Hello all,
While in general I am not a believer in trying to achieve safety by regulation, I find myself wondering whether a lot of the sentiment expressed is because CASA has (unusually) decided not to regulate something!
VH-FTS says
"Also, how many drones have hit planes worldwide, ever? Not saying it won't ever happen, but what is the risk likelihood"?
Great question and the answer (based on evidence to date) = very low. However, lets remember that risk has two dimensions - likelihood and consequence. Real risk is the product of the two. So, even if likelihood is low, if the consequence is even potentially catastrophic, actual risk can be considered very high.
Most of these <2kg devices are quadcopter or hexcopter devices which (unlike birds) are not very aerodynamically shaped. (Ever noticed how the majority of birds are deflected over or under an aircraft by the boundary layer)? In the case of a drone, effectively you have a 2kg brick travelling at up to about 40kts +/- (from a total energy perspective) the relative velocity of anything that it may hit. Many of these UAVs / RPAs / Drones (however named) are fitted with GPS that has a "come home" capability if data link is lost. However, if GPS signal is lost (or GPS is not enabled / fitted) the device (which may well have started below 400ft more than 3NM from an aerodrome) will continue on its last vector (possibly climbing and possibly towards an aerodrome) until it runs out of battery. Then they become a real 2 kg brick.
In light of the support that the FAA approach to regulation often gets on these pages, this latest FAA study is instructive:
Analysis of New Drone Incident Reports ? Center for the Study of the Drone
The data in this report spell out that the majority of incidents cited involve airspace violations (above 400ft / in CTA) i.e. are operating illegally.
My concern is that, although based on evidence to date, the likelihood dimension of risk is currently "unlikely" or even lower, I am quite sure that when the word gets out that the < 2kg commercial sector is unregulated, the quantity of these devices in use will expand exponentially with their potential uses limited only by imagination.
..... and no, I don't have any skin in the game of having any form of commercial interest in drone regulation.
Make no mistake, it is likely that the only reason that CASA is choosing not to regulate this sector is because its "too hard" and nothing to do with risk.
Fly safe
PJ