UK Police Powers and YOUR Drone - What You Need to Know!

UK Police Powers and YOUR Drone - What You Need to Know!
Hey everyone! In the next video of our series in collaboration with the National Police Chiefs’ Council Counter Drones Team, we tackle the complex but vital subject of police powers over your drone and flight. What does an officer require to check your Operator ID? What powers of search and seizure are there? When can a police officer require you to land your drone.
In this video, we attempt to cut through the discussion around this important topic and provide a look at how the legislation is and can be enforced by police in the UK.
To find out more about the specific legislation discussed in today’s video: www.legislatio...
The points discussed during this video relate to police powers under the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021 as specifically related to drones. Here are some key bullet points for reference:
Schedule 8
Para 1 Power to require an Unmanned Aircraft to be grounded
Para 2 Power to stop and search persons or vehicles
Para 2(6) Power of seizure following a search
Para 4 Power to use force and retain seized property
Schedule 9
Para 1 Power to require evidence of Pilot competency
Para 2 Power to require information from Pilot about UAS Operator
Para 3 Power to require evidence of registration from UAS Operator
Para 4 Power to require information about Pilots from UAS Operator
Para 5 Power to require other information from Pilots or UAS Operators
Para 6 Power to require evidence of relevant ANO Consent
Para 7 Power to require evidence of relevant ANO Exemption
Para 8 Power to inspect Unmanned Aircraft
________________________________________________
Watch our UK Drone Rules playlist here:
• New UK Drone Rules - 5...
________________________________________________
⏩ Subscribe to Geeksvana for more content like this! Click here:
/ geeksvana
________________________________________________
📱 Follow Geeksvana on social media:
Twitter: / geeksvana
Instagram: / geeksvana
Facebook: / geeksvana
________________________________________________
📄 ABOUT GEEKSVANA:
Geeksvana is a KZbin channel focused on drones, or as you might call them UAS, (Uncrewed Aerial Systems). We cover all types of drones from hobbyist to commercial, with a focus on drone rules and future flight. Primarily a news channel looking to bring our audience the latest news, leaks and information on the drone world - we also provide how to guides and reviews on products. Geeksvana is an independent source of news and guidance.
Sean Hickey, founder of Geeksvana and main channel presenter is a UK registered journalist who seeks to provide accurate information on what is an often misquoted and misrepresented industry and hobby. Sean currently holds certificates from the UK Civil Aviation Authority, including both the A2 Certificate of Competency (A2 CofC) and the General Visual Line of Sight Certificate (GVC). Flying all sizes of multirotor aircraft from the small DJI Mini 2 to larger aircraft including the DJI Inspire series for both hobby flights and commercial work.
_______________________________________________
♣️ BECOME A MEMBER!
You can become a channel member and enjoy a range of benefits including custom emojis in live chat and comments. You can also join regular video meetups exclusively available to members. Find out how you can show your direct support of the Geeksvana channel from just 0.99p/c per month! Click here:
/ @geeksvana
_______________________________________________
📹 GEEKSVANA STUDIOS
We work with clients to produce a range of high-quality video content for their own social media accounts. From training videos and internal support content to KZbin content and live streaming events, Geeksvana Studios can provide a cost-effective solution. With studio space available we also have a team of male and female presenters available if required. Find out more here: www.geeksvanas....
_______________________________________________
🛩️ DRONE SERVICES
Geeksvana Studios can also offer you a range of drone services. From data capture to videography or event coverage, we have a range of aircraft and A2 CofC and GVC qualified operators to complete the task. For more information, visit: www.geeksvanas....
_______________________________________________
📰 GOT A STORY?
Have a news story you would like to send us? Something you want to discuss? Email [e-mail]
_______________________________________________
©️ Geeksvana 2022. This content is subject to copyright and represents original work. No permission to copy, rebroadcast or otherwise distribute is provided. For more please visit: www.geeksvana.com

[@PT-Drone]

99% of police officers will suspect you are committing an offence because they don’t know the drone rules. Ignorance, should not be used as reasonable grounds.

[@aphaynes1964]

The problem with most police interactions is that the general police do not understand the law. They then use this mistaken understanding to try to enforce a non-existent law.

[@Geeksvana]

It is an interesting issue. You would not expect an standard officer to inspect a car or be expert in traffic law as they can call upon colleagues for support and guidance. Yet although there are often drone units within forces, there isn't the same level of support regarding drones. It is a specialist area but with these new powers we are expected to follow them as drone operators. It needs attention for sure.

[@edcbabc]

The police aren't really on anyone's side, but the one thing they will always want to do is establish control in a situation, so arguing back even if they are wrong is not usually sensible. Acquiesce, take details, and follow it up later.

[@wellybobs4403]

@@Geeksvana you have heard the phrase "ignorance of the law is no excuse"? Let's apply that to stupid cops.

[@davetkd1]

The police in general are not on your side they think they know it all but dont know anything.

[@MoronicMoments]

Exactly.

[@mymobile5014]

They are NEVER on your side.

[@wellybobs4403]

Flying a drone does NOT CONSTITUTE A CRIME. They have zero suspicion from seeing a drone in the air.

[@mymobile5014]

All it takes is 1 person to complain and they will be out like s shot to find out what's going on

[@richardkille7256]

The biggest issue I can see here is that a reasonable subset of hobbyist drones require an Operator ID, which is not necessarily linked in any way to the person actually carrying and flying the drone. The addition of the power to require identification feels, at least to me, that it should not apply to a drone unless it requires a Flier ID where the remote pilot's identification will actually match. The ability to stop and id someone where that won't provide any legal benefit as is stated by the officers, to correlate you with the ID on the drone - because it won't necessarily with an Operator ID. I also take profound umbrage with the approach the officer on the right takes with the fact that an initial inspection for airworthiness can uncover other powers for him to enforce. The fact that he says that finding a drone has a camera has the "benefit" of requiring you to provide your Operator ID, and your name and address. This shows not only a profound misunderstanding of what an Operator ID actually is, but a dangerous attitude towards collecting your information out in public. It feels a lot like this officer wants to fish for reasons for you to not fly, rather than protecting the public interest; and if this officer as a nominated representative of the police in general has this attitude, how can hobbyists feel safe that the police are there for everyone's safety, rather than just to shut you down?

[@rampak1]

I rather glossed over the requirement that they have "REASONABLE GROUNDS to believe an offence has been committed or is going to be committed". They seemed to suggest that the very fact you were flying or even possessing a drone gave them those grounds. Surely that cannot be right?

[@Geeksvana]

Hi Geoff! One of the reasons I wanted to make this video with the officers explaining their powers in detail is the fact that the new powers do give them that very power and I felt most people would not realise this. The specific powers granted regarding drone flight do not under many circumstances require reasonable grounds. We listed the powers along with a link to the new legislation in the description.

[@nickh2373]

One of the main issues here is that the majority of police officers in the UK haven't got a clue what the drone rules are. Surely it maybe an idea to provide them with some basic training on the CAA rules?

[@Geeksvana]

Hey Nick H! Thanks for taking the time to comment. Yes, I agree the information needs to be with the officers we all meet in the streets. There is a program of training happening through the appropriate methods but that takes a lot of time. We hope that output like this video could help to speed that up a little.

[@nickh2373]

@@Geeksvana Well thanks for helping Sean, you're efforts are appreciated in the drone community!

[@robba1234]

I think in many cases a review of training should be done every year as many "bad" interactions are what is causing the public to mistrust police, Oh and accept that police lie and often abuse their position to make people comply,

[@Geeksvana]

It is an interesting area. Do you honestly expect police to know every single part of the law? Every single niche and hobby and the rules surrounding it? Even when interactions with drone users is still relatively rare? Just because we have auditors posting videos, that does not represent the average police response and even together, they represent a tiny fraction of the total flights happening without incident every day in the UK. Instead, my opinion is that we need to see the approach from officers change and see them gain the support and knowledge when they do interact with drone pilots. Instead of attempting to grapple with legislation they do not know. I don't support overreach or poor reactions by the police in any way at all but equally we have to be realistic about how much any officer can automatically know. The reaction and how the officer fills the void in knowledge is what is key to me.

