to use those, stay clear of the lines and not obstruct the train," he added.

What are your opinions on this ?

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

50 metres is quite far away, the steam train isn't at risk from hitting it head on, side on might be different?
I think there's been too much hype built up over the train, and people are often using drones/selfie sticks without expertise and care. Drones are sold for photographic and therefor people try to get good angles from places they can't stand. I think it's no harm done and surely a learnt lesson.

 

[3141]

. I think it's no harm done and surely a learnt lesson.

By the operator of this drone, possibly.

But little reason to think that every other future drone operator will know anything about this incident, or allow sense or safety to get in the way of the pictures they want.

 

[Agent_c]

If you don't know the rules of the air - or worse, you don't know there are rules of the air - then you shouldn't be allowed to have these toys.

 

[CAF397]

The Civil Aviation Authority regulations will trump the British Transport Police and their 50m from a train.

The CAA refs state you can not fly them over populated areas, anyone within a certain distance of you must be under your direct control too.

And any photographs taken may not be sold for personal gain, unless some form of course has been taken. Can't remember the exact rules, but I did look at getting one a while ago, but decided against it as far too much to organise.

 

[najaB]

The Civil Aviation Authority regulations will trump the British Transport Police and their 50m from a train.

Interestingly, the CAA agree with the 50m rule. Funny that, it's almost like the BTP know what they are talking about.

 

[bluenoxid]

50 metres sounds quite far but in air terms it is quite close and these units can cover 50 metres pretty quickly.

 

[XC90]

50 metres sounds quite far but in air terms it is quite close and these units can cover 50 metres pretty quickly.

....but not sideways!

Unless something has gone terribly wrong.

Ahh, you mean the drone and not the train?

 

[Llanigraham]

The CAA are starting to look very closely at the use of drones and there are several Court cases pending. Too many people have acquired them without knowing what the Rules are.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There appeared to be carte blanche Governmental approval, when the Christmas marketing was in full flow to sell as many as these as possible and restrictions should have been placed in force and prospective purchasers vetted and licenced.

Let us face it, it is just not the odd irresponsible purchaser who has since shown stupidity when using these.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

I did not know that BTP had rule over preserved railways as well...

Mind you, I did wonder how long it would take for people to ram one in - any damage to FS?

 

[Ploughman]

The drone struck one of the coaches not the engine.
There are reports, however, of a member of the train crew being injured. No details.

 

[crispy1978]

I did not know that BTP had rule over preserved railways as well...

Mind you, I did wonder how long it would take for people to ram one in - any damage to FS?

There were officers with BTP PCSO vests on at Pickering last weekend.

 

[Llanigraham]

There were officers with BTP PCSO vests on at Pickering last weekend.

Hint is in their title really, isn't it: British TRANSPORT Police.

 

[fabs]

Bad week last week for the FS on the NYMR. Not much about their SPAD on here, Grossmont I think but not sure.

 

[transportphoto]

I believe BTP have an agreement with NYMR due to their trains operating on the national network on a regular basis, as a general rule preserved railways are covered by their respective Home Office forces.

 

[cjmillsnun]

If you don't know the rules of the air - or worse, you don't know there are rules of the air - then you shouldn't be allowed to have these toys.

That's the problem, they are not toys.

 

[HMS Ark Royal]

Bad week last week for the FS on the NYMR. Not much about their SPAD on here, Grossmont I think but not sure.

They had a SPAD? Can you say more?

I believe BTP have an agreement with NYMR due to their trains operating on the national network on a regular basis, as a general rule preserved railways are covered by their respective Home Office forces.

That is something I did not know about...

 

[Howardh]

I brought this up 9 months ago. The FS incident doesn't sound particularly serious - unless someone was hurt then it is - but is this the start of many? Anyhow, here's my thread from then http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=118800&highlight=drones

 

[blackfive460]

The FS incident doesn't sound particularly serious - unless someone was hurt then it is - but is this the start of many?

AFAIK no one was hurt in the FS incident.

I would guess that the reference here to someone being hurt is due to the mis-reading of a post on another forum which was concerned with an earlier incident where a professionally flown, out of control drone hit a crew member on Balmoral.
The story is here http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/michael-portillo-caught-up-drone-10017908

 

[Howardh]

AFAIK no one was hurt in the FS incident.

I would guess that the reference here to someone being hurt is due to the mis-reading of a post on another forum which was concerned with an earlier incident where a professionally flown, out of control drone hit a crew member on Balmoral.
The story is here http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/michael-portillo-caught-up-drone-10017908

I'm not sure if anyone can be killed by one - although if one fell on my old mum (85) when we're walking in the park I doubt she'd survive - but it's only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt. Note the one that fell on a ski-race?

Are the people who fly/control these things insured? If one drops out of the sky onto someone and seriously injures them, could there be criminal/civil charges??

 

[gage75]

I'm not sure if anyone can be killed by one - although if one fell on my old mum (85) when we're walking in the park I doubt she'd survive - but it's only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt. Note the one that fell on a ski-race?

Are the people who fly/control these things insured? If one drops out of the sky onto someone and seriously injures them, could there be criminal/civil charges??

