CASA, good luck controlling this!

[thunderbird five]

Drone vision.
LiveLeak.com - Drone flight over Australia's tallest building


So, here we have a holidaymaker, doing some great video in QLD, seemingly oblivious to our regulations, taking a drone way up high, in an area where VFR often transit at 500 to 1000 feet. Awesome.


How on earth does CASA ever expect to control everything, like this?
THEY CAN'T! They can regulate til the cows come home, and it isn't going to make one bit of difference. Should they even bother spend the money trying?

[ozbiggles]

Yes
yes they should.
It's no different to idiots with lasers.
Hard to catch but once you do, fine them and jail them.
There is only one place for lasers and that's on sharks.

[004wercras]

Q1 is 322m, drones are allowed to fly up to 400m before infringing airspace I thought? And not within 3nm of an aerodrome.
Either way it won't be long until some boofhead prangs one into something serious. They've already hit the Sydney Harbour Bridge and been found smashed along the RWY at YSSY :=
Besides, you would getter better 'vision' alongside Q1 at night time. Sometimes people can be so forgetful about pulling the curtains shut :E

[Going Nowhere]

BN TWR made a broadcast to a UAV operator 5nm South of the field today. Asked them to remain below 300ft

[500N]

Besides, you would getter better 'vision' alongside Q1 at night time. Sometimes people can be so forgetful about pulling the curtains shut


With the cost of FLIR cameras plummeting (as well as drone prices), I would expect some interesting footage to appear on youtube in the future.

[404 Titan]

004wercras

It’s 400ft not 400m and must not be flown over any populous area. There are other rules too ie, keeping the drone in sight which this idiot has broken as well.

[waren9]

theres laws about driving too fast too.

doesnt stop that.

[Fantome]

AGENT 004 . . . you have outed yourself . .. Mr Thomas a'Peepen

[chimbu warrior]

theres laws about driving too fast too. doesnt stop that.

Waren you are correct, however on the road I can usually see threats and hopefully avoid them. If I am sliding down the ILS at night it is a completely different matter, and I am sure a drone (operated by a drongo) could cause me significant harm.

I fully support CASA's efforts to regulate drones/UAV's, as it is a risk I cannot control myself.

[Andy_RR]

400ft limit only in controlled airspace, otherwise it's only "line-of-sight", whatever that can be construed to mean.

[404 Titan]

Any_RR

That is incorrect. 400ft is applicable "OCTA". Drones are forbidden in "CTA" period without CASA approval.

[Flying Binghi]

Once sundry nutters start exploring all the dark side drone possibilities i suspects drones in civvy hands will be thought of in the same way as semi auto rifles in civvy hands...










.

[onetrack]

Woo-hoo! We're camping in the sub-penthouse of the Q1 on the 48th floor, from Friday, for a week.
Looks like it could be worth taking the 12 ga up with us for some drone target .. errr .. clay target practice!! :E :)

[Andy_RR]

Any_RR

That is incorrect. 400ft is applicable "OCTA". Drones are forbidden in "CTA" period without CASA approval.

chapter and verse, please, including all get-out clauses...

[Andy_RR]

I tender this in evidence...



101.070 Operation in controlled airspace
(1) A person may operate an unmanned aircraft above 400 feet AGL in controlled airspace only:





101.400 Operation of model aircraft outside approved areas
(1) A person may operate a model aircraft outside an approved area above 400 feet AGL only if he or she:
(a) keeps it in sight; and
(b) keeps it clear of populous areas.

[Fliegenmong]

"If I am sliding down the ILS at night it is a completely different matter"

Not at Cooly you won't ....

101 8.2 -

8.2 Finding Model Flying Sites for Model Aircraft
8.2.1 The operator of a model aircraft weighing over 100 grams is required to obtain
permission before flying a model above 400 ft AGL within controlled airspace or within 3
nautical miles of an aerodrome. While this rule means that a model aircraft may be flown
above 400 ft AGL clear of these areas, there are advantages in seeking approval for a
permanent model aircraft operating area. Publication of the details of a model aircraft
operating area means that other users of airspace will be advised where there is potential
for conflict with model aircraft.