[@mrlawilliamsukwarmachine4904]

@@Geeksvana I think the issue here is that an officer should 'know the law' they enforce. If they pull me over re my driving, they'd better know what violation I made and not improvise on the spot. So if they have an issue with a drone flight, they need to be able to vocalize what law was broken. Tbh, I don't expect them to commit every paragraph of law to memory. However, they should be able to find the section/paragraph on their tablet within 3 minutes. EG, I work in IT doing sys engineer and sysadmin work. I watch ead many IT courses. On the job, I can troubleshoot things and find a related kb article. I don't need to rote learn whole manuals. My point is, all they need to do is search "uk drone laws" before making up laws...'on the fly' (ba boom, tisssh!!).

[@streamsofconsciousness8651]

So the police advice would be to just do as they say regardless of any powers or otherwise... imagine that!

[@bashy2.0]

"reasonably suspect" is their "catch all". Theyve got you by the short and curlys with that, this means that you have to provide your details regardless of whether you've flown legally or not.

[@Geeksvana]

That is something they fall back to a lot. We have another Q&A coming. A few of the questions surround the reasonable suspicion area, how they reach that level and how and if they are required to justify it to the person questioned.

[@pigface999]

This video has made this section of the law even more confusing! I'm pro police but these two coppers have just come across as "we can do what we like to get your details" and would clearly manipulate the law to do so. Even if they NEED suspicion, they will make something up.

[@Its_the_Coops]

Where have they made anything up? Im lost… they are just explaining the legislation for information purposes. Perhaps you have viewed the content and made your own mind up?

[@pigface999]

@@Its_the_Coops Hi. I think that's how it works bud. View the content and make your own mind up. My comment make perfect sense to me as I would imagine and hope that yours does to you. Have a great day bud.

[@AndyMoradi]

The officer say’s don’t be confrontational 😆 That’s your strong argument? Wow. No wonder why they are automatically hated. 😅✌🏻😆 It all makes sense now! He just wants to have an ego and make his job easier. It’s not about fairness and law. 💁🏿‍♂️

[@smithbrownjones]

Watched this a few times now; how can the Police have "reasonable grounds" for suspecting a crime has or may be being committed, just because you're flying a UAV. Sorry, but this explanation by these Coppers is pure BS. They are basically Cally saying "we want you to comply!". If you're not breaking the Law, then they cannot make you land it. It is "reasonable" to inspect the drone for proof of an Operator ID (or proof of Competency if relevant), but it would not then be "reasonable" to try and ID you from that info, because zero laws are being broken.

[@TheWizardOfTheFens]

Having a unit with a negative title of “counter drones” doesn’t install any confidence in the officers being impartial in any way…….

[@MopH3ad]

I agree it needs landing but typical plod .....do as your told we will find an excuse later attitude clearly shown here.

[@mightymeatball4368]

at this rate the best way to operate your drone without getting pestered is to become a police officer

[@anthonygage4700]

I would love to get a drone but the absolutely ridiculous amount of unreasonable rules and ignorant Cops means its a hard pass from me unfortunately

[@OldGit62]

I was flying my mini 3 pro filming a peaceful demonstration. The area I was flying in was in a built up area within a FRZ. (Yes I had clearance from the relevant ATC). First a BBC camera man asked if I knew that I was flying in a FRZ, then a policeman who was there for the demonstration approached me whilst the drome was doing a 360 pano. He just asked me if I knew that I was flying in a FRZ, and I replied yes, and that I had permission from ATC. He then asked if I had it with me and if could he see it. I replied I'll land my drone when the pano was finished and then show him the document. He said that's fine. I landed the drone, he looked at the authorisation from ATC and said "That's fine, carry on just make sure you fly safely, and not over the crowd". I said to him "Oh you know the rules then", he said yes "I fly a mini 2 myself" Due to where and when I was flying I was expecting to be approached. This happened on a Monday, I flew there the rest of the week and no other police officers took any notice of me.

[@paulneedham9885]

I thought the operator ID is for the owner of the drone not necessarily the Flyer?

[@jakejohn3568]

In sorry but the guy interviewing here gave these two far far to much leeway. This is a terrible video.

[@Geeksvana]

It isn't an interview... It is a video created at the request of my viewers. The police explaining their powers as set out in the new legislation. You may not like what they have to say but sadly it is all backed up by the associated legislation.

[@allanfleming201]

Basically, if you have a drone and spotted by police you are labelled as “potentially” doing something wrong until the officer feels better…. I had to laugh at the comment “we are not criminalising drone operators”. Quite a few contradictions here! I understand and appreciate the video but I think there has to be a better way of delivering this message to UAS pilots!

[@OliBaitsMedia]

One of the issues I’m finding increasingly more is the “No Drones” signs that people are putting up willy nilly. Even thought it’s not private property or restricted airspace. It immediately puts you under the spotlight of committing a crime in the eyes of the uneducated public and some police officers.

[@GW_Oldie]

There isn't any 'land' within the UK that isn't owned by someone so, how do you know it's not private property?

[@SirD83]

Ok so a police officer can ask you to land and chat, ok I would. I would say it’s a mini 2 sub 249g and I’m flying within the guidance. I would show my op ID is on the drone but NOT allowing them to note the digits. I would then ask what their suspicion of an offence is ? Given the info I’ve provided. The pure and simple fact of NOT willing to give the op Id or your details DOSEN’T Give grounds of suspicion for an offence. When their is a risk of any confrontation I don’t carry I/D in case of search. If the “officer” insists on a power trip ask the question “do you have reasonable suspicion to arrest ? Bearing in mind being arrested without sufficient grounds, would constitute unlawful and compensation award

[@NickLea]

"I would show my op ID is on the drone but NOT allowing them to note the digits." If you refuse to give the police your Operator ID in those circumstances then it is an offence and you can be fined up to £500.

[@SirD83]

@@NickLea you don’t have to give the police your op ID If there isn’t reasonable grounds on an offence. What’s there reasonable suspicion if you are engaging politely?

[@NickLea]

@@SirD83 You are getting two different things conflated. To order you to bring your drone down or to seize it from you then they must have reasonable suspicion of an offence under Schedule 8. However, requiring your ID is a totally separate thing and comes under Schedule 9. There is no requirement for suspicion of an offence for any part of Schedule 9. So they can require your ID but they cannot require you to land the drone. Interestingly, the only time that the police cannot ask for your ID is when you are the pilot but not the operator (eg you are using someone else's drone). In that case they can require you to give the details of the operator or whoever let you use the drone but cannot require your details as the pilot as long as the drone is below 250g. But, of course, if you are the operator, then you must give your details to the police.

[@SirD83]

@@NickLea so you have to give your op id without reason? Yet there’s no guarantee that it’s even legal as without your personal ID it can’t be matched to the op ID.

[@GG-gotr6]

I feel uneasy with the cop on the left, he’s power hungry. Do as he says or else. Policing accord to them is not by consent but by force, you do as they say or else. They fall back on the wording “suspect an offence” to justify their actions. Our guy on the left even states an offence may not been committed yet but might be in his view. You cannot be stopped in a car because the police think you might be about to exceed the speed limit. While the intention of this vlog is good, the interaction was submissive, it needed a legal counter view.

[@Its_the_Coops]

If you need a legal counter view, i’ll provide it: the police don’t need a reason to stop you in a motor vehicle. S163 RTA ‘88. Assumptions….

[@GG-gotr6]

@@Its_the_Coops Not sure you've provided anything. All that section states is, it's an offence not to stop a vehicle when instructed to do so by the police. There can be lots of reasons why you may be asked to stop that have nothing to do with an infringement of traffic laws. What's that got to do with drones and this vlog. The point of my comment there's a fine line between restricting someone's freedom to fly a drone, when overbearing police who "in their opinion" think its an offence, or as the copper on the left states you might be about to commit an offence. You cannot be found guilty in a court of law unless an offence has taken place. Have a good day and enjoy your gaming vlogs.

[@Its_the_Coops]

@@GG-gotr6 My comment was simply a response to your speeding comment, which is irrelevant. I merely stated that the police don’t need a reason to stop someone (s163 - power to stop). Which you’ve repeated. The officers are simply providing information, as that’s what the legislation states. They don’t write it. It’s the officers job to judge whether there is enough reasonable suspicion (which is quite a low bar) to think that they have committed an offence. Whether it’s proven or not, is another process. If an offence hasn’t been proven, it doesn’t make it an unlawful process. This legislation is there for a reason. Some people think that they only abide by common law, doesn’t mean that is right. But anyway. have a wonderful day.

