ELOM:2023:012 | Drone flight in a park in Amsterdam | 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 in response to the observation of an officer of the regional police.

Suspected offence

Violation of Article 7(1) Unmanned Aircraft Regulations.

Facts and circumstances

The aviation police report shows that on [date in the year] 2022, the suspect flew a self-built drone in [a park] in Amsterdam. This park is located in the Schiphol CTR.

The suspect, who registered as an operator, met the conditions for flying in the open category with his flight. The suspect was flying with VR goggles and therefore did not have his drone in constant view himself, but his wife acted as an observer during the flight.

Flying in the Schiphol CTR is not permitted in the open category. The suspect stated that he was using a DJI card and thought flying the drone at this location was permitted. He flew the drone there because he wanted to practice. He flew the drone at a height of three to four metres. He stated he had been flying drones for a year and had a fair amount of experience.

Decision

The suspect flew in the open category in the Schiphol CTR, thus violating Article 7(1) of the Unmanned Aircraft Regulation. The PPS has decided to dismiss the case against the suspect. Besides the fact that the suspect appears to be a serious drone pilot and the circumstance that he did not fly higher than four metres, the PPS took into account that his drone had been seized by the police and had not yet been returned. Therefore, the suspect has not been able to fly the drone for a lengthy period and in this sense has already been affected by the consequences of the offence.