A drone pilot who almost caused a major accident at a memorial flight event in Buxton has pleaded guilty to endangering an aircraft.
The incident took place at the Buxton Carnival in July 2022 during a flyover by the RAF’s Battle of Britain Memorial Flight Hurricane.
At the time, the flyover had been protected by a temporary airspace restriction that prohibited all other flying in the area, including drones.
Photos from the day show the drone flying dangerously close to the wing of the Hurricane, which was being watched by around 20,000 people. Police were able to identify the drone operator, a 49-year-old man from Buxton, and seized his drone as part of their investigation.
Analysis showed that it was flying over Buxton at the time of the flyover. Mark Bagguley, of Chatsworth Road in Fairfield, was arrested and charged with endangering an aircraft and operating an aircraft out of the visual line of sight. He pleaded guilty to both charges in court on Monday and is set to appear again in February for sentencing.
After the case, the Civil Aviation Authority and the police reminded drone operators of the need to fly safely and legally. Pc Matt Moore, Flight Safety Manager for the Derbyshire Constabulary drone was quoted as saying:
“The way the pilot flew his drone was unsafe, illegal and totally unacceptable. Anyone using a drone must follow the rules to make sure they fly safely. As a police drone unit, we know the benefits drones can bring to society but people using a drone in this way not only threaten the safety of aircraft and the public they also damage the future use of drones. This is for the safety of not only yourself but others around.”
Drones must be flown safely and legally, within the limits of the operating category they are flying in.
This includes operator registration, pilot competency and maintaining separation distances from members of the public, built up areas and manned aviation. All drone operators are responsible for ensuring the drone is being flown safely and within the law at all times. Those found to be committing offences using drones will be investigated and could face prosecution.
More information can be found at register-drones.caa.co.uk/drone-code.
Was the Hurricane a BoB vet? To think surviving BoB then some bloody drone controlled by an idiot brings you down.
2nd paragraph “The incident took place at the Buxton Carnival in July 2022 during a flyover by the RAF’s Battle of Britain Memorial Flight Hurricane.”
The Battle of Britain Memorial Flight I believe is not composed entirely of aircraft which actually took part in the Battle of Britain.
I believe some did take part, which is why I asked whether this example was one of those aircraft.
And having checked, some of the Spitfires did take part in 1940, the Hurricanes did not.
Funded out of the defence budget. I quote from their website:”Flown by regular RAF pilots. Between 1959 and 1965 the flight had one Spitfire (PM631) and one Hurricane (LF363) on its strength. Now, as a ‘museum without walls’, it maintains twelve historic and irreplaceable aircraft: an Avro Lancaster, a C-47 Dakota, six Spitfires, two Hurricanes and two de Havilland Chipmunk training aircraft”…. Yet the AAC & FAA historic flights are both charities the RAF gets away with maintaining a ww2 vintage squadron. Next they’ll be funding a full time ww2 jazz band… Dangerous drones are definitely a story but what… Read more »
Maybe reflect on what winning the air war in WWII meant for freedom and democracy?
Supporting a small element of WWII aircraft brings massive pleasure to crowds all over the country?
It reminds people what it is all for?
It reminds me why some of my ancestors gave their lives?
I salute that generation.
BBF are a general good.
Bravo! I bit my lip and did not reply to the above…
Hear hear!! We will remember them.
Doing their job is what. Preserving and bringing to life their history is good PR, and like it or lump it, the armed forces need to do that. It also has a level of prestige.
Then on top of that, there’s also doing it for the sake of history.
Charities alone could not realistically afford to main such a squadron, as the Vulcan showed.
Well said Tams, and Supportive Bloke. The BBMF housed at RAF Coningsby are a huge asset and credit to those who maintain and fly the aircraft. The Vulcan charity has in recent months shown all the bad points about collections being held privately with the sad ending to xh558 and not to mention all the money the public have invested with a great proportion of it currently being unaccounted for.
What’s that got to do with flying drones dangerously?
Seems like you have the wrong end of the stick: the AAC and FAA charities should be government funded.
As for where the money comes from it may seem like it should come from the culture budget; however they might be more likely than the MOD to eventually scrap them.
Ali wrote:
Ali, you left out this salient snippet from said website:
Drones are a menace that needs more regulation. However, should these museum pieces be allowed to continue to fly? WW2 ended 75 years ago. Time we moved on.
As a long time fixed wing aircraft flier of many years experience, I would never consider flying my aircraft in an unsuitable location . I always fly at a club location! Now I have to fund a CAA drone register ( £9.00/ year) for these drone ‘pilots’ many of whom have little experience or training. They tend to be shunned by bona fide model aircraft flying clubs. My local club has over 180 members and to the best of my knowledge, has no operators of drones. Perhaps they should be encouraged to join a club and at least gain an… Read more »
Some moronic drone “pilots” will be the eventual death of the hobby. When you look at the new CAA rules and some of the new laws coming in to deal with the idiots doing all-sorts of cupid stunts with thier toys. It will end up making life difficult for those who use them as part of their work. We have seen the results of the so-called “auditors” who, apart from wasting resources, also put their toys over or right on the edge of sensitive sites. I saw one recently where the “auditor/pilot” flew over a police training unit that revealed… Read more »
Oh come on, a 249g drone poses no threat to anyone, as long as the drone is being flown safely and not in restricted areas its perfectly legal, what you suggest my friend is the first steps in the slippery slope to taking away even more of our freedoms, if police don’t want their identity or cars seen from the air then it’s their responsibility to hide themselves and take measures to not be seen in public, and yes, the air above their heads is public. If we give special powers to government officials to hide from the public in… Read more »
And then the government will restrict what is publicly accessible. If you want to walk on the grass, don’t dig holes in it. Else you will soon find a fence around it & no-one gets to walk on the grass.
I take it your ok with an undercover police officer going 6’ under because of this? Or are you part of the drug gang they are after?
Think about it!!! ? Not sure you did.
And the lazy government who find it easier slap draconian laws on everybody instead of actually enforcing the existing laws to the minority who cause problems.
Those problem makers who won’t comply with the new laws anyway.
The only people who will comply are the sensible people who have never caused a problem but now have their freedom to enjoy their hobby taken away.
Great pic of the Hurricane though!
They are not drone PILOTS, they are drone OPERATORS. You don’t become a pilot until you have seen the green thing going round and round and coming up to meet you.