8.2.1 The operator of a model aircraft weighing over 100 grams is required to obtain
permission before flying a model above 400 ft AGL within controlled airspace or within 3
nautical miles of an aerodrome. While this rule means that a model aircraft may be flown
above 400 ft AGL clear of these areas

No Law broken then.....OCTA, and greater than 3 nm from OOL .... :ooh:


So, here we have a holidaymaker, doing some great video in QLD, seemingly oblivious to our regulations, taking a drone way up high, in an area where VFR often transit at 500 to 1000 feet. Awesome.

Perhaps even more conversant with our regulations than you thunder 5?

As a resident of this fine town I regularly observe VFR traffic transiting here......never ever ever as close to these buildings as that drone guy in the video, and I most certainly hope none ever do!!

[004wercras]

It’s 400ft not 400m and must not be flown over any populous area. There are other rules too ie, keeping the drone in sight which this idiot has broken as well. Good update and correction :ok: Cheers

[404 Titan]

Andy_RR

How about you post the complete section.

101.070 Operation in controlled airspace

(1) A person may operate an unmanned aircraft above 400 feet AGL in controlled airspace only:

(a) in an area approved under regulation 101.030 as an area for the operation of unmanned aircraft of the same kind as the aircraft, and in accordance with any conditions of the approval; and

(b) in accordance with an air traffic control clearance.

So what is an Area approved under regulation 101.030?

101.030 Approval of areas for operation of unmanned aircraft or rockets

(1) A person may apply to CASA for the approval of an area as an area for the operation of:

(a) unmanned aircraft generally, or a particular class of unmanned aircraft; or
(b) rockets.

(2) For paragraph (1)(a), the classes of unmanned aircraft are the following:

(a) tethered balloons and kites;
(b) unmanned free balloons;
(c) UAVs;
(d) model aircraft.

(3) In considering whether to approve an area for any of those purposes, CASA must take into account the likely effect on the safety of air navigation of the operation of unmanned aircraft in, or the launching of rockets in or over, the area.

(4) An approval has effect from the time written notice of it is given to the applicant, or a later day or day and time stated in the approval.

(5) An approval may be expressed to have effect for a particular period (including a period of less than 1 day), or indefinitely.

(6) CASA may impose conditions on the approval in the interests of the safety of air navigation.

(7) If CASA approves an area under subregulation (1), it must publish details of the approval including any condition) in NOTAM or on an aeronautical chart.

(8) CASA may revoke the approval of an area, or change the conditions that apply to such an approval, in the interests of the safety of air navigation, but must publish details of any revocation or change in NOTAM or on an aeronautical chart.

(9) CASA must also give written notice of the revocation or change:

(a) to the person who applied for the approval of the area; or
(b) if that person applied for that approval as an officer of an organisation concerned with unmanned aircraft or rockets, and no longer holds that office—to the person who now holds the office.

Section 101.400 Operation of model aircraft outside approved areas isn't applicable to UAV. Section 101.250 is the applicable section.

101.250 Where small UAVs may be operated

(1) A person may operate a small UAV outside an approved area only if:

(a) where the UAV is operated above 400 feet AGL, the operator has CASA’s approval to do so; and
(b) the UAV stays clear of populous areas.

101.085 Maximum operating height

(1) A person may operate an unmanned aircraft at above 400 feet AGL only:

(a) in an area approved under regulation 101.030 as an area for the operation of unmanned aircraft of the same class as the aircraft concerned, and in accordance with any conditions of the approval; or
(b) as otherwise permitted by this Part.

101.245 Operation near people

(1) Subject to subregulations (2) and (3), a person must not operate a UAV within 30 metres of a person who is not directly associated with the operation of the UAV.

(2) Subregulation (1) does not apply in relation to a person who stands behind the UAV while it is taking off.

(3) Subregulation (1) also does not prevent the operation of a UAV airship within 30 metres of a person if the airship approaches no closer to the person than 10 metres horizontally and 30 feet vertically.

You have confused as has Fliegenmong the section regarding "Model Aircraft" with UAV's. As can be seen different rules apply. Fliegenmong has also quoted an "Advisory Circular" rather than using the CASR Part 101.