[@johnvienta7622]

It is absolutely fascinating to watch Police openly stating that they want people to be subservient. Not once in the interview, when discussing the matter of forming an opinion that an offence had been/was about to be committed, did they discuss the Police Warning or Judge's Rules in which they inform the suspected offender that they do not have to answer any questions put to them. Of course that is due entirely to placing their insatiable greed for information, power and control above the rights of a person under investigation......................... Loved the defensive body language of the bloke on the left, he did not want to be there.

[@robba1234]

I 100% agree, they ignore the fact that they "need reasonable suspicion" And they do that because they are used to making stuff up, we see it daily on these youtube videos, and jumping from one excuse to another, none of which are valid (and that's the ones we get video on) "JUST DO AS I SAY BECAUSE WE DONT CARE!"

[@Geeksvana]

Alan, I would suggest you read the legislation linked in the description and in particular Schedule 8 and 9. There are several circumstances where police do not require any suspicion to approach and gain information from a drone operator. These are specific powers for drones. Doesn't mean I like all of them etc but it still doesn't mean they don't exist.

[@johnvienta7622]

@@Geeksvana , I would say that the comment from Alan was in reference to the conduct or misconduct of Police in general, not specifically relating to the use of drones. In any case anyone who has watched auditing videos which include drones being used would have seen some fairly poor behaviour by Police who use their perceived authority and power of the uniform to force the auditor to comply. DJ Audits is one of the most pleasant and knowledgeable people involved it that activity and yet when asserting his rights he was handcuffed simply because he would not supply his personal details. During the interview the Police themselves made reference to suspicions that an offence had occurred, or was about to occur, and the fact remains that there is no legal obligation placed on the public to assist the Police in an investigation, or to self incriminate.

[@Geeksvana]

@@johnvienta7622 and the fact is that this video is not about attention seeking auditors and there entertainment releases. It is an explanation of police powers. Which it delivers on. There are FAR more people using a drone than a handful of auditors using them to deliberately wind people up. That is my audience and the people who requested this. Thanks.

[@johnvienta7622]

@@Geeksvana , that is a bit of an odd comment considering the fact that the Police in the video spent a fair bit of time discussing auditors. Perhaps you should have told them to shut up.

[@daveyr7454]

The police officer will inspect your drone to ensure it is air worthy. Are all police officers trained as aircraft inspectors then? Police officers can pull you over on the road and check your vehicle for road worthiness. Are they also qualified MOT testers?

[@bigmanmountainbiker5322]

Actualy those who stopping and checking your vehicle for road worthiness are traned mot testers, not any police officer can take your car of the toad for this reason, if they suspect that car is not road compliant, they calling specifically trained colleague to do the job

[@TheSpanishCollection]

We are not asking for their advice, we are asking what the law is.

[@Geeksvana]

The legislation involved is always on screen and then linked to in the description. The legislation is only part of the story though. How the police enforce legislation is absolutely key.

[@user-bu8ps6oe2h]

I disagree with automatically landing a drone just because the Police say to. The law demands "Reasonable Grounds". These PCs confuse the road traffic act with the rules governing drones. The road traffic acts says you must stop, the drone laws do not. Those two PCs are just saying what they want and not what the law allows them to do - the fundamental flaw with the UK Police Gang.

[@Geeksvana]

The powers they discuss are correct. The legislation listed in the description provides links to every power they explained. This is why we created this video because many people do not realise there was specific legislation passed a couple of years ago, providing very specific police powers.

[@soupdragon2397]

@@Geeksvanayes and SPECIFICALLY they must have reasonable grounds to suspect a crime may have been committed, before they may engage and ask you to land your drone. So they do not have the right to your details automatically. Of course, what is likely, is they will say they have reasonable grounds to suspect a crime may have been committed, because that is what the police do.

[@Geeksvana]

Sorry, you are wrong. If the drone is not in the air, they are not required to have any suspicion to establish details. It is all there in the legislation, as explained in the video. Sadly, we cannot just interpret things how we want to.

[@soupdragon2397]

@@GeeksvanaIf the drone is not in the air, what grounds do they have for asking for details?? They must have reasonable grounds to suspect that a crime may have been committed. Plod isn't there to do spot checks on any drone pilot and ensure they're carrying proof of competancy. Most officers don't have a clue about drone legislation and where they can be flown. This is going to get messy.

[@Geeksvana]

@soupdragon2397 check the legislation linked in the description. It is listed in the same order as the on screen text as well. It shows that there have been special powers provided to police in terms of drones. If you are carrying a drone, you have less rights than an average person walking down the road. That is the reason I made this content, because many people are unaware of the new powers.

[@fluidjazz]

It sounds like a lot of legislation today, highly subjective like Section 5, or Section 43 which gives the police way too much power to abuse, and we all know they already do. These 2 cops sound like they don't understand their powers because the 1st one describes not being aggressive and asking to land the drone to have a safe conversation. The 2nd one says if you have been asked to land the drone it's not a request, it's because they already suspect you of committing an offense? Which one is it?

[@powertotheproletariat]

First response from me would be "is that a request or an order?" If it's an order I'll comply and deal with it appropriately, if it's a request then it's a hard no. I'm busy. If it's an order, I land the drone but then don't get cautioned straight away (as they should as soon as they suspect an offence has been committed under PACE) then I take my drone back up as they clearly don't suspect an offense and just want to flex some perceived authority. It's striking the balance between complying with lawful orders and recognising the difference between lawful orders and egotistical orders

[@legalactivity6977]

Brilliant point and officers do not like to be challenged.

[@charlesdarwen3683]

You clearly werent listening to the video were you PTTP

[@legalactivity6977]

@@charlesdarwen3683 Your comments are noted and I would do the same as PTTP for the reasons he has stated.

[@biking-northwest]

The problem is that 99% of officers have no clue on drone laws and most don't want to listen when they are wrong.

[@Geeksvana]

Hey that 125 guy! That is a real issue in this situation. I hope the education being provided to officers does not take too long and we see a more balanced approach using the actual legislation in the future.

[@lesturner]

These guys are drone police so know the rules... I've been hassled by a local police officer who clearly had zero idea of the legislation. Tried to say I was flying over private land without permission having taken off from private land.... I was in a park which is public. 10 minutes of arguing and being threatened to be arrested, another officer arrived who was a pilot too and knew the officer was wrong. Minutes later they left and I carried on.

[@legalactivity6977]

I noticed that some officers are trying to enforce that legislation with Auditors who fly their drones over Police buildings. One particular officer who is a drone expert detained an Auditor in order to obtain his name. The auditor refused he was let go. What makes this interesting their was another officer their and he had no problem with the auditor flying his drone.

[@Geeksvana]

I hope for a day when the new legislation is enforced correctly and accurately. Or at the very least, where an officer will stop and realise there is a lot more to it and check their position carefully. I hope for this as it would end the confrontations etc.

[@mrlawilliamsukwarmachine4904]

Those auditors are what I would call 'useful idiots' or shills. Repeatedly doing videos that I think inorganically trend. They only need to film a cop shop ONCE and then contact the Police and CAA to help suggest training or an FAQ to be issued to all officers. Job done. Instead, they quarrel about foolishness. I have the drone code and CAA info in my rucksack with me. Instead of them provoking officers, they should fly reasonably somewhere else like in a park, on the beach....around public buildings and see if the Police complain. THEN explain\discuss. My problem with these audits is that people see them as idiots...therefore all of us as idiots and sad losers with nothing better to do.

[@stuartbrown8259]

@@mrlawilliamsukwarmachine4904 So fly only over a park or beach? Where do you fly your drone? That causes problems on its own. Kids etc scenario.

