Drones......again. Why??

[iPilot]

How is it that CASA limits us from flying no closer than 500ft and 600m horizontal from the population (1 person) where as a drone operator can fly his 5kg to 10kg unit less than 5ft above the ground within a radius of less than 3 feet of the populous at a major event at speeds fast enough to follow triathlete cyclists. If that thing failed, like so many do, they would have no where to go except into the crowd at anywhere from 20kph to at least 50kph.

I've just watched a few clips from Clip Media Motion and what scares me is that theses things are allowed so dangerously close to the public, at both speed and height.

Why the double standards?

[BenThomas]

With tounge firmly in cheek.............................Because the havn't killed enough people yet.

[Jamie]

Really?
You can't see the difference between a 7kg drone and a 2000kg+ squirrel crashing into a crowd whilst filming?

[hand in pants]

Jamie, you would really accept someone hitting you with a 7 kg object (with spinning propellers) at 20 to 50 kph.

Really?

[Jamienz]

Its an interesting debate - I have a foot in both camps so to speak as I have been doing Aerial photography and video with RC helicopters since 2008 and am now 2/3 of my way through a CPL here in NZ. About a year ago I sold up my RC equipment. Early on there were so few of us doing it that it was common sense - we NEVER flew over people and tried to be as safe as possible. We were limited by line of sight, so never got close to 400', and the loud helicopters meant we couldn't exactly fly incognito. Now days, anyone with a spare grand in their back burner can become a "professional" aerial photographer. Unlike in the past these are off the shelf units that require little or no understanding to operate. The barrier for entry is virtually nothing, and this means that people who seem to be clueless about anything aeronautical are now flying these things (for hire and reward in lots of cases) in unsuitable environments.

Im in favour of heavy regulation on commercial operations and operating RC aircraft over a certain weight threshold. Its crazy that people can fly these things around completely unaware of any legalities or technical limitations/risks of their aircraft. The risk is huge -a lot of these drones bust 10KG and like the previous poster mentioned, have 15" carbon knives spinning at 5000-10000 RPM. Its gotta be controlled

[DADFA]

How is it that CASA limits us from flying no closer than 500ft and 600m horizontal from the population?

It is actually 300 m for helicopters but that does not diminish the point of the OP.

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 157
Low flying

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft over:

(a) any city, town or populous area at a height lower than 1,000 feet; or

(b) any other area at a height lower than 500 feet.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

Note: For strict liability , see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code .

(3) A height specified in subregulation (1) is the height above the highest point of the terrain, and any object on it, within a radius of:

(a) in the case of an aircraft other than a helicopter--600 metres; or

(b) in the case of a helicopter--300 metres;

from a point on the terrain vertically below the aircraft.

[Jamie]

Hand in pants said

Jamie, you would really accept someone hitting you with a 7 kg object (with spinning propellers) at 20 to 50 kph

How did you get that i would accept being hit by a 7kg object from my post?? Maybe time to remove hand from pants.

For a start, a UAV is not allowed to operate 'within a 3 foot radius from the populous at a major event'. You must have an Area Approval to operate at a major event and at anytime be no closer than 30m away from people not associated with the operation. Would you rather the rules be changed to be the same as helicopters? I would much rather have them way under me personally.
Using an example of an illegal operator breaking the rules is just as naive as blaming all helicopter pilots for some idiot pilot doing the wrong thing.

My point was there are different rules because of the obvious difference in risk factors.
There are 2 very recent examples of crashes from both helicopter and UAV at major events. The chopper rolled after a dynamic roll over and killed an attendee and the illegally flown UAV crashed directly into a competitor and she was slightly injured.

The problem here is not the UAVs or the associated rules, it's the fact that anybody with half a brain can buy a small UAV at the local camera shop and fly it anywhere without the required knowledge of the rules.

[Hello Pilots]

From a month ago
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/techno ... zqruh.html

[phugoyd]

Lets make the regulator even larger, all around the world people spectate within a few centimetres of certain death and we object to a flying object!

You give any object to an idiot and he will injure someone, be it a drone or a stick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D09yD0MN4Vg

[iPilot]

Really?
You can't see the difference between a 7kg drone and a 2000kg+ squirrel crashing into a crowd whilst filming?

I see a massive difference.

Having a failure in a Squirrel, you would assume that it won't all stop right there. You'll have warning indicators, noises and the pilot will "feel" any type of power reduction or difference in torque, not to mention alarms and other indicators within the cockpit. lastly, the pilot can autorotate to an area that, hopefully, has no one around.

What indication does a drone operator have for an impending failure or separation? If he / she loses power or a blade detaches, the only indication they'll have is a complete loss of control. Autorotation on a drone? Yeah right!

Oh and the Squirrel pilot should have the ability to move the aircraft well away from any crowd or dangerous areas.

[Jamienz]

Really?
You can't see the difference between a 7kg drone and a 2000kg+ squirrel crashing into a crowd whilst filming?