[Sunfish]

If I ever see a UAV low enough over my property I'll get the shotgun on to it immediately although I have yet to determine the correct "drone load".

[500N]

Within 60 - 70 yards, 32 - 36gms of No 4's ;)

[cockney steve]

Just what is the difference between a model aircraft and a UAV?

At what stage of design /equipping, does a flying-machine belong to one or the other group?

just curious, I mean,the place is probably infested with them and it's SOOOO important an issue that CASA will have to expend enormous efforts in the framong of regulations.

In the UK, model aircraft are,largely,controlled by the British Model Aircraft Association...above a certain weight, the CAA have an interest and anything used for Business (Aerial Photography/live filming) they also have an interest in.

R/C model heli's have, for several years, been able to carry remote still and movie cameras,often gimbal -suspended with a second operator and multi-channel radio for the A/V side of things.....the price has crashed dramatically in the last ~3 years and quad-copters with a wireless camera are now in the reach of any tom,dick or harry. I forsee a lot of hassle ahead for legitimate operators, caused by "joe soap" running amok with them.

[Sunfish]

500N:

Within 60 - 70 yards, 32 - 36gms of No 4's


Maybe we need a "net round" and maybe a few busted drones hanging on the front fence might warn others off.

On a more serious note, I am concerned that the larger drones could be a serious hazard if ingested into a jet engine, perhaps on takeoff. My opinion is that the land areas at the end of runways out to about the 500ft altitude are going to have to be made "no go areas" to try to keep the stupid pricks away because some little ***** is going to think it would be "cool" to get a video of a jet taking off...from above.

[500N]

I just logged in to add to my previous post.

As much as it is tempting, I wouldn't let rip at a drone with a firearm.
That is unless you want to end up in court.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

...and once again.
What is the true role of the CASA? Is it safety regulation or enterprise regulation? Noting that the UAV is the means to an end. The UAV is first and foremost, a platform for a camera. Model flying is opposite, the flying of the model is first and foremost.

If the CASA is serious about public safety then it needs to get serious about public education because in the modern connected world, they have missed the boat...or is that byte. The technology inherent in a modern UAV doesn't need any basic flying skills to operate it. Unlike a model helicopter which requires skills equal or even superior to the flying of an actual helicopter.

Because there is no skill that needs learning, there is no need for a club based environment. The individual needs only to purchase, charge up, equip and practise operating the preprogrammed machine to be able to start gathering footage...the intended purpose...in very little time.

This hobby/industry/ART has gone beyond regulatory control. All that is required to produce ART is just a dream away. You no longer need an army and a budget to gather stunning cinema quality aerial footage, you just need a cheap UAV and the right camera. YouTube and GoPro has fueled this explosion of ART!

If the CASA wants to help keep the public safe then they need to get in the face of these ARTISTS on the same medium. The message is simple, right place only...forget about restriction...that boat/byte has already left.

Get on YouTube. Get the message out there on where the line is.

[Critical Reynolds No]

I would of thought the odds of hitting a seagull or any other winged friend at those heights would be more of a worry.

[500N]

Oz

"Get on YouTube. Get the message out there on where the line is."

I think I said the same thing on the earlier thread.

All it takes is for them to pay for an advert in front of the major drone videos - informative, not dictotorial one's.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Didn't see your post, 500N, but am glad to reinforce your message. Correct thoughts regarding advert. Dictating terms will amount to a hill of beans now.

[onetrack]

As much as it is tempting, I wouldn't let rip at a drone with a firearm.
That is unless you want to end up in court.

That's an interesting point. It IS illegal to discharge a firearm in a suburban area, from, onto or across a road, and to discharge it with intent to cause fear.

However, a licenced firearms owner, discharging his firearm on his own rural property, could quite easily argue he wasn't wearing his glasses when he spotted an aerial pest, that he mistook for another variety of species. :E

There was no illegality in the discharge, no intent to cause fear (no-one was visble within sight or range), and you were engaged in the reduction of aerial vermin.
I rest my case, M'Lud. :)

[500N]

Rural property maybe, but apart from hunters using drones - and they will
- the only danger is likely to be the farmer in his aircraft or helo (and they are sometimes a danger unto themselves :O).