[@mrlawilliamsukwarmachine4904]

@@stuartbrown8259 I fly mine in the street, around public buildings, places of interest. Derelict areas… parks. You used the word ‘only’ as if I’m saying that. Obviously I’m not. My point went over your head. I’m saying these guys fly over a police station merely to be annoying. For views. Same like the heap of copycats that do similar. I honestly think it’s a fit up, like when people glue themselves to buildings or the road as a ‘protest’ just to see harsher laws against protests be rolled out. They’re useful idiots/plants. Why provoke the police on purpose repeatedly when they could just contact the station boss maybe after doing it once and then supply them with informative documents and links. I’m not saying people should only fly at parks/beach. I’m saying for a balanced ‘audit’ of police intervention, they should do normal and neutral flights and gauge the reaction. They don’t want to do that. Low views n subs.

[@stuartbrown8259]

@@mrlawilliamsukwarmachine4904 There are what a few handfuls of people that do these videos. Hardly anything to get concerned about.

[@andywoollard]

I believe they are wrong, in absence of reasonable suspicion of a crime they have no powers to demand an operator ID or any other details for someone flying a sub 250g drone. Schedule 9 states “has reasonable grounds for suspecting that a relevant competency requirement is or was applicable as respects P and the unmanned aircraft and the flight.” In fact at 11:04 the officer states “we need to make sure that the pilots are compliant with the competencies that they need to have in order to fly that drone”, as a sub 250g drone with a camera does not require a Flyer ID and therefore no demonstrable relevant competence is required by the person owning or flying the drone. An operator ID does not signify any level of relevant competence only a Flyer ID does. Schedule 9 in section 3 (a) and (b) goes on to say what must be provided i.e. proof of competence, not operator ID. The CAA (CAP722) make it clear that proof of competency means “remote pilots that have passed the ‘flyer ID’ online theoretical knowledge examination in accordance with UAS.SPEC.020(4)(b)”. So I would suggest all you would need to show them is that the drone is less than 250g and therefore no competency needs to be demonstrated to them, no operator ID and certainly no personal details. They also cannot infer that if I assert my rights and refuse to give them details that this gives them reasonable suspicion of a crime. The actual crime they have in mind must be articulated not just some ethereal concept of a crime. In any case I would not ask police officers about the law, I would ask a legal professional.

[@amazer747]

Definitely video any interaction on your phone once your have landed your drone. Always document visually and audibly ANY interaction with the police. Be polite but maintain a record.

[@legalactivity6977]

At last some one who has read the legislation and understands it.

[@Mr-J...]

Absolutely, and to take it further, if what you say is not correct, how would the legislation ever be compatible with our protected human rights?

[@legalactivity6977]

@@Mr-J... Agreed. I respect this channel but sorry the you tuber himself does not understand the legislation .

[@edwardroscoe6875]

@@Mr-J... actually if you are involved in a vehicle stop you "MUST" provide your details. It's not about human rights its about showing competency and legal registration. The part I don't understand though is a police constable cannot just ask you for your driving licence and insurance documents if they see you getting out of or getting into a car. Legislation however allows them to do just this with your drone.

[@nicholasdunbar3378]

The officer actually committed a more serious offence actively handling you, distracting you while you where in control of an aircraft

[@brinny001]

They say the legislation is there to request you personal ID to check it corresponds with the operator ID (Around 8:30). What rubbish, as it don't have to be an individual that holds the operator ID for the drone. It could be a company that is the is holding the operator ID. So this would become an abuse of power on there part, I would suggest under legislation. Typical copper twisting legislation to there own ends.

[@DigiDriftZone]

I was thinking the same, there's no requirement that the flyer is the same person as the operator and the operator may not even be a person at all, so what are they verifying exactly?

[@roastchicken9143]

Sadly, as with all other law where the police are required to have reasonable suspicion for whatever it is they are accusing you of, in practice they will ignore the law and use intimidation and/or force to make you comply with their plan. They're not really interested in the law, they are often just power mad bullies who want to dictate to ordinary people what they can and can't do. Rather than harassing drone operators can I suggest they identify and root out the criminals in their own ranks or, heaven forbid, solve the odd domestic burglary once in a while.

[@markmac9515]

Reasonable suspicion cannot be that you are merely flying a drone. As for complaining to the police, have you ever tried? I do not agree with your statement that the police will know the relevent legislation, police training is very poor and many do not have a clue on even the most rudimentary legislation that they deal with every day. 'Not trying to criminialise drone flights' ......looking for an excuse to harass a member of the public and look busy more like. Do the police need to tell you what offence they think you committed or is it a fishing trip?

[@Geeksvana]

A lot of the issues will depend on personal experience of police. The times I have been approached by police flying my drone have almost all ended well. But that is probably more to do with me handing them a press card than anything else! The one time I did have a very negative reaction, it made me want to withhold as much information as I could. The attitude of the officer dictated my own. They assumed I should not be able to fly my drone in the location I was flying, although it was perfectly legal. In terms of informing about offences committed and avoiding the fishing trip, we have a follow up Q&A being recorded soon and a lot of the questions being asked have come from the comments here. Many surround the question of reasonable suspicion and how the officer is able to justify their demand to land etc.

[@markmac9515]

@@Geeksvana I look forward to it. My last interaction with the police, four thugs were trying to illegally evict my son. I intervened but the police stated it was a civil matter and knew nothing of tenant harassment laws, which I would presume they would come across on a daily basis. Poor training coupled with arrogant attitudes. All is great as long as you are compliant.

[@MopH3ad]

They will continue with an inspection untill they find fault, they make that clear enough.

[@jakejohn3568]

I'm sorry but I really dislike these two cops, especially the one on the right. They have a real complex and come across really badly. They have a real problem with the space of drone flying and just want as much information. I won't give my details unless you can specifically tell me why they have a suspicion of an offence then I am not engaging.

[@Geeksvana]

The reason we made this video is because so many people were completely unaware of the specific police powers around drone flight. They have more power over someone flying a drone than another person walking down the street. It is crazy but that is the legislation in place.

[@Geeksvana]

Silverfox, that wasn't the purpose of the video. That is for individuals to take a view on and get legal advice. This was about informing people of the legislation and what powers it specifically gives over drone use. People are so keen to comment and complain AFTER legislation comes in. Yet, hardly anyone comments or campaigns at the point these things can be changed.

[@johnburns1882]

How would a police officer assess the competence of a drone operator ?

[@dickgriffiths1477]

Ref inspection of the drone, what qualifies a run-of-the-mill pc to inspect and determine the technical condition of my drone?

[@Geeksvana]

Hey Dick Griffiths! Really interesting question and point. When it seems like a lot of work just to get fliers and officers up to scratch on the rules etc, where would expertise have to come into it. I suppose fortunately much of the enforcement legislation is not down to condition of the drone. Just my opinion though.

[@raymondjames3228]

The body language with these police officers seems very arrogant. It looks like they believe everyone else should do as they say and if anyone questions this they are being "confrontational".

[@ianmcnulty3279]

No wonder they haven't got time to catch criminals. What qualifications do they have to check a drone? for airworthiness?

[@chrisgwright80]

I don't like the way they keep using the word "comply" either. Like I've if you're 100% in the right and the police have no clue you still must comply

[@ianlloyd100]

Sounds like we are supposed to just bend over if a policeman asks...... Because we all know how brilliantly they are trained, and how fully they understand the little they have bothered to readup..... NOPE... If they expect me to stick to the law, I will expect them to do the same. I will not be giving up my rights, because of their ignorance.................

[@TheWizardOfTheFens]

I’ll expect them to know the law too!

[@franktaylor5962]

Sounds like the police can make things as they go along

[@Geeksvana]

Subject to the legislation in place. This is why we all need to be aware and participate in public consultations. This all went through the process.

[@DavidOwensuk]

How are the police capable of judging the airworthiness of an aircraft…

[@johnmcc3156]

So flying a drone is a crime now! So this "officer" approaches the drone operator and distracts him then says its his fault if something bad happens. If he suspects a crime he must articulate what crime. He cannot give you instructions or detain you until he finds out which crime you're suspected of committing. So all in all flying a drone is a crime now... (according to these two servants of the public)

[@Geeksvana]

This video is intended as an explanation of the powers police have over drone flight. It is not a debate or interview. Sadly they can therefore come across a little dry. Is drone flight a crime now? I think the answer to that is it depends on the drone flight, the same as any activity we carry out in life.