I see a massive difference.

Having a failure in a Squirrel, you would assume that it won't all stop right there. You'll have warning indicators, noises and the pilot will "feel" any type of power reduction or difference in torque, not to mention alarms and other indicators within the cockpit. lastly, the pilot can autorotate to an area that, hopefully, has no one around.

What indication does a drone operator have for an impending failure or separation? If he / she loses power or a blade detaches, the only indication they'll have is a complete loss of control. Autorotation on a drone? Yeah right!

Oh and the Squirrel pilot should have the ability to move the aircraft well away from any crowd or dangerous areas.

The biggest difference is that the squirrel pilot has had a minimum of 150 hrs (obviously usually more) commercial training to deal with emergencies and how to not get himself in the s#!t in the first place. A drone pilot has none, and we are relying on their common sense as training. Not only that but the drone is almost always operated low and close to people.

[Juzz]

taken from http://www.uavsms.com.au ... anything other than this has to be approved by CASA

[trgbox]

Drones do have indicators of impending problems from basic lights to visual warning panels on a computer or built in to the transmitters screen, depending on the sophistication of the airframe. Like all rotorcraft, drones can auto-rotate to some degree. The multi-rotor drones can't so they manage the risk by having dual engines on each arm or by having up to eight arms with one engine on each. For example an Octo has eight engines and can operate comfortably with an OEI situation of losing up to two engines. It wont be pretty but you can fly away from the risk and return to home. Much like a tail rotor emergency.
We are only as good as the standard of training and the instructors. A thorough pre and post flight inspection/s are the key to minimise the risk.

I fly both drones and helicopters commercially.

Really?
You can't see the difference between a 7kg drone and a 2000kg+ squirrel crashing into a crowd whilst filming?

I see a massive difference.

Having a failure in a Squirrel, you would assume that it won't all stop right there. You'll have warning indicators, noises and the pilot will "feel" any type of power reduction or difference in torque, not to mention alarms and other indicators within the cockpit. lastly, the pilot can autorotate to an area that, hopefully, has no one around.

What indication does a drone operator have for an impending failure or separation? If he / she loses power or a blade detaches, the only indication they'll have is a complete loss of control. Autorotation on a drone? Yeah right!

Oh and the Squirrel pilot should have the ability to move the aircraft well away from any crowd or dangerous areas.

The biggest difference is that the squirrel pilot has had a minimum of 150 hrs (obviously usually more) commercial training to deal with emergencies and how to not get himself in the s#!t in the first place. A drone pilot has none, and we are relying on their common sense as training. Not only that but the drone is almost always operated low and close to people.

[Jamie]

Jamienz wrote

The biggest difference is that the squirrel pilot has had a minimum of 150 hrs (obviously usually more) commercial training to deal with emergencies and how to not get himself in the s#!t in the first place. A drone pilot has none, and we are relying on their common sense as training. Not only that but the drone is almost always operated low and close to people.

Just a couple of questions Jamienz;
1) When you say a drone pilot has 'no commercial training' on how to deal with emergencies, on what facts/evidence do you make that statement?
2) Have you done a UAV training course as required by to be a CASA certified controller?

You are grouping 'drone pilots' as one and that is a poor assumption. There are highly trained certified UAV controllers and untrained private RC enthusiasts and a huge difference between the two.

[Jamienz]

Jamienz wrote

The biggest difference is that the squirrel pilot has had a minimum of 150 hrs (obviously usually more) commercial training to deal with emergencies and how to not get himself in the s#!t in the first place. A drone pilot has none, and we are relying on their common sense as training. Not only that but the drone is almost always operated low and close to people.

Just a couple of questions Jamienz;
1) When you say a drone pilot has 'no commercial training' on how to deal with emergencies, on what facts/evidence do you make that statement?
2) Have you done a UAV training course as required by to be a CASA certified controller?

You are grouping 'drone pilots' as one and that is a poor assumption. There are highly trained certified UAV controllers and untrained private RC enthusiasts and a huge difference between the two.

Sorry you are correct - I am confusing NZ drone pilots with the OZ ones. Here there is no commercial training. I know this because I have spoken to the CAA about it. Only guidelines not regulations. You can apply for CAA approval but that is only a pat on the back, and nothing stopping people with no experience selling their services as Aerial Photographers. I am unfamiliar with the Australian rules. That being said, its obvious that there are a lot of people doing it outside of CASA certification - these are the ones that I would be worried about.

I haven't done a CASA course as I am in NZ, but did look into the CAA recommendations and complied with those here. There were no legally binding regulations only recommendations (such as having passed an FRTO paper, and PPL Law exam as well as 10 hours in a fixed wing).

Sorry if I caused any confusion I was speaking from the kiwi perspective, although it seems like the issues are the same. Great to see that CASA have been pro active about it.