Either way, someone needs to connect with the users via their medium.

[onetrack]

There's another angle here that isn't even covered by CASA regulations. I don't know about others thoughts - but a drone weighing say a kilogram or two, suffering a power failure at the height of a 50 story building, and falling into a crowded suburban street, is almost certain to cause injury to persons.

The CASA regulations only cover the possibility of personal injury created by, or after, collision with an aircraft in the air.
AFAIC, those regulations are inadequate, and I believe it should be illegal to operate a drone where the risk of injury to innocent persons on the ground is high, if it falls from the sky due to mechanical or technical failure.

Drone Operators to be handed guidelines on operation (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/backyard-drone-operators-to-be-handed-guidelines-after-one-crashed-into-the-harbour-bridge/story-fni0cx12-1226904266990?nk=6cab1dbf7e154750e7eb62c8a1cee8e8)

[Andy_RR]

You have confused as has Fliegenmong the section regarding "Model Aircraft" with UAV's. As can be seen different rules apply. Fliegenmong has also quoted an "Advisory Circular" rather than using the CASR Part 101.

Thing is, if you are operating for "sport or recreation" then it is a model aircraft irrespective of what it looks like. (101.235 Applicability of this Subpart) It only becomes a UAV if it is used for purposes "other than sport or recreation", thus many of the UAV-specific clauses do not apply.

So, for Joe Public, flying his DJI Phantom, he is subject to pretty much Subparts 101B, C and G and that's about it. Subpart F is specifically excluded by 101.235

So, based on all of that, for DJI Phantoms and the like, it's a free-for-all in CTA up to 400ft and as high as you like OCTA - which is pretty much what I said in my first post.

[Andy_RR]

There's another angle here that isn't even covered by CASA regulations. I don't know about others thoughts - but a drone weighing say a kilogram or two, suffering a power failure at the height of a 50 story building, and falling into a crowded suburban street, is almost certain to cause injury to persons.

This is clearly covered by 101.245 for what it's worth (10 penalty units!)

Aside from the fact you'll be taken to the cleaners in a civil suit. The liability risk that some people are (ignorantly) prepared to take is pretty breathtaking sometimes...

[DWB50]

At a recent sanctioned cross country motor cycle competition (NSW) an individual turned up with a quadcopter/camera. One parent of a junior competitor objected to its presence on the grounds of infringement of privacy. Given the fact that there were umpteen other people photographing the event conventionally this was rejected. The operator of the UAV told organisers he could fly it however he liked including to over 1 km altitude.

During the course of his activity, he lost control of the device & crashed it into a competitor waiting to start a race on the start line. Fortunately, of course the rider was wearing a crash helmet & no injury was sustained, although the UAV was seriously damaged.

I believe the organisers are implementing a ban on UAV's at future events.

[404 Titan]

Andy_RR

Definitions

Part 1—Definitions

Model Aircraft - means an aircraft that is used for sport or recreation, and cannot carry a person.

Small UAV—see regulation 101.240.

UAV—see regulation 101.240.

Subpart 101.F—UAVs

Division 101.F.1—General

101.235 Applicability of this Subpart

(1) This Subpart applies to:
(a) the operation of a large UAV; and
(b) the operation of a small UAV for purposes other than sport or recreation.

Note 1: There is no practicable distinction between a small UAV and a model aircraft except that of use—model aircraft are flown only for the sport of flying them. (As soon as you add a camera you aren't "ONLY" using it for the sport of flying them therefore you don't fall under the CASA definition (see above) of a "Model Aircraft" which by their definition is used for "Sport or Recreation").
Note 2: For large UAV and small UAV, see regulation 101.240. For model aircraft see the Dictionary.

(2) Nothing in this Subpart applies to the operation of a UAV if:
(a) while it is being operated, the person operating it keeps it in sight; and
(b) it is operated in a way that complies with Subpart 101.G.

(3) This Subpart does not apply to the operation of a micro UAV.