[@robba1234]

@@Geeksvana I think the argument could be made that we should hold the police to a high standard and expect them to abide by the laws, Unfortunately, that is far, far from the case I think you should have asked for some "examples" of reasons or crimes, a sub 300g drone is inherently safe or the rules would reflect that, so what laws could be broken? I would like the substance to be stated (too high, prohibited airspace, wrong size drone, etc) pin them down (bring it down because I'm a policeman is not a feel-good statement) What you "were having was a debate so YOU COULD HAVE ASKED THE QUESTION

[@Geeksvana]

This wasn't a debate video Alan. It is confirmation of police powers in as simple and standard a format as possible. We have previously live streamed Q&As and have other videos coming with the officers which feature other topics but this was never intended as anything more than providing the powers. Also, nobody has stated that a sub 300g drone is anything but safe. That is rarely the issue.

[@robba1234]

@@Geeksvana Not exactly, you ignored as did the police the statement "reasonable grounds" Their powers are based on that statement, ignored or abridged as they often do with "fear alarm and distress" to get a conviction.

[@Geeksvana]

Again, the police powers set out in the video are accurate. This wasn't a debate video.

[@samcollins6394]

It's quite amazing the inequality of powers. According to these officers and the quoted schedules if I have a drone in front of me on the ground (not even in the air) the police have the power to inspect the drone and ensure my registration and competence is in order to ensure the subsequent flight will be legal. However, I can sit in my Cesena 182 with the engines running and all fired up and ready to go but am under no obligation to provide licence details in any form unless I actually start to fly the craft... I know its knit picking but it shows the extent the "powers that be" are wanting to go to in the "name of safety" to control our use of the skies. And then Google go and "safely land" on some power lines... We have to remember that this is undoubtedly one of the safest hobbies in the world. There has been not one reported death as a result of a drone flight. Football, tennis, even ping pong can't boast that safety record. It's over regulation and is unjustified.

[@Geeksvana]

Hey Sam! Thank you for taking the time to share your experience and make some great points. I think that is why many have to this point confused the police powers in specific relation to drones, because it seems out of proportion. I think drones suffer from a very poor and undeserved impression with law makers in the UK, especially as you state the hobby side being such a safe pursuit.

[@jeffreyhall6345]

If the police can examine your drone for airworthiness what training do they receive to make them competent to do this? Many police don't even understand the drone laws. Also what rights do PCSOs have. I fly a home built sub 250g model aircraft in a park, no ID, no markings. How can a police officer determine if it is legal? Will they be carrying scales or just confiscate it anyway and weigh it a police station?

[@smithbrownjones]

They'd probably confiscate it, and take it back to the station in order to verify the weight.

[@Jimages_uk]

Something I found interesting was that he pointed out that when a member of public calls in because a drone is flying, they will (or might) react, surely, it would be better if the call handlers were aware of the current legislation, and could point out that it isn't against the law to fly a drone over private property, for example.

[@Bootie-wt3ob]

Surely if the police have absolutely no idea if the drone you have flown or are flying has camera they can't just reasonably suspect you are committing an offence with zero evidence?

[@Geeksvana]

This is one of the outstanding issues from this content. We have another recording session coming soon where we will be putting these types of questions to some officers. Most of the questions are around the accountability in terms of justification of actions etc.

[@Bootie-wt3ob]

@@Geeksvana OK, thanks, can't wait for the next session.

[@DigiDriftZone]

Question about the operator ID, if it is registered to another person or a company, how does providing the flyer's personal details help verify anything? - what if both are provided but they dont' match?

[@streamsofconsciousness8651]

Always take your advice from an independent source, not from the police

[@Geeksvana]

Probably a good thing this isn't an advice video then...

[@streamsofconsciousness8651]

@@Geeksvana yes, it absolutely is

[@loc4725]

A bit unfortunate about the "if it has a camera then" part. CAP722 says that if the aircraft is under 250g, the camera _does not capture information_ (record) and is only used for navigation & control then there is no need to register for a Flyer ID. And simply having one onboard *does not* by and of itself indicate the need for one, but sadly the attitude of these two officers is indicative of what you are likely to encounter: an immediate assumption and an opportunity if one is being sought to abuse their authority and harass legitimate fliers. And we know this is possible as is witnessed by the various YT videos from various 'auditors' et al. Other than that though I thought that was pretty clear and it is helpful to know the exact legislation and especially that the police can order your aircraft to be landed but should not otherwise interfere with the safe flight.

[@Exploringcornwall1]

The key point made by PC Halliwell around reasonable grounds is that the officer would know the law…there are many examples where the officers clearly do not know the legislation, get the wrong information from a Google search and therefore have no reasonable grounds. The huge gap in basic knowledge held by many officers is something that needs to be addressed nationwide.

[@guantou2520]

My drone identifies as a kite.

[@bobb2580]

those two police were really dancing on the legislation , lets get it clear police must have reasonable suspicion of the opperator committing an offence first surly. as we've clearly seen on youtube and other platforms, the police clearly like to abuse these power. i do note want to be forced to stop something I have a perfect right to do, just because a policeman want to flex his powers! again more grounds for the police to abuse there powers. another point I would like to make, is how many of the police officers are trained enough to make an autoritive judgement that the drone is airworthy or not? again as seen on many platforms, the police barely know the drone legislation, let alone if a drone is fit to fly or now.

[@davidfrancis-lowe5521]

gotta disagree with comment at 6:17, the officer demanding you land will not "most likely" know the drone laws, most don't but will demand out of ego and perceived authority to land. seen many videos about drones and police and 9 out of 10 coppers know little about drone laws, i understand the logic the 2 cops here are saying to comply when asked etc. but does it actually state in law that you must land when asked, i would personally ask what the crime is first before landing,and what they are basing that accusation on, they have already engaged with you whilst in flight so another couple of sentences won't be make much difference, it's their opinion they are saying here and it seems a bit biased imo, what does the "law" say ?. that what matters, quote the law, what the law says, and not what 2 cops say in their opinion. i personally would like to know where it says that the police do not have to explain what the suspected crime is before making orders, i understand they have powers to stop vehicles etc, but don't know about the new drone laws eg. giving up op id. etc. laws have to be "specific", it works both ways for police and the supsect.

[@Geeksvana]

Everything quoted in this video is based on the special powers granted under legislation. They are quote on screen and in the description.

[@davidfrancis-lowe5521]

@@Geeksvana things have changed then for drones under 250g, and not for the better imho, i still believe if you have done nothing wrong they shouldn't be entitled to details, are we not entitled to privacy under human rights if we are law abiding and government can't interfere with that without just cause, i believe what you say but don't agree with it. shame the new drone laws allow this.

[@Geeksvana]

@davidfrancis-lowe5521 for some reason, when the new act came in, it gave police a lot of powers if they even suspect a drone is involved. That was the main reason for this video, as I didn't think most of my audience realised.

[@aroundthecoast3334]

Although I agree with the points in the video I disagree that you should have to ground your drone just because an officer tells you without them telling you why they reasonably expect you to do so first or what crime they suspect you may have committed. 99% of officers don’t have a clue about the legislation. I wouldn’t give no officer my personal Id unless they had genuine concern I had committed an offence.

[@Geeksvana]

I agree it seems unreasonable to me. It doesn't seem to fit that they can tell you after landing etc. Wouldn't take long to explain prior to landing.

[@legalactivity6977]

@@Geeksvana You seem to have changed your tune a bit. Why did you not challenge the officers at the time? I think and auditor has already proved it he merely asked the officer if it was a lawful order to land his drone the officer could not reply. In the end he landed it when he wanted to.

[@Geeksvana]

@LEGAL ACTIVITY my 'tube' hasn't changed. I didn't challenge the officers at the time because they have the right to require landing if the suspect a crime. The part I agreed with is that they should tell you the crime before landing, however they are not required to do so. For the final time... this was not a debate video. It was a comprehensive explanation of police powers. There is nothing to challenge if they have the powers.

[@legalactivity6977]

@@Geeksvana We shall agree to disagree, but great debate.

[@droneguysussex]

It makes perfect sense to land the drone and then have that conversation. For goodness sake, we are getting to the point of not wanting to be told or asked anything. The Police are not always the enemy here.

[@CaptainParalytic]

Definitely something wrong there. The officer said that they needed the flyer's name and address in order to confirm that the operator ID is right. Except that the operator who owns the operator ID is not necessarily the same person as the flyer. For a 249g drone, the flyer doesn't need to be registered anywhere.

