ELOM:2023:011 | Drone flight port area | North Holland

Decision in Aviation Case | 10-05-2023

PPS Decision

in the case against a drone operator, referred to below as the suspect.

Reason for the investigation

The investigation was launched after a Customs surveillance unit stopped a man allegedly flying a drone over the port area of company [A] on the Maasvlakte in Rotterdam on [date in year] 2022.

Suspected offence

Violation of Article 4(1) opening words under e Unmanned Aircraft Zoning Regulations (flight operation restriction referred to in Article 15 in conjunction with UAS.OPEN.060(2)(c) Regulation 2019/947) or Article 5(1) Regulation 2019/947.

Facts and circumstances

Based on the submitted official report, it can be established that two officers of the regional police went to the scene on [date in year] 2022 and found the suspect there. The suspect stated that he had been filming the port with his drone (DJI Mavic Air 2S) on behalf of a company [B]. The suspect further stated that he had permission from this company to fly over their port site. When asked, he said he had no exemption or permission from the Dutch CAA (the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate) to fly over the port site.

Decision

The PPS dismissed the case against the suspect. The official report was received on 2 May 2023 and shows that no further investigation was carried out after [date in year] 2022, not even in response to Customs' written notice of the reason for the investigation. According to that written notice, Customs was preparing for a flight with a Customs drone and had consulted the drone detection system. A drone was detected at an altitude of 416 metres in a no-fly zone. Customs responded by calling in the police.

Based on that information, the suspect does not appear to have met a condition for the open category (no flying above an altitude of 120 metres). This would formally constitute another offence, as the no-fly zone applies to flights in the open category. Flying without a licence in the specific category constitutes an offence under Article 5(1) Regulation 2019/947.

The memory card of the drone was not seized or examined. For that reason, Customs' information cannot be compared with the data registered by the drone. Nor was the suspect heard about these findings. Given the passage of time, the PPS believes it is no longer appropriate to conduct any further investigation into the suspicions. The case was therefore dismissed.