Note 1: See subregulation 101.005 (3).
Note 2: For micro UAV, see regulation 101.240.

By CASA's own definitions most UAV aren't being used only for the sport of flying them therefore subpart 101.F UAV's most definitely applies.

[Squawk7700]

Do these things have a GPS altimeter fitted that shows the height to the controller?

[404 Titan]

Andy_RR
So, based on all of that, for DJI Phantoms and the like, it's a free-for-all in CTA up to 400ft and as high as you like OCTA - which is pretty much what I said in my first post.

No you can't.

101.055 Hazardous operation prohibited
(1) A person must not operate an unmanned aircraft in a way that creates a hazard to another aircraft, another person, or property. (As manned aircraft are allowed to operate down to 500ft in unbuilt up areas, except in the course of taking off and landing, operating an unmanned aircraft at ≥500 ft. would create a hazard to manned aircraft. This is exactly the same logic that is applied to someone that drives a car in a hazardous manning that could endanger other people’s lives. It doesn’t matter if there are other people or not. The act in itself is what is hazardous).

(2) A person must not launch a rocket that is not an aircraft in a way that creates a hazard to an aircraft.


(3) A person must not launch a rocket that is not an aircraft in a way that creates a hazard to another person or to property.


(4) It is not a defence to a charge of contravening subregulation (1), (2) or (3) that the relevant unmanned aircraft was being operated, or the relevant rocket was launched, in a way that complied with the operations manual of an approved aviation administration organisation.

(5) In subregulations (2) and (3):

rocket includes a firework rocket, regardless of whether it can rise more than 400 feet above ground level or not.

[*Lancer*]

Although Bloggs farmer might 'mistake' a UAV for a goose, they'll still get nailed on destruction of property... That 60 minutes drone looks expensive!

[Andy_RR]

(As manned aircraft are allowed to operate down to 500ft in unbuilt up areas, except in the course of taking off and landing, operating an unmanned aircraft at ≥500 ft. would create a hazard to manned aircraft. This is exactly the same logic that is applied to someone that drives a car in a hazardous manning that could endanger other people’s lives. It doesn’t matter if there are other people or not. The act in itself is what is hazardous).

Excluding hazardous operation isn't the same thing as excluding operation. The very existence of a UAV in airspace isn't a hazard because the pilot (in open airspace) also has a duty to see and avoid. You are drawing long bow in your interpretation, perhaps in an attempt to prove you were right.

The simple fact is, contrary to your earlier assertion - you can operate an unmanned aircraft in controlled airspace for purposes of sport or recreation.

You also can't use the notes as binding definitions to make your case, since the regulation uses "or" between the words "sport" and "recreation" and "the sport of flying" doesn't necessarily encompass the many things one might do with an unmanned aircraft for purposes of recreation. FPV is a classic example of recreational flying with the use of cameras.

[CaptainMidnight]

Basically if you use one to make a $, its considered a UAV and the rules applicable to UAVs apply.

If you use one purely for a hobby (sport or recreation), its considered a model aircraft, and another rule set applies.

Re operations in controlled airspace, Airservices has a summary of what is required.

Unmanned Aerial Systems in Controlled Airspace | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/unmanned-aerial-systems-in-controlled-airspace/)

CASA could in part address the ignorance of Joe Public by putting reasonable size ads in some of the daily newspapers outlining the rules re can and what can't be done.

There was talk of a draft Advisory Circular a good 18 months ago, but now I guess they have moved on to the NPRM.

[404 Titan]

Andy_RR

Excluding hazardous operation isn't the same thing as excluding operation. The very existence of a UAV in airspace isn't a hazard because the pilot (in open airspace) also has a duty to see and avoid. You are drawing long bow in your interpretation, perhaps in an attempt to prove you were right.

And from this statement you are making an assumption that the pilot of a potential manned aircraft knows the UAV is there. To place the burden on the manned aircraft’s pilot to “see and avoid” is a cop out by you to try and shift the burden of responsibility. It is one think to “see and avoid” another manned aircraft. It’s completely another thing to expect him/her to “see and avoid” something that is the size of a flee. The mere fact that 99.9% UAV operators, commercial ones being the exception can’t advise a potential manned aircraft’s pilot of its presence makes it a hazard, period.