[@TrogART]

That’s what I thought, I purchased an under 249g drone on the understanding I did not require an operator licence, not that I intend to do anything untoward just being lazy. The anything with a camera is a little shady as I am a photographer and have a camera most days and there is no law saying I have to hand it over, most phones have cameras for gods sake!

[@smithbrownjones]

@@TrogART The sun 250g drone needs an Operator ID, however, the Operator (owner and person responsible for the UAV) must be someone over the age of 18. That person has to be someone you know. As the Remote Pilot of the aircraft, you only need to have read the aircraft's instruction manual. 👍🏻

[@NickLea]

You are correct that the operator and the pilot may be different people. However, in that case, the law gives the police the power to require the pilot to give them the details of the operator or whoever else let them use the drone. It is an offence for the pilot to refuse to give those details subject to a fine of up to £500

[@stuartmcgifford3286]

So, 'Do as I say because I say so!'

[@m1cxf]

I think the better known version is "Do as I say, not as I do". Either way I have unfortunately developed a mis-trust of the police, we know there are many good officers, but how do you know you have a good one and not a jumped up arsehole?

[@FishingFrustrationsUK]

i have a card i display when flying my drone which displays both my flyer id and my operator id plus it has 1 of them scan things so i can be verified of my details

[@maxarsehole1020]

I would like to know where you get this ID card with your details on I am registered and have a licence but would like to carry these details around on a card where can I get this card from

[@smithbrownjones]

@@maxarsehole1020 Print details on card. Laminate card. Use card. 👍🏻

[@MrEye4get]

I'm curious how police officers are actually trained to "inspect" any drone for "airworthiness". Police frequently respond to a complaint without verifying if an offense has, is or is likely to be committed. Simply put, if you have a drone [in your possession] an officer can demand to "inspect" your drone and require flyer registration, ID and personal information without suspicion or cause. Know your rights and the laws.

[@philsheath]

Surely though a member of public complaining isn’t grounds to go through all these checks? Can you imagine not liking cars and complaining about one then the police turn up and go through all your details!

[@droneserve2180]

They should explain what the offence is before asking for personal details and not before.

[@mickemmett6828]

Not a "Drone Unit" but a "Counter Drone unit" The name doesn't give me any confidence.

[@gonzogorilla2578]

👍 the words say it " Counter Drone Unit" = anti drone unit.

[@Razbo]

Personally police officers are quick to harass hobbyists flying drones, but don’t see police officer stopping people riding their e scooters at stupid speeds, which are far more dangerous than drones

[@Geeksvana]

Hey Raz Bo! Thanks for joining the conversation. Do not get me started on e-scooters! We released a video on this last year and the blatant inequality of rules between them and drones. It is astonishing that they want to deregulate them further in my opinion!

[@dpr206]

Drone pilots = easier targets. The police go for easier targets

[@l1verpool1000]

If you verify the pilot licence with the organisation that produces and issues them, then that should be enough. Your personnel details shouldn't be a factor unless they do catch you doing something wrong. It smells fishy, and the average police officer aren't drone engineers. I can see these new powers being abused and used to stop or harass certain types of drone flyers.

[@Feverstockphoto]

These are police, not solicitors, not barristers, not judges, not law makers. They will bend, twist, interpret and distort the legislation if you dare question their perceived authority and just sometimes because they are on a super duper power trip. As far as I can see from this video, they need reasonable suspicion of an offence, they need reasonable suspicion that you are not competent before demanding you to land and give details, is that correct? Doesn't matter because reasonable suspicion is subjective and as mentioned they can and will stretch this to fit almost any scenario, Edited: They are in general control freaks by nature playing Cowboys and Indians. Just giving up your personal information and details because you happen to be carrying a drone in a park is ludicrous and totally against your human rights (Article 8). They need reasonable suspicion of a crime or lack of competency such as crashing into a tree, endangering people etc.., imo. The police in this video are as clear as mud. Also remember Rice vs Connelly 1966.

[@Geeksvana]

That was the point of the video. Powers explained by the police. The enforcement drone operators meet in the wild. However, I can confirm that all powers explained in this video are correct. If you check the legislation in the description it is absolutely clear. We took steps to independently check each statement made. I also placed on screen each part of legislation as they discussed it. The specific powers given to police when a drone is involved are shocking to most flyers, hence this video. The legal battle, the legal advice etc which ensues is very much an individual thing. The other issue is ensuring police on the ground understand all this, which is one of the primary issues.

[@Feverstockphoto]

@@Geeksvana Just to clarify what has been said and what you have posted previously in the comment section of this video, 'They can request your details,' 'Request,' that's not the same as ordering, demanding or forcing you to give them up? Requests can be denied. I'm focusing on the competency component here. Edited: By the way you are doing a good job of bringing these issues and the police interpretations of the legalise to light 👍

[@legalactivity6977]

@@Feverstockphoto I agree recently an Auditors was flying over a Police building he was asked to land his drone. He asked the officer if it was a request or a lawful order the officer said it was a request and he refused to to so. The officer wanted to see his operator id. In the end he landed it without the officer even looking at the drone.

[@Feverstockphoto]

@@legalactivity6977 Yes I seen that video you mention. I've also seen other videos where police have detained, handcuffed, harassed, arrested and what some would consider torturing people for flying their drones in non restricted airspace. People flying perfectly competently and within the law! Yet police don't like peoples freedoms to fly in non restricted airspace, so they think it's fine to accost and bully law abiding citizens to get their own way (don't fly where we don't want you to fly). It's disgraceful unlawful behaviour from the police and people need to open their eyes because these people flying their drones legally is you! Yes they are coming for you! 🙂

[@NickLea]

@@Feverstockphoto I'm a bit late to this but on the "request" point, Schedule 9 actually uses the word "require" not "request":- eg 4(2) The constable may require P to provide such information as the constable considers reasonable as to the identity... It is an offence not to give your details with a fine of up to £500. You also mentioned competency - that relates to drones over 250g where it is a requirement to have passed a theory test.

[@ARTSPRAYUK]

They have to say what offence they suspect you of not just that they suspect a crime .

[@johnheaneay9940]

The police reps talk about Operator competence ? :is there any standard ie test for this as in this case how does one go from Starter say to Adequate competence is this Factual or merely in the eye of the Police operator

[@l1verpool1000]

But would that conversation be in or out of cuffs?. IF WE'RE SPEAKING ABOUT REASONABLE Officers/people. Wouldn't it be best to stand by and observe and approach the pilot when he has finished the flight? Then, the danger is eliminated. I was just asking as I was under the belief that it was against the law to interfere with a pilot in flight. I may have got this mixed up with something else. I'm still just learning myself.

[@cloudobserver00900]

My reading is that the first thing that has to happen is the police to remove themselves a safe distance so operator can safely land drone. Police think they can walk up to you and instruct you which is illegal as they are knowingly entering the danger area (whatever the CAA decide is the seperation distance this week)..

[@Geeksvana]

There is nothing illegal about approaching a drone pilot. The oweness is on us as operators to keep the distance required or end the flight. Police are not required to keep any separation distance. They are not not included as a uninvolved person.

[@ianb2877]

'an officer will reasonably explain' this guy needs to watch more police interactions with drone pilots, most are just arrogant bullies who want to force there views on their victim. God help us when they see this piece of legislation explained to them.

[@richardswinson4381]

It’s not sub 249g, it’s sub 250g

[@FishingFrustrationsUK]

can we register with our local police that we are legitamet drone flyers so that way we can just id ourselvs

[@darrenwalton969]

They're power mad. They never seem to use common sense with drone pilots. What's even more hilarious is that 99.9% of the time when they inspect the drone they never know what they are looking at.

[@LWM_modelling]

Question that should have been asked is if a police officer approaches you and asks you to land can you tell the officer to back off 30m as they don't automatically become an involved person just by approaching you

[@Geeksvana]

No. A police officer approaching is not included as an uninvolved person. They should however let you land safely etc.