The Mythbusters team on Discovery Channel did do a episode on drones, to see how much damage can happen from them hitting a person, IIRC they came to the conclusion that dependant on materials used (like carbon fibre or other composites) and size that indeed they can cause some serious injuries and in extreme cases possibly death if hit in a critical area primarily neck or head,

 

[Llanigraham]

I'm not sure if anyone can be killed by one - although if one fell on my old mum (85) when we're walking in the park I doubt she'd survive - but it's only a matter of time before someone is seriously hurt. Note the one that fell on a ski-race?

Are the people who fly/control these things insured? If one drops out of the sky onto someone and seriously injures them, could there be criminal/civil charges??

In general, no. The professionals that fly them obviously are, since that is a requirement of the CAA, but it is very doubtful that many others are, especially when they are flying them illegally.
Yes, they can be charged, and there have been prosecutions by the CAA and I understand that there are more pending. If damages are caused then civil proceedings would also be possible, especially if there is no insurance.

Interestingly, I was doing Safety Radio on a car rally recently where we were told that if any drones were seen flying we were to report them, because they would also be flying illegally.

 

[Karl]

Further to the discussion about drones, the BBC News website reports...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36067591

A plane approaching Heathrow Airport is believed to have hit a drone before it landed safely, the Metropolitan Police has said.

The British Airways flight from Geneva was hit as it approached the London airport at about 12:50 BST with 132 passengers and five crew on board.

After landing, the pilot reported an object - believed to be a drone - had struck the front of the Airbus A320.

Aviation police based at Heathrow have launched an investigation.

Police said no arrests have been made.

If confirmed, it is believed to be the first incident of its kind in the UK.

A British Airways spokesman said: "Our aircraft landed safely, was fully examined by our engineers and it was cleared to operate its next flight."

The airline will give the police "every assistance with their investigation", the spokesman added.

A Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) spokesman said it was "totally unacceptable" to fly drones close to airports, and anyone flouting the rules can face "severe penalties, including imprisonment".

Steve Landells, from the British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa), said it had been "only a matter of time before we had a drone strike". He called for greater enforcement of existing rules.

Are drones dangerous or harmless fun?

Drones pose 'real threat' to civil aviation

I dread to think the outcome of a drone being sucked into a plane's jet engine. More regulations are needed for these unmanned flying machines. They're becoming very popular and easily accessible to anybody these days.

 

[Rail-net]

In actuality the person should not have been flying there as, pretty much, the entire length of the NYMR is a no fly zone due to the proximity to RAF Fylingdales facility.

If they were a professional they would know that. They obviously are not a licensed pilot with CAA PFAW..

 

[Roylang]

50 metres is quite far away, the steam train isn't at risk from hitting it head on, side on might be different?

Just stumbled across this thread.

Ever worked on a the footplate of a steam loco? The last thing I would want went looking down out the window to ensure that the injectors are running cleanly would be to have a drone hit me in the head.

So yes head on to the loco and hitting the metalwork not ok but not going to cause significant damage - just miss the train and take the fireman / driver out - not so good.

Roy
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In actuality the person should not have been flying there as, pretty much, the entire length of the NYMR is a no fly zone due to the proximity to RAF Fylingdales facility.

If they were a professional they would know that. They obviously are not a licensed pilot with CAA PFAW..

What restricted area would that be? There is only one (R446) that I can find with a lower limit of SFC (ground), that being near Whitby, as far as I can see there are no other constraints on flying drones at low level along the NYMR from an airspace classification perspective. Of course there other limitation as discussed in this thread.

Current chart available here: http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadb...ts/ENR/AIRAC/EG_ENR_6_5_1_1_en_2016-03-31.pdf


Roy

 

[Rail-net]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


What restricted area would that be? There is only one (R446) that I can find with a lower limit of SFC (ground), that being near Whitby, as far as I can see there are no other constraints on flying drones at low level along the NYMR from an airspace classification perspective. Of course there other limitation as discussed in this thread.

Current chart available here: http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadb...ts/ENR/AIRAC/EG_ENR_6_5_1_1_en_2016-03-31.pdf


Roy

Fylingdales HIRTA is marked up on my charts as a danger area. Since it is High Intensity radio the 100mw receivers on a SUAS could take a hammering. It would be asking for trouble. Which is a shame as there are a great number of locations on the NYMR that would look good from above.

Ps that link does not open on my machine - 404 error

 

[Roylang]

Fylingdales HIRTA is marked up on my charts as a danger area. Since it is High Intensity radio the 100mw receivers on a SUAS could take a hammering. It would be asking for trouble. Which is a shame as there are a great number of locations on the NYMR that would look good from above.

Ps that link does not open on my machine - 404 error

It is a hazardous area, not a Danger Area and is not a no fly zone. The note for it states "Aircraft should not remain for more than one minute within 1.5NM radius up to 8000FT ALT."

So you can fly within it. It is also quite small so I don't see the issue.

I get 404 now as well

Edit: Looking further the HIRTA is defined as 5nm based upon 542147N 0004012W - that intersects with the NYMR around Goathland - just. The hazard is defined as 1.5nm up to 8000ft ALT - that does not intersect the NYMR at all and quite frankly, nobody is going to fly a drone over 8000ft. Bottom line, go fly a drone and take some good pictures

Roy

 

[Rail-net]

I stand corrected.

 

[krus_aragon]

I find something oddly funny in a drone hitting the Flying Scotsman...