CASA warns about drones in bushfires

[Nose_Wheel]

CASA warns bushfire drone operators of potential fines - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-27/casa-warns-bushfire-drone-operators-of-potential-fines/5048122)


As long as there is stupid people in the world we will need a regulator to regulate against them...


There are plenty of practical applications for drones and bushfires are definitely one of them.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Without being able to see the footage...none of which I can find on google, this sounds very similar to footage aired last year by a couple of firies flying a drone as a surveillance tool....the key wording was flying drone into a building...sounds like old footage.

Regardless, over 10000 drones now flying in Australia, says the CASA. Wonder what the next move will be? Knee jerk from the Transport Minister?

[Sunfish]

Nose wheel:


There are plenty of practical applications for drones and bushfires are definitely one of them.

You mean there are plenty of applications for drones in bushfire management provided they are flown by trained and responsible fire fighters.

And for the rest of the retards with drones there's this.......

12 ga - 3" Uranium Drone Load - Low Recoil - 1 3/8 oz - Tacnition - 5 Rounds (http://www.luckygunner.com/12ga-3-uranium-drone-load-tacnition-5-rounds)

[Oakape]

And for the rest of the retards with drones there's this.......


For every retard with a drone there will be a retard with one of those to shoot it down. 1,000m straight up. Now what's that going to do for aircraft safety? "Sorry about that Mr Cherokee, I was aiming at the drone".

[Jabawocky]

Thats the funniest thing I have seen in a while.

A product that is useless for the advertised purpose.

The big brother drones the advertiser fly at far greater heights than 3500' they are quiet and impossible to see let alone shoot with any kind of shot gun.

Perhaps the small quad-drones that have been used to spy on pig farms etc could be a target, but you do not need special ammo….just be a good shot.

No doubt they will sell plenty of it.

[Sunfish]

One of RVAC's warriors has a slug mark on the cowling. I believe it acquired it out Coldstream way and a local "person" was spoken to.

Seriously, if its a large drone at high altitude, I would expect it is being flown by a competent and licensed professional. Its the bored teenagers with too much money and not enough sense that are the issue in my opinion.

[Snakecharma]

The rules state that the drone must be operated 30m or more from people that are not associated with the operation of the device.

Surely being higher than 30m meets this requirement?

The requirements also say that you need to be more than 5km from an aerodrome and not operate above 400ft in controlled airspace.

I could easily foresee a situation where someone meets all those requirements and someone gets bent out of shape and tries to prosecute.

The rules are not particularly easy to interpret, so someone with no aviation experience would have no hope in my opinion.

For example - not above 400 ft in controlled airspace. What does this mean? If the lowest level of CTA is 12000ft are you ok to go above 400ft?

The guy who flew his drone up to the top of Q1 on the Gold Coast should have guessed that it would be a problem, being in a populated area and close to the cooly airport, but the state mine out near lithgow isn't as cut and dried in my opinion.

[Squawk7700]

27 Oct 2013

Old news.... we did this to death when the article was actually released back over a year ago :zzz:

[BNEA320]

they are toys, many operated by kids (there will be hundreds of thousands given as presents this Xmas, just like model planes/helicopters/gliders.


Some remote controls have range of many kms.


No way CASA or anyone else can do anything about them.


Most are tiny.


If they hit an aircraft would anyone notice anyway ?

[Sunfish]

BNEA:

If they hit an aircraft would anyone notice anyway ?

The answer is yes, they may notice.

- If a drone is ingested by a turbojet the armatures and permanent magnets of the drone motors may be solid enough to start a cascading compressor blade failure.

- If a drone hits the windscreen of a GA aircraft it could cause catastrophic windscreen failure.

- If one touched my AIrmaster propeller with its beautiful Whirlwind blades I would cry.

[Squawk7700]

- If one touched my AIrmaster propeller with its beautiful Whirlwind blades I would cry.

A. Your aircraft would have to be in the air for that to happen.

[Slatye]

BNEA320 - most of the ones that could get over 400ft (taking into account ability to handle wind, endurance, and visibility for the operator) would weigh 300g or more. 300g probably isn't a big deal for an airliner, but for a GA/RA plane it might be worrying.

You can go up to around 3kg before they start getting relatively expensive. 3kg is definitely a major concern for GA/RA; I'm not sure how much it would bother a larger plane. Aluminium or carbon-fibre bars going through the engines can't be good, in any case.

The really tiny ones (sub-50g) aren't much of a concern. Too light to do much damage, and almost impossible to fly anywhere other than indoors. The really big ones probably aren't a major concern either, because they require quite a lot of effort and money to construct and run. This tends to result in them being flown by more mature pilots.


Snakecharma - the regulations also say that they must be flown so that, if one component fails, the vehicle will be able to avoid a populated area. Since a quadrotor with a failed motor falls more-or-less vertically (they're completely uncontrollable) this implies that they cannot be flown over populated areas at all. An octocopter (which can survive a failed motor) should be legal.