[@kramreprah]

@@Geeksvana As a GVC Pilot I believe they are uninvolved unless you have consented to them being involved and you have given them a safety briefing. So on that account they should move away to 30m until you have landed and gave the command Safe. However if you are doing nothing wrong then there is nothing to fear. I would just inform them that they are now in your control, but you will not be liable if they are injured in your landing area. Not all police are as polite as others. TBH if I am on a commercial shoot then I would be in no rush to land, but on saying that they would be talking with one of my crew. Remembering it is a serious offence to interrupt a pilot in flight. Mind I have never had any issues with police tbh :-)

[@johnorr560]

Guilty until proved innocent?

[@dickietrickle]

I get the legislation no problem. But 1. Most plod are clueless about drone laws and 2. some plod stretch 'reasonable grounds to the absolute limit. eg why section 44 was revoked because some plod were abusing it by coming up with all sorts of excuses to stop and search. Which links in again to potential abuse of powers, plod could make any drone pilot down their drone (yeah ok no dramas) but then say "I suspect your operator ID could be fake give me your full details. When you've done nothing illegal.

[@FishingFrustrationsUK]

yup i agree if asked to land do it then talk and show ids not a hard task

[@ChangingTheories]

Been a drone geek for 3 years now and just found your channel. Really love your different take on drone stuff. Its excellent! thank you

[@Geeksvana]

Thank you! Your feedback means a lot to me.

[@MPFben]

It’s not comparable to driving at 60 on a road. It’s more comparable to walking in the street and being asked for your ID. A car doesn’t drive itself like a drone hovers with accuracy.

[@Geeksvana]

There is a comparison with motoring in terms of there being specific legislation and police powers for dealing with both motoring and drone flight, neither of which could be used with someone walking down the street. There are a few circumstances where a suspected drone flight give extra powers than a random member of public walking down the street.

[@jons9721]

It's more the equivalent of walking the street and being spotted carrying a knife (any knives including legal ones) and being asked for id.

[@AlternateWorld420]

Hugely one sided by the police and not entirely correct(was like watching a blackbeltbarrister video!) merely being in possession of a drone does not give them any right to demand personal details! Plus, they need to verbally articulate to the drone user how they justify a criminal offence taking place before any action taken, including landing the drone, this is not simply - we think you might be commiting a crime because we want your info. Would love to see the same conversation between the police and someone actually aware and compassionate for defending our rights, but that would never happen as they hate to concede to our rights in these matters.

[@Geeksvana]

Thanks for commenting but the specific police powers listed in this video are 100% accurate and within the legislation linked in the description to the video. I do not like some of them myself but I carefully put this one together to include only the facts from Schedule 8 and 9 of the legislation. An officer can request details under the powers without any suspicion. We have other videos coming in this series which challenge more of the actions of police but I wanted to keep this one as a very focused explanation of the powers.

[@turkeyphant]

@@Geeksvana Read the transcript again and then the legislation. They made many legal errors according to law.

[@MopH3ad]

Someone teach the police not to interfere with a pilot causing loss of concentration during flight it's just not due care and attention towards the public.

[@johnheaneay9940]

Do the CAA have any rules 'Prohibiting an operator from being harased/distracted whilst flying to protect him/public etc - IE land it NOW or else scenario

[@MopH3ad]

@@johnheaneay9940 doubtful that they would have any control over uninvolved parties. it's just common sense, why would you risk a pilot loosing control over a vehicle they have in the air just wait for it to come down they don't fly for ever. My drone is 3kg in weight and has no gps or hover if I lost control because of such a distraction it would hurt and cause injury if it dropped out the sky like a sack of Tate's and hit someone.

[@ericwatt1447]

Thank very much for this update at long last its on KZbin day after day with this audits guys this giving Drone operators a ban name

[@Geeksvana]

Hey Eric! Thank you sir. Hope you are well. I do think of you often after your loss and hope things are at least manageable for you.

[@candles3333]

I think i would challenge them if I knew I wasn't doing anything wrong, after all to be a Police officer you like having authority over other humans and wearing uniforms. I know we need Police but I cant say I have a lot of faith in them.

[@3211SD]

I see they say that you need to have the operato ID and have that operator ID conect to the pilot flying the drone and that they have the right to demand the identity of the pilot to see if it is a match to the operator ID . but my understanding is that's not true . You can alow a different pilot to fly your drone , you can lend your drone to somebody else. And if your drone is under 250g then the person you have lent your drone to doesn't need even a flyer ID . If your drone is over 250g then the pilot would need a flyer ID . But the pilot and operators ID doesn't need to be the same person and the operator ID person doesn't have to be supervising the flight either. Does the police drone /operator pilot change the operator ID on their drones ever shift when a different pilot takes the drone out ? I don't think so . Can you clarify this point with the police. There still seems to be some confusion and they contradicted themselves at the start and at the end of your interview on this point .

[@3211SD]

I mean the camera on the drone has to be registered to somebody and have that ID on the drone but that person doesn't have to be the same person flying the drone ? Correct ? And if it's under 250g and no flyer ID is needed then the person flying the drone does not need to identify themselves to the police ? So with under 250g drones the DJ audit type people are right to say they don't need to Identify themselves to the police and only show the drone itself is in compliance?

[@MP_2000]

I don't think that's what they're saying - I think they agree with what you've just said...

[@chriscole3624]

Sorry mate you have that wrong. You only need an Operator ID to own & fly the sub 250g drone. But anyone else using it requires a flyer ID.

[@Geeksvana]

Hey Drone Tour DS! Although I am fairly well versed in drone rules, I am not legally qualified nor a trained police officer, so my thoughts are only that of a journalist specialising in the field of drones. In my opinion, based on the legislation specific to drones but also taking into account wider laws - a police officer would not be able to REQUIRE you to provide your personal details under the Sch 9 Para 1 power (to require evidence of pilot competency) if you are flying a sub-250g drone in unrestricted airspace within the Open category which is not owned by you and therefore displays someone else's Operator ID, unless they had Reasonable Grounds to Believe that you were indeed the Operator despite what you tell them (even if that was subsequently found not to be correct). This doesn't mean they are not allowed to ask for your details but means no offence is committed if you refuse. However, this is only related to the Para 1 power requiring evidence of Pilot competency, and not other conduct or issues that might be covered under other legislation. For instance, they WOULD be able to require you to provide your personal details if allowed by other powers, whether from elsewhere in ATMUA Schedules 8/9 or under other laws. Hope this helps!

[@MrBigsmiffy]

@@chriscole3624that’s not true Chris. Point 31 of the “Getting Operator ID” section on the CAA’s Register Drone website specifically addresses this point, and states that “If your drone or model aircraft is below 250g or C0 class, the person flying it does not need a flyer ID”. I did try and post a link but YT removed my comment 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@andym6488]

I find it utterly outrageous that just being in possession of a drone gives the police powers to interrogate me. If I sit in the driving seat of a parked car, that doesn’t give police the right to see my driving licence - its only when I operate the car that the licence becomes necessary. Likewise if I sit in the pilot seat of a non-moving light aircraft, I don’t have to prove to anyone that I have a pilot’s licence - its only when one attempts to (or demonstrates intent to) operate that aircraft that police rights to see evidence of competency come into effect. And yet, with drones, it seems that mere possession (possession, not even ownership) of a drone is enough to give police rights to demand information. Technically, I could walk out of Argos with a brand new drone and fall foul of the police demands to see proof of operator id and provide my details, if I bought the drone before registering for an operator id (OK, unlikely but none the less technically possible). As I said - outrageous. Police rightly should have the ability to ask questions if they suspect a crime might be committed, but merely being in possession of a drone is not (IMO) enough.

[@Geeksvana]

The new powers sent some ripples through the hobby and industry when they went through consultation etc. It is why I think many people are confused around the specific powers around drone use because they can seem overreach in compared to other powers in daily life.

[@canuck11]

An officer can say I suspect a violation. They can always say that and there's nothing you can do about it. You are guilty and nothing you say will change that. It's too easy for them to keep you from flying.

[@lakelandfilmsweddings7228]

I'm only 6 mins in and I'm extremely annoyed. If I know that no offense has been committed, I will finish my flight, then land, then I "may" talk to the cops. And I don't think that's unreasonable. I'll finish watching the rest now.