Seems like its a global issue though - the number of drones in the skies is only going to grow.

p.s. I hate the term drones as well, as it does not really make any distinction.

[Jamienz]

Drones do have indicators of impending problems from basic lights to visual warning panels on a computer or built in to the transmitters screen, depending on the sophistication of the airframe. Like all rotorcraft, drones can auto-rotate to some degree. The multi-rotor drones can't so they manage the risk by having dual engines on each arm or by having up to eight arms with one engine on each. For example an Octo has eight engines and can operate comfortably with an OEI situation of losing up to two engines. It wont be pretty but you can fly away from the risk and return to home. Much like a tail rotor emergency.
We are only as good as the standard of training and the instructors. A thorough pre and post flight inspection/s are the key to minimise the risk.

I fly both drones and helicopters commercially.



The biggest difference is that the squirrel pilot has had a minimum of 150 hrs (obviously usually more) commercial training to deal with emergencies and how to not get himself in the s#!t in the first place. A drone pilot has none, and we are relying on their common sense as training. Not only that but the drone is almost always operated low and close to people.

[/quote]

I guess I am referring to the majority of the machines being used for aerial videography - not really the aerial mapping fixed wing or high end multis that droidworx are coming out with for ag work. The run of the mill hex and octos with a gimbal and downlink. I haven't seen one with any real warning system and I definitely haven't seen one that will autorotate. Obviously the single rotor machines can auto technically, but weather or not they do is another question. The flip side for the multis is that a lot of them claim redundancy with extra motors etc, but nothing is really proven. Most are loaded up so much that when a motor/esc fails they still come down..

[hoverthrust]

News Media Challenge Ban on Journalism Drones
WASHINGTON May 6, 2014 (AP)
By JOAN LOWY Associated Press
Associated Press

More than a dozen media organizations challenged the government's ban on the use of drones by journalists Tuesday, saying the Federal Aviation Administration's position violates First Amendment protections for news gathering.

The organizations, including The Associated Press, filed a brief with the National Transportation Safety Board in support of aerial photographer Raphael Pirker. Pirker was fined $10,000 by the FAA for flying a small drone near the University of Virginia to make a commercial video in October 2011. He appealed the fine to the safety board, which hears challenges to FAA decisions.

An administrative law judge ruled in March that the FAA can't enforce its policy against all commercial use of drones when the agency hasn't issued regulations for those uses. The FAA has appealed the judge's decision to the full five-member safety board. Agency officials have said they hope to issue regulations for the use of small drones later this year.

The FAA won't currently issue drone permits to news organizations. Officials have sent warning letters to journalists found to have used small unmanned aircraft — most of them no bigger than a backpack — to take photos and videos. The agency suggested to one Ohio newspaper that it refrain from publishing video of a burning building taken independently by a drone hobbyist, even though hobbyists, unlike journalists, are permitted to fly drones, according to the brief.

"The FAA's position is untenable as it rests on a fundamental misunderstanding about journalism. News gathering is not a 'business purpose.' It is a First Amendment right," the brief said.

The FAA said in a statement late Tuesday it was concerned that the NTSB judge's decision "could impact the safe operation of the national airspace system and the safety of people and property on the ground."

Media organizations are intensely interested in using drones for photography and videos because they are far less expensive to buy and operate than a manned airplane or helicopter, and because their size and versatility provide visual perspectives often not possible with manned aircraft.

Integrating unmanned aircraft into the national airspace also has the potential to improve the safety of reporting under less-than-ideal conditions, and unmanned aircraft by their nature pose less risk than helicopters, the news organizations said. Reports on traffic, hurricanes, wildfires, and crop yields could all be told more safely and cost-effectively with the use of unmanned aircraft, it said.

"This brief, filed by the country's leading news organizations, supports the proposition we have argued that federal agencies must consult with the public before banning the use of new technologies that have many beneficial purposes," said attorney Brendan Schulman, who is representing Pirker. "The argument becomes even stronger when First Amendment considerations are taken into account."

Other media groups participating in the brief are Advance Publications Inc., Cox Media Group, Gannett Co., Gray Television Inc., Hearst Corporation, The McClatchy Company, the National Press Photographers Association, The National Press Club, The New York Times Company, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the Radio-Television Digital News Association, Scripps Media Inc., Sinclair Broadcast Group Inc., the Tribune Company and The Washington Post.
.....
here is the link to that article
http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/news-media-challenges-ban-journalism-drones-23608133

[iPilot]

Here's an interesting one.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/ ... UU20140509

[Hello Pilots]

"An administrative law judge ruled in March that the FAA can't enforce its policy against all commercial use of drones when the agency hasn't issued regulations for those uses"
Exactly
The poor old yanks, with particular help of the current administration all their amendments are slowly eroding away. Jefferson will be rolling in his grave

[CYHeli]

CASA has released this now, NPRM 1309OS - Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems.

Full details on this link here.