All the model aircraft pilots I've met just consider 400ft to be a hard limit, regardless of location. Much easier to do that than to try to understand the regulations, and realistically 400ft is high enough that it's getting hard to visually orient the plane. The only time I've seen someone go higher was with a high-performance glider, and for that they got explicit permission from the local airport.

[Eddie Dean]

+1 for what Sunfish said.
Word from RFS is that if there is a drone near a fire, they will ground all fire attack Helos until it is gone.
Drone operators should be aware that the RFS carry shotgun type weapons for fire starting.


400 foot doesn't help, 20 foot above fire with a 100 foot long line equals 120 foot

[Kharon]

First law: When viewed in an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by an external force.[2][3]

Second law: The vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration vector a of the object: F = ma.

Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.

F=ma (http://www.racemath.info/forcesandpressure/what_is_f=ma.htm)

F=ma (http://zonalandeducation.com/mstm/physics/mechanics/forces/newton/mightyFEqMA/mightyFEqMA.html)

[chimbu warrior]

The requirements also say that you need to be more than 5km from an aerodrome and not operate above 400ft in controlled airspace.


The issue here is not the responsible drone operators who know and respect the rules, but rather the I'll-grab-it-off-Ebay-and-give-it-a-go crowd. The same bogans who bought lasers last year and thought it would be fun to point them at aircraft.

I have personally seen one being operated above 400 feet (by my estimate) on a beach*; how do I know - because the helicopters going past at 500 feet seemed to be at the same level or lower.

*not in Australia BTW.

[Andy_RR]

The requirements also say that you need to be more than 5km from an aerodrome and not operate above 400ft in controlled airspace.


For model aircraft, this isn't true in Australia under CASR101

[404 Titan]

Andy_RR

I’m sorry but you are wrong. Snakecharma is correct in what he/she says. Without permission from CASA or the ATC service responsible for the airspace in question, you can’t fly a model aircraft above 400ft in CTA or within 3nm (5.5km) of any aerodrome. Period.

8. MODEL AIRCRAFT OPERATING AREAS

8.1 Before flying above 400ft within controlled airspace or within 3 nautical miles of an aerodrome, the operator of a model aircraft must obtain permission from the appropriate air traffic control service or CASA as appropriate.

Advisory Circular
AC 101-3(0) JULY 2002 UNMANNED AIRCRAFT AND ROCKETS MODEL AIRCRAFT
(http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/101/101c03.pdf)

[Andy_RR]

It depends on how you parse Snakecharma's sentence. Perhaps I misread it some.

However, your statement is still not true either really Titan.

As a model aircraft (CASR101.075 and 101.400) you can

- operate within 3nm of an airport without permission, but not above 400 AGL
- operate above 400 AGL in open airspace without permission by keeping line of sight and avoiding populous areas.

(at least according to how I read it)

[Lancair70]

In accordance with the above rules quoted, I have personally flown an RC glider to 1875' agl, well away from any airport or CTA. Lismore Model Aero Club is within 3nm of the airport, 400' rule applies flying there. Tingalpa Model club operate within 3nm of YBBN, 400' rule applies there too!

[Nose_Wheel]

There are a few providers now offering remote piloted aircraft tickets through CASA.... Anyone on here gone and done theirs?


I myself fly these "drones...." and other model A/C.


I am aware of the 3NM and 400' rules however would like to know what privileges you actually get by doing your ticket?

[404 Titan]

Lancair70

Both Model Aero Clubs operate under Advisory Circular 8.2 & 8.3.

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.

8.2.2 Try to fly at a site which is already established rather than trying to obtain individual permission. The model associations are listed in Appendix K and should be able to advise you of local sites.

8.2.3 For advice on the location of controlled airspace in a particular part of the country, check with the local CASA district office on CASA’s toll free number, 131 757.

8.2.4 Flight within an aerodrome control zone can be cleared by the relevant Air Traffic Control unit. Telephone numbers are listed in local telephone directories under ‘Airservices Australia’.

8.3 Approved Areas

8.3.1 It is far better to establish a permanent model flying site, rather than seek one-off permission. A written permission for the use of a site may have conditions, such as a height limit and times of use. There may also be a requirement to notify air traffic control when the site is actually being used. There are many sites already established on this sort of basis.

8.3.2 Direct liaison with CASA is needed to arrange this type of permission. This is most easily arranged by a club or and through an Association.

[404 Titan]

Andy_RR

Before you assume you can operate a model aircraft the way you think you can I would suggest looking up the definition of the word "may" with regard to the context it is used in this CASR. It has been deliberately written the way it has so that CASA can decide when you may operate your model aircraft in CTA and or near an aerodrome.

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.

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

(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.

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

(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.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.