[@legalactivity6977]

My thoughts exactly. The majority of the interactions are with auditors although I understand some people may not like what they do (flying over police buildings) but it is not illegal to do so. I also think with auditors most officers know that they are allowed to fly but they will try to use that legislation to get the auditor to land the drone and if they get it wrong a civil claim will be issued. From a legal point of view , say you land your drone after you finished your flight to have a chat. Do you have to have a chat? If you are not detained you can walk away. Also their is case law which states you do not have to help an officer with his investigations.

[@lakelandfilmsweddings7228]

@@legalactivity6977 totally agree with you. I was filming a wedding and the bride wanted drone shots of the venue and an aerial group photo with video. It was on an exclusive estate miles from anywhere. After taking the aerial group shot (drone well away from the group) a man (a guest at the wedding) said to me "you got a licence for that drone" I made a joke and said "it's the first time I've ever flown a drone" (I've actually been flying for 15 years, got a licence, insuranced and all the rest). He immediately said he is a police officer and would like to question me further. I just walked away. But he was persistent, but I ignored him. Shameful.

[@ianreed7605]

I also think it’s perfectly reasonable for the request to have been made. You may not be aware that a short distance away someone else has been reported as misusing a drone and the officer has encountered you. The request is such a situation is perfectly reasonable and you have to be a bit ignorant to ignore the possibility that the officer is conducting reasonable enquiries.

[@lakelandfilmsweddings7228]

@@ianreed7605 you're obviously a copper, sorry, but in this situation I disagree.

[@legalactivity6977]

@@ianreed7605 English law is a mixture of legislation and case law. Rice v. Connolly (1966) is an English legal precedent holding that there is no strict, general legal duty to assist a police officer prior to any possible arrest or caution, with even basic police enquiries nor to accompany the officer to a requested location.

[@davetkd1]

If you ask what crime is being committed or has been they cant do things on assumptions of something you haven't done

[@shapalandoify]

@@kernowradio that's how I've enterpreted it as well, more reason to stay out of sight sadly which you shouldn't of course.

[@johnmcc3156]

So flying a drone is a crime?

[@africanimpi]

@@johnmcc3156 Nope, but a good way for police to ID you for not breaking the law!

[@christinecrockford1654]

This great to know all of this and trouble is the way alot of the auditor's with drones and trying to push boundaries of the law and for reaction purposes, is going end up with tighter laws, making it alot more less fun for hobbies flyer. Even tho I say this, my local police came round to me,about me and my friend flying and they had no idea about the law what so ever and as always just stated laws of drones over 250g and when I tried to explain in a nice calm way they where wrong, all I can say they where not best happy and wouldn't listen. I did see one Auditor flying his drone and the way he was treated ( news now Yorkshire) was unbelievable and almost torcher. I've always give the police my full respect but when you see things like the way he was treated, you can understand why audits happen. I'd like to see all police given a course in regulations around drones. Also how they react with members of the public. Many moons ago I used to work at Heathrow and we had a police bobby whoever walk around get to know everyone and always had time to chat to anyone. This guy was so well respected and there was hardly ever any crime, because of his respect he'd earnt. How things have changed.

[@Geeksvana]

Hey Christine! Thank you for taking the time to comment and share your experiences. I think your views will match those of a lot of people. With drones still being new technology I personally don't expect every officer to know but I would like to think they would verify the facts around the rules before they acted. We share a lot of the same thoughts on a natural desire to respect police tinged with concern about some of the events we view online. Hopefully, with education of officers the situation will improve. Sorry to hear about your personal experience as well. That does not sound good.

[@mymobile5014]

I cannot find anywhere in the legislation that the constable has any power to demand your ID as in name and address. They are only allowed to ask for Flyer ID/competency. I've gone through schedule 8 and can't find anything anywhere so can someone highlight where that requirement is written? (We all know the police are OBSESSIVE about getting your ID even if there is no requirement for it.)

[@Geeksvana]

Hey! It is within schedule 9 paragraph 1,2 and 5. But there are other areas the legislation provides powers to gain personal information. From 7:40 the video explains this and places the legislation on screen.

[@mymobile5014]

@@Geeksvana It might be that I am dumb, but nowhere in Schedule 9 Para 1,2 and 5 does it ever mention an obligation to provide personal ID to a police officer? Unless it's written in some sort of code that I am unaware of.

[@Geeksvana]

@mymobile5014 modern legislation is often worded very loosely, with open language. This gives authorities more flexibility and stops people arguing, etc. It isn't a direction I think is healthy for the public. This legislation is very much along those lines. When it states to an officer's satisfaction or similar, it is basically giving them full authority. So, for an officer to be satisfied that you are the person who holds the op or flyer ID, they can require you to produce your details. There are also specific mentions such as Schedule 9, paragraph 2 - 'The constable may require P to provide such information as the constable considers reasonable as to the identity of the person or persons who are or were the remote pilot or remote pilots of the unmanned aircraft'. Paragraph 4 confirms the offence: 'P fails to comply with a requirement imposed by a constable under this paragraph to provide information as to the identity of a person'. So the entirety of the Act provides a LOT of powers if a drone is even suspected to be involved. It still shocks me a little when I return to this legislation.

[@mymobile5014]

@@Geeksvana I've managed to find it now but thanks for your help. And yes this is my problem: I have paid for a flyer and operator ID. The key thing being "ID". Why do I then need to produce my citizen ID which is nothing to do with flying a drone? I have my operator ID, my info is on the drone itself, why do they do a third check to get my personal ID? I have emailed Liberty to ask what happens to my data if they force me to give ID. Does it stay on a database or something? I think there needs to be some lobbying because I am very uncomfortable giving police my whole personal ID, when I have the ID paid for to fly the drone anyway. It's just police trying to trawl data at every opportunity and is an infringement of our civil rights I think.

[@Geeksvana]

@mymobile5014 flying a drone is not deemed a right, it is a privilege. You are required to show competency to operate the drone and the only way to do that, is to provide your details. How far these powers go is the main reason I made this video. Most people still do not realise.

[@mikerockey7320]

Lots of comments about competence to fly i have passed the Caa A1/3 test without 1 single minute of drone flying time, competency comes with experience and you only gain it by flying. many hours of flying under my belt now. And also 99% of the public at large don't have a single inkling of what to do around a person flying a drone I get people asking me questions all the time and politely tell them i will speak to them when i land my drone

[@Geeksvana]

The difference is legal competence and actual competence. The only part a police officer can check is the legal side.

[@standrewpics]

Absolutely it’s not right to have a conversation with a drone pilot, when I drone is in flight . They are causing an offence in a way by distracting a drone pilot.

[@Geeksvana]

Hey! Incorrect. You are possibly referring to Article 240 of the Air Navogation Order? This is often quoted as it states: 'person must not recklessly or negligently act in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, or any person in an aircraft'. However, small UAS are specifically excluded from protection under the Air Navigation Order, so article 240 does not apply to anyone approaching a drone pilot. However, we as drone pilots need to follow both 240 and 241 when conducting flights.

[@edwardroscoe6875]

I see a problem with this legislation, If they need suspicion an offence has or is going to be committed to require you to land your drone as per schedule 8, but they don't require suspicion to inspect your flyer id, drone and or other relevant documentation as in schedule 9, which takes precedence? The second you land your drone you are then liable to schedule 9 and they don't need reasonable suspicion... this is contradictory to the schedule 8. Am I missing something here?

[@jali898]

Meanwhile it takes 3 weeks to attend a burglary at your home, 😂😂😂.. Another avenue of pleasure closed off with needles interference by public servants who should have the same heavy handed approach with knife crime ... I can sit on a chair with a huge propeller strapped to my back and a tank of fuel under a parachute and fly wherever with zero licence or competence test ..but to use a drone requires 2 licences 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@kevindarkstar]

Typical examples of authority bullshit in the ever increasing spiral of control of absolutely every aspect of our lives 😮

[@Gary-ef6qo]

As a retired police officer I can guarantee most officers won’t have a clue about drone legislation let alone care. They will be far too busy with shit like Cps files and other things

[@lindaw8084]

What if they are flying over a police station ? I personally don't think it should be allowed but a lot of people disagree on if it is OK or not ?

[@dazwalkingman]

Why is ignorance of the law never an excuse for the public but it’s always an excuse for the police when they get it wrong and no law was broken or it was not even criminal offence