Now the other problem with your argument is that to fly ≤400ft in CTA, is that the UAV will most likely be in violation of 101.025 and 101.075 simply because where these types of airports are located and the dimension of CTA around these airports.

101.025 Meaning of populous area

For this Part, an area is a populous area in relation to the operation of an unmanned aircraft or rocket if the area has a sufficient density of population for some aspect of the operation, or some event that might happen during the operation (in particular, a fault in, or failure of, the aircraft or rocket) to pose an unreasonable risk to the life, safety or property of somebody who is in the area but is not connected with the operation.

101.075 Operation near aerodromes

(1) A person may operate an unmanned aircraft at an altitude above 400 feet AGL within 3 nautical miles of an aerodrome only if:

(a) the operation is permitted by another provision of this Part; or
(b) permission has been given for the operation under regulation 101.080.

(2) A person may operate an unmanned aircraft over an area mentioned in paragraph (3)(a) or (b) only if:

(a) the operation is permitted by another provision of this Part; or
(b) permission has been given for the operation under regulation 101.080.

(3) The areas for subregulation (2) are:
(a) a movement area or runway of an aerodrome; and
(b) the approach or departure path of a runway of an aerodrome.

(4) A person must not operate an unmanned aircraft in such a manner as to create an obstruction to an aircraft taking off from, or approaching for landing at, a landing area or a runway of an aerodrome.

If you want to operate an unmanned aircraft in CTA ≥400ft then you will have to abide with 101.070

101.070 Operation in controlled airspace

(1) A person may operate an unmanned aircraft above 400 feet AGL in controlled airspace only:

(a) in an area approved under regulation 101.030 as an area for the operation of unmanned aircraft of the same kind as the aircraft, and in accordance with any conditions of the approval; and

(b) in accordance with an air traffic control clearance.

[HighFlyer75]

As a resident of this fine town I regularly observe VFR traffic transiting here......never ever ever as close to these buildings as that drone guy in the video, and I most certainly hope none ever do!!

At about 3 minutes 24 seconds in, I would say this is exactly where VFR traffic would be (about 1000 ft and just where the sand meets the water). Well, maybe the plane will be a bit further out over water but still too close for my liking.

[Andy_RR]

Any_RR

That is incorrect. 400ft is applicable "OCTA". Drones are forbidden in "CTA" period without CASA approval.


If you want to operate an unmanned aircraft in CTA ≥400ft then you will have to abide with 101.070

Well, at least we're making some progress in reading comprehension here 404...


And from this statement you are making an assumption that the pilot of a potential manned aircraft knows the UAV is there. To place the burden on the manned aircraft’s pilot to “see and avoid” is a cop out

There are a lot of aircraft flying around the place without knowing where all the other manned aircraft are. Why should a pilot expect to "know" that the airspace is "free of drones"? Legally, such an expectation is without basis.

Of course, that is why the operator of an unmanned aircraft has a duty to remain in sight of the aircraft they are controlling, since the see-and-avoid responsibility rests on their shoulders as much as for the pilot of any passing manned aircraft.

[Brian Abraham]

They are out there.

near miss between model plane and Pacific Blue 737-800 at perth Airport!!!! - YouTube

[404 Titan]

Andy_RR

Yes "See and Avoid" is a two way street. How would propose a UAV operator does this when it is debatable if he can see the UAV at more than 400ft? Yes I do have experience with RC aircraft.

Originally Posted by 404 Titan
If you want to operate an unmanned aircraft in CTA ≥400ft then you will have to abide with 101.070

Well, at least we're making some progress in reading comprehension here 404...

And by CASA's own admission approval to operate in CTA >=400 ft and near an aerodrome with CTA is very unlikely.

[Duck Pilot]

The technology and availability/affordability of these things are making them very difficult for industry to keep up with in terms of regulation and enforcement. The sh!t will hit the fan when a UAV has a midair collision with an aircraft which triggers an accident.

Tick tok............................................

[404 Titan]

Andy_RR

This organisation that trains operators in the use of UAV's also doesn't agree with your interpretation of CASR 101.

