French sailor allegedly assaults Scottish drone operator

What started as a routine drone flight quickly spiralled into a violent confrontation for a Scottish drone operator at the Port of Leith, Edinburgh.

The incident led to allegations of physical assault, ensuing charges, and a contentious legal debate that’s garnering attention.

Dave Cullen was piloting his 249g drone near a French naval ship berthed in the port, the FS Chevalier Paul. While the flight was within the parameters set by existing legislation, the drone’s presence prompted four sailors to demand the operator obtain permission from the ship’s command. This confrontation swiftly escalated, resulting in the operator alleging that he received a punch to the shoulder.

Following the incident, a spokesperson for Police Scotland confirmed that an assault report had been filed at Ocean Drive in Edinburgh around 3.25pm on Sunday, 7 May. The spokesperson added, “No one was injured,” and revealed, “A 24-year-old man has been charged in connection with the assault and issued with a recorded police warning.”

However, the assault isn’t the only legal trouble stemming from this incident. The drone operator himself now faces charges regarding his drone’s operation. According to the Police Scotland spokesperson, “A 48-year-old man has been charged in connection with offences relating to the use of a drone. He will be the subject of a report to the Procurator Fiscal.”

This legal predicament has led to questions about the legitimacy of the charges laid against the drone operator. An expert in drone flight operations has told me that the operator’s flight was within the boundaries set by the UK Air Navigation Order (ANO) and the guidelines from the Drone Code issued by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). The operator maintains that he kept the drone within visual line of sight and at a safe distance from the docked ship, something backed up by flight logs I have viewed.

Adding a layer of complexity to this case is the fact that there were no flight restrictions in the area at the time of the flight. This information supports the operator’s assertion of compliance with local airspace regulations. The operator’s flight logs and considerable drone operating experience further substantiate his claims of the flight’s legality.

According to a drone flight expert I spoke to, “This flight was not reckless,” casting doubt on the charges brought against the operator. He added, “Assuming the drone is a sub-250g model. The drone was operated close enough for visual line of sight and never dangerously low or close.”

Following this incident, the operator found himself facing charges of culpable and reckless conduct from the Procurator Fiscal, who issued a conditional offer of a fiscal fine or a court appearance. This fine states that the drone flight activated the warship’s anti-terrorism measures, thereby posing a threat to the public as “reckless endangerment”.

Let’s take a closer look

The legality of the drone flight has been meticulously examined by various drone experts.

I’m told that Scottish common law defines reckless endangerment as a state of mind implying more than just negligence, indicating an element of indifference to the consequences of one’s actions. However, the operator’s careful planning, proactive risk mitigation, and strict adherence to safety guidelines seem not to align with such a definition.

Upon carefully reviewing the operator’s detailed account and supporting documentation, an expert told me that the operator acted contrary to the allegations of culpable and reckless conduct during his drone operation near the FS Chevalier Paul.

Notably, the triggering of the ship’s anti-terrorism measures – potentially due to the ship’s drone detection systems – does not necessarily imply the drone operation was reckless or illegal. Such detection systems, mainly designed for the ship’s protection in combat situations, may not accurately differentiate between a potentially harmful aerial device and a legally operating civilian drone.

The arguments against the charges of culpable and reckless conduct are thoroughly substantiated. Experts outlined their opinion as to why the flight was legal, I’ve summarised their views below.

• Compliance with the Air Navigation Order (ANO): The operator made sure to strictly adhere to the United Kingdom’s Air Navigation Order (ANO). This legal order is vital for aviation safety in the UK, which all drone operators must comply with. In particular, he paid close attention to Article 94A, which obligates any person in charge of a small unmanned aircraft to only fly the aircraft if they are reasonably satisfied that the flight can safely be made. The operator ensured that his drone was flown in a safe manner, and didn’t recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property, consistent with Article 240 of ANO 2016.
• Alignment with the UK Civil Aviation Authority’s Drone Code: The operator strictly adhered to the Drone Code issued by the UK Civil Aviation Authority. The Drone Code provides clear guidance on how to fly a drone safely and within the law. It instructs operators to stay below 120 meters (400ft) to avoid endangering other aircraft. The operator aligned with Article 95 of the ANO, which details the restrictions on flying small unmanned aircraft in accordance with a permission issued by the CAA.
• Observance of Updated Separation Distances: Following the update to the UK drone regulations (CAP 722) in December 2021, drones weighing less than 250 grams, like the operator’s, don’t require specific horizontal separation distances from uninvolved people, provided the flight is conducted safely. The operator strictly adhered to these rules, emphasising his commitment to lawful drone operation.
• Adherence to NOTAMs or Flight Restrictions: Before operating his drone, the operator conducted a thorough review of any active Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) or flight restrictions in the area. This aspect of pre-flight planning ensured his compliance with Article 91 of the ANO, which instructs operators not to fly in restricted areas without permission. This demonstrates his responsible and law-abiding approach to drone operation.
• Absence of Reckless Behaviour: In Scots law, for a behaviour to be characterised as reckless, it has to be proven that a person was aware of a risk associated with their actions and proceeded regardless, demonstrating a disregard for those potential consequences. In the context of the Air Navigation Order’s Article 241, the charge of recklessness involves a person acting in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or any person in an aircraft, while being aware of such risk and not caring about the potential consequences. In the operator’s case, such a characterisation of recklessness is untenable. His conduct prior to and during the flight was rooted in a careful assessment of the circumstances, and a meticulous observance of all relevant regulations. He was aware of and deeply committed to the safety requirements inherent in drone operation. From ensuring the device was in good working order, to carefully planning its flight path to avoid any restricted areas, every action was taken to minimise potential risks. He diligently followed the guidelines set out by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the Air Navigation Order (ANO) 2016. Furthermore, as an experienced drone operator, he is well-versed in the principles of safe and responsible drone operation, including maintaining line of sight with the drone, observing the height limit, and ensuring a safe distance from people, buildings, and vehicles.

These points, supported by the specific legislation, clearly demonstrate the view that the operator’s drone operation was both responsible and legal. Any allegations of reckless conduct or endangerment appear to be unfounded.  This reinforces the need for a more nuanced understanding of drone operations and their relevant legal frameworks.

What next?

The drone operator, Dave Cullen, has decided, due to the immense legal cost involved in fighting the charge, to settle. The operator is someone that you may not know by name but you’ll know his work as he frequently contributes fantastic photos of warship to the UK Defence Journal and as such, I’d urge you to support him in paying the settlement if you enjoy the content he allows us to bring you free of charge.

You can help Dave Cullen below, I already have.