Log in

Login to your account

Username *
Password *
Remember Me

Create an account

Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.
Name *
Username *
Password *
Verify password *
Email *
Verify email *
Captcha *

Drone owner fined €3,900 for Lisbon flight disruption

airplaneThe owner of a drone that caused the diversion of aircraft from Lisbon airport has been fined €3,900.

The incident occurred on August 20, 2018 and "led to a shutdown of the operation for eight minutes due to the closure of air traffic."

The offender has been notified of ANAC's decision as its regulations prohibit the flight of drones above 120 metres and in the approach and take-off areas of airports.

The National Civil Aviation Authority (ANAC) imposed the fine on the owner of the drone that ended up on the runway and was handed over to the authorities.

The next day, the police identified and accused the drone owner of a violation. The accused is a professional photographer who was doing work for a real estate company when he lost control of the device.

ANAC reported that in 2018, there were 53 drone incidents near national airports, almost as many as between 2013 and 2017, during which there were 59 occurrences.

The decree-law mandating the registration of drones and their insurance took effect on July 28, 2018, but to date the electronic registration platform is not yet available.

Comments  

+6 #3 chez 2019-02-10 10:36
A jail sentence would have been more appropriate.
Quote
+9 #2 Darcy 2019-02-09 19:32
You sometimes wonder whats the point in registration of of the drones unless they are registered at point of purchase, as people won't register then retrospectively.
Heathrow airport was closed for three days in December because of the drones and the police were unable to do anything about it.
Quote
-1 #1 Mike Williams 2019-02-09 13:19
Brussels has only ever (wrongly) assumed that EU member states have joined up public administration. It drafts laws to this effect. Portugal, in not having a drone registration procedure is like its implementation of training for owners of potentially dangerous dogs whereby no training procedures were in place. Are they even now?
Another current example is the lack of an all encompassing health and safety organisation in Portugal. So the Government supervised quarries now have new regulations to make their sites safe for 3rd parties nearby (but not specifically their employees!) or the Government will make safe at the owners expense. New regulations that do not apply to municipal supervised quarries. Now send us your examples.
Quote