CASR 101 – Are you flying your UAV legally? (http://rpastraining.com.au/casr-101-uav-drone-legal-or-illegal/)

[LeeJoyce]

Was there not a model aircraft field right under the flight path at Tulla? Not the one near the thunderdome but one in Keilor park?

It's long gone now though


Yet nobody died...

[Flying Binghi]

Was there not a model aircraft field right under the flight path at Tulla? Not the one near the thunderdome but one in Keilor park?

It's long gone now though


Yet nobody died...

Ah, yes. Those innocent pre islamic nutter days..:(












.

[Fantome]

. . . . ah . . Nutters . . ..

On QI last night they said how there are in England
a considerable number of persons called Nutter

and Daft

and Bottom

and Willie


. .. . of Drones . . not a word

[Flying Binghi]

On QI last night....

What were you doing on top of Q1 and who were you talking to?..:ooh:

[Sunfish]

Andy RR, if by some remote chance I ever discover that someone such as you is operating a UAV close to where I am landing or taking off from, or in what could reasonably be described as the circuit for any form of landing area, registered or not., then you can save your legalistic argument for when you leave hospital.

To put that another way, I promise you I will do everything I possibly can to immediately disable the UAV, up to and including disabling its operator, if I reasonably determine that the operation is an immediate threat to safe aviation.

By way of explanation, and without wishing to go into specifics, there are a couple of aircraft operators near and dear to me who regularly fly from what I will loosely term "public open space" where it is quite possible that they may encounter such a hazard in future, especially if the UAV operator is untrained and with hare brained ideas about what is permitted.

To put that yet another way, if I see a UAV at the same time I can see a light aircraft then the UAV is too close and I will physically shut the UAV down. Three miles separation is about right.

I have had enough aviation scares of one sort or another that have taught me never to underestimate how stupid people will behave.

Furthermore if you actually looked at the regs, you will find it is an offence to even plan to fly close to a CTA boundary.

[Andy_RR]

Sunfish, Titan et al,

You can take the law into your own hands if you wish, but you won't get any backup from the magistrate, nor from me. To do so also is tacit approval by yourself for others to do likewise and you may not like the result!

There are regulations in place. Read them, understand and abide. If you don't like them then you are entitled to lobby to have them changed, but you can't stop people from enjoying their pursuits when it fulfills their regulatory obligations to do so.

None of these regulations diminishes the moral or legal duty of care to one's neighbor either.

[Sunfish]

404:

The simple fact of the matter is that you and I have a different interpretation of what UAV’s are. I contend most UAV’s aren’t predominantly used for the pleasure of flying them. I, in fact would contend almost all are used to pursue illegal activities. Where on the other hand almost everyone that flies model aircraft do it purely for the pleasure and challenge of flying them.

Agree 100%, a simple scan of real estate ads shows that drone images are becoming common.

[1Charlie]

The transmission made by BN TWR was a blind transmission after a C172 operating near the story bridge had to take avoiding action when it almost collided with a drone he said to be about 1m square. The drone was operating without prior notice to ATC at 1000'.

[Sunfish]

Aroa, the difference between drone and piloted aircraft operations are that one type of mishap ends in serious injury or death, the other does not. The difference between drones and learner helicopter pilots is thus obvious.

I would have no qualms about drone operators if each transmitter was fitted with a shotgun shell that would fire at the operator if the drone crashed.

Failing that, I automatically classify drone operators as vicarious onanists whose only risk is to their chequebook or credit card.

They are not entitled to the same privileges as aviators since they don't risk life and limb.

[Sunfish]

Aroa, what is your hobby? Dropping bricks on cars from overpasses?

The fact is that a drone can down an aircraft and a drone can now be bought anywhere by any idiot and flown anonymously by anyone, possibly with illegal intent. Unless there are strict and obvious limitations placed on their use, backed up by long jail sentences, there will be trouble. It is not a question of "public airspace". Is a freeway a "public recreation" area? Drone operators should be licenced and the drone registered.

To put that another way, look at what the idiots did with Green Lasers???? What do you think they will do with drones if they remain freely available to the same bogans????