(5) An offence against subregulation (1), (2) or (4) is an offence of strict liability.

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

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.

Penalty: 10 penalty units.

Note 1: For populous area, see regulation 101.025.
Note 2: CASA must publish details of the approval of an area (including any conditions) in NOTAM or on an aeronautical chart—see subregulation 101.030(5).

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

[cattletruck]

I barely remember the Moorabbin RC club adjacent to the airport (YMMB) from many moons ago. I heard rumours that it was a very good club with strict flying policies, however it suddenly closed, I think after a runaway RC plane crashed into a parked aircraft. These days it's all about individuals with bugger all concern for policies and the rule book.

Last summer whilst bicycling along the bay I came across an individual who was flying his quadcopter drone in a public park. He looked a bit geeky and a bit of a loner, but he seemed to be well organised with a carry bag full of tools and spares, and half decent radio gear. I watched him run this device around the park at a height of 20 ft and sometimes up to speeds approaching 80km/h - you sure wouldn't want to be hit in the back of the head with that thing. He eventually ran the battery dry and I observed that it was too hot for him to touch in order to change it so I left. An hour later I returned only to find him trying to get his quadcopter drone out of a tree :ugh:.

Limits? The only limits that apply to these people is when something goes wrong.

[Fliegenmong]

Both model aircraft sites likely do operate under advisory circular 8.2 & 8.3
It is worth noting however that advisory circular 8.2.1 does state -

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.

As for the chap or chapess flying the quadcopter over Q1, C LL there is 1500....and he is below that.....C LL SFC does not occur until around Miami...he is also around 9.76 NM from the threshold of RWY 14 OOL...and thus under part 8.2.1 Is allowed high than 400ft AGL as he is more than 3 x the required distance from an aerodrome.....and below 1500.....

8.2.2 goes on to state - 8.2.2 Try to fly at a site which is already established rather than trying to obtain
individual permission.

No need to obtain individual permission if adhering to point 8.2.1...:hmm:

Actually point 8.2.1 goes further to say -

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

Interestingly no mention of what those advantages are....but I guess they are an advantage to CASA by being able to add a little paper plane icon with the letter M next to it on a VTC..and the advantage is.....Ops limited to 400ft AGL.

No mention of the (no doubt) disadvantages of working inside a (likely) highly politicised club environment, with all the attendant would be policemen involved...

[Fliegenmong]

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.


So further out to Sea, and actually closer to civil aircraft, in the instance of the Q1 quad copter at least helps it to further comply with 101.025?

[Andy_RR]

Andy_RR

Before you assume you can operate a model aircraft the way you think you can I would suggest looking up the definition of the word "may" with regard to the context it is used in this CASR. It has been deliberately written the way it has so that CASA can decide when you may operate your model aircraft in CTA and or near an aerodrome.

I think we're clutching at straws here Titan. In this context, "may" == "is allowed to". I would take this as express approval from CASA, the regulator, to operate in such a manner. The only way they can beat you over the head with their penalty units under these clauses is if you fail to meet the requirements contained therein.

Also, there is, as far as I can see, no clause which specifically prohibits operation below 400 AGL within 3nm of an airfield.

[404 Titan]

Andy_RR
In this context, "may" == "is allowed to".
No it isn’t.:= In this context “May” is “Expressing Possibility”. It is a deliberate use of the word and allows CASA a wide interpretation as it has done through the AC. Another word that is littered through the CASR is “Should”. These worlds don’t imply anything but give incredible flexibility to the regulator in how they interpret them. CASA’s interpretation is in the “Advisory Circular”.

[Fliegenmong]

CASA’s interpretation is in the “Advisory Circular”.

Yes indeed it is, and clearly states -

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.

While this rule means that a model aircraft may be flown
above 400 ft AGL clear of these areas...End of....no proviso, no 'subject to approval'...none, and in fact rather cut and dry is "While this rule means" a bit like 'Shall' rather than 'Should'

Still and all a humble little RC pilot would never have the resources to defend him/herself against a body such as CASA....we know what they're like....

It does suggest though that model flight below 400ft AGL and within 3 Nm is allowable without permission

[Neville Nobody]

When fires are going it's usually pretty crappy weather with winds up to 30 or 40 knots, add that to all sorts of thermals and willy willy's and it's pretty hard work in a 7 ton 802. A light radio controlled toy is not going to be flying in those conditions.

[Fliegenmong]

Fair point Nev!!....wonder then what it was that spooked them so much??

[Fliegenmong]

the people that flew the drone through the burnt out zig zag railway shed near lithgow started the higher profile.

Wow.....really? I haven't seen the footage...but that must difficult.....they were remotely flying a drone inside a burnt out shed?? :confused:

What is a 'higher profile?'

the operators lost one over a large fire at bribie island

'The Operators' being???....If they lost one over a large fire in Bribie, then that is not start up or mop up....?