[ranmar850]

I've stayed out of this so far, no actual skin in the game, as it were. But I have certainly considered buying one of these, as I enjoy making videos with a Gopro. It certainly adds a new dimension when you can do an aerial scan from a few hundred feet of a remote beach you are sharing with just a few other souls, or perhaps, when you are brave enough with the controls, getting an aerial perspective of that fighting sailfish , or the migrating whales passing by. To categorize all potential users as bogans and/or engaged in illegal activity is somewhat offensive , in fact. I am a PPL, and can certainly understand the arguments about sharing airspace, ie you just DON'T--but there is a legitimate recreational use for these, in appropriate places, with appropriate controls in place. I generally enjoy your posts, well written and insightful, but you crossed a line there, or were you just having a bad day and needed to vent?
We don't all live in the cities, and some of us have the space to operate these with no impact on others, and their often twisted view of their "rights" .

[500N]

ranmar

It's not people like you who everyone needs to worry about, it is the Bogans that Sunfish refers to that are or will be the problem.

The one's that live in a Egocentric bubble that revolves around them.

[ranmar850]

Agree totally, there are a worrying number of people out there who think that everything exists for their own gratification and the hell with everyone else. No concept of risk, and it's all a big laugh. Or deserves a violent response if questioned. I veer between having hope for the future of mankind,and a faith in the basic good intent of most, and wishing for eugenics and forced euthnasia. I mostly keep these feelings to myself:p I think Sunfish could maybe add a disclaimer, I thought it was OTT.

[500N]

Yes, maybe (disclaimer).

Considering how many l@asers are in use by hunters and others,
it is the small percentage of Bogans as you describe them so well.

The issue is, as I have said before, is how to get the message across to the bogans.

[triton140]

Lаsers are a good example - widely available, danger to aircraft/people, beloved of bogans.

Did we say, oh, it's all too hard, we can't regulate, just put up with it? No, we chased 'em down and prosecuted. Haven't stopped it completely, but it's better than just ignoring the problem.

[Sunfish]

The Sunfish disclaimer: of course everybody on pprune will do the right thing. it's the rest I worry about.

[Squawk7700]

A friend of mine just bought a DJ Phantom 2 Vision. He knows zero about aviation and he's been buzzing it around at god knows what altitudes! It's a little scary to be honest as he has some common sense and worries me about those that have less.

[Kharon]

Sunny; mate – relax. There are at least a gazzillion more birds in the air at any given tick of the clock than 'models'. There are hundreds of thousands of model aircraft (some pretty heavy and spiffy) in the air at any one time, all run by competent, dedicated, enthusiastic, law abiding, sensible folk. 16 bird strikes in the log book(s), 0 model aircraft and -0 'drones'.

One laser beam does not a hazard make. Much better chance of being run over on a Zebra crossing during a full moon (by a Zebra); or, hit in the arse by a rogue Big Mac. It is sir, a very big sky, and anyone who wants to photograph me eating a snag sambo, in the hot tub, with my Sweeetie is welcome to try. 3/4 choke and 4 balls per load make a real mess of anything within range.

Plug 'em, that's my rule. (Big smile_huge)..Keep CASA out of it...Sense will prevail.

Toot toot.

[Fliegenmong]

Good post Kharon!

"Was there not a model aircraft field right under the flight path at Tulla? Not the one near the thunderdome but one in Keilor park?"

Dunno, there was until recently (it may still be there?) a model aircraft field approx 1 km off the the threshold of 34 L at Van Nuys and everyone seemed to get along just fine...believe VNY was (or still is) world's busiest GA airport, everything from 172s to BBJs, and a whole squadron of RC aircraft buzzing around just off the threshold.....

[Creampuff]

Tut tut, Kharon!

You're interfering in the cognitive bias of ppruners.

It's the same cognitive bias that results in conditions being placed on the medical certificates of pilots with colour vision deficiencies.

We're all gonna die in a 30,000' death plunge caused by a UAV!

[gerry111]

I break into a sweat turning left base for RWY 24 at YGTH.

There's a rifle range down below! :eek: