CASA allowing unlicensed drone ops, <2kg
Moderator
NOTAM. That Youtube clip has been proven to be fake:
Hoax alert: A drone didn't hit a plane taking off from New York
Even Southwest Air went public with an announcement it was a fake.
Hoax alert: A drone didn't hit a plane taking off from New York
Even Southwest Air went public with an announcement it was a fake.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by Propjet88; 11th Apr 2016 at 10:55. Reason: ...to avoid the wrath of the grammar nazis
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These guys have actually applied a bit of thought to it:
Do Consumer Drones Endanger the National Airspace? Evidence from Wildlife Strike Data | Mercatus
They haven't made unfounded statements like:
Really, the aerodynamic shape of a bird is what deflects them?
Another gem:
Have you actually ever set up a return to home feature on a drone? Even if you set it up to climb to 400 feet upon losing signal or low battery, you would have to be very damn close to the threshold for it to become an issue for landing aircraft. Consider an aircraft on profile is at 320 feet AGL 1nm from the aim point, which for many aircraft is 300m in from the threshold. You'd basically have to have turned on your drone and launch initially right on the aerodrome boundary for it to be a threat.
As mentioned previously, market forces will stop this from happening. There simply isn't enough work for drones to "fill the skies" doing sub 2kg commercial work. It won't take long for guys to see there is little return on investment for buying a $2000 Phantom (plus other expenses), then charging $30 a photoshoot.
The threat is the idiots who fly them recreationally to high levels. The rule changes will not stop these guys. However, consider that the new rules might actually improve safety as they should define a minimum distance from an aerodrome. Do you realise the way CASR part 101 is written means anyone can buy a Phantom off the net and fly right next to an airport, as long as they are below 400 feet and not in the departure and approach path? Heck, could fly one right up to Brisbane Tower if I wanted to.
Have a read through CASR 101 - doesn't mention a blank 3nm restriction anywhere. The CASRs say "not above 400 feet with 3nm of an aerodrome". The brochures and posters CASA put out say 'should not' fly within 3nm, but there actually isn't any law prohibiting it at the moment as long as you stay below 400 feet. The real restriction is on UOC holders - the conditions listing on their certificate will prohibit them within 3nm (no matter the height) unless certain conditions are met.
Do Consumer Drones Endanger the National Airspace? Evidence from Wildlife Strike Data | Mercatus
They haven't made unfounded statements like:
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)?
Really, the aerodynamic shape of a bird is what deflects them?
Another gem:
...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.
Have you actually ever set up a return to home feature on a drone? Even if you set it up to climb to 400 feet upon losing signal or low battery, you would have to be very damn close to the threshold for it to become an issue for landing aircraft. Consider an aircraft on profile is at 320 feet AGL 1nm from the aim point, which for many aircraft is 300m in from the threshold. You'd basically have to have turned on your drone and launch initially right on the aerodrome boundary for it to be a threat.
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.
As mentioned previously, market forces will stop this from happening. There simply isn't enough work for drones to "fill the skies" doing sub 2kg commercial work. It won't take long for guys to see there is little return on investment for buying a $2000 Phantom (plus other expenses), then charging $30 a photoshoot.
The threat is the idiots who fly them recreationally to high levels. The rule changes will not stop these guys. However, consider that the new rules might actually improve safety as they should define a minimum distance from an aerodrome. Do you realise the way CASR part 101 is written means anyone can buy a Phantom off the net and fly right next to an airport, as long as they are below 400 feet and not in the departure and approach path? Heck, could fly one right up to Brisbane Tower if I wanted to.
Have a read through CASR 101 - doesn't mention a blank 3nm restriction anywhere. The CASRs say "not above 400 feet with 3nm of an aerodrome". The brochures and posters CASA put out say 'should not' fly within 3nm, but there actually isn't any law prohibiting it at the moment as long as you stay below 400 feet. The real restriction is on UOC holders - the conditions listing on their certificate will prohibit them within 3nm (no matter the height) unless certain conditions are met.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There simply isn't enough work for drones to "fill the skies" doing sub 2kg commercial work. It won't take long for guys to see there is little return on investment for buying a $2000 Phantom (plus other expenses), then charging $30 a photoshoot.
Hello again,
VH-FTS, Thank you for your response to my post.
You asked the question
"...Not saying it won't ever happen, but what is the risk likelihood..."?
I just tried to put some metrics around answering it although, at this early stage of deregulation, all metrics are supposition.
I don't want to get into a war of words over this but the increase in numbers of RPAs is related to time, so only time will tell.
By the way, real estate agents in my area charge anywhere between $400 - $600 for a sales promotion video of the inside of your house (I know as I have just had 3 x quotes). So I don't think a video of the outside would go for much less - never mind $30. So, using your pricing, the capital cost of a Phantom would be recouped in 4 x property videos.
I agree that the boundary layer effect is better named the bow wave effect. But no, its from the aircraft, not the bird! Anyone who has done "probe and drogue" AAR or line astern formation will have experienced this. Sorry if my post gave the impression that birds had a big boundary layer!
I stand by the comment that if the data link is lost and GPS is not enabled / not fitted / GPS signal is lost, the device has no data to "come home" and will continue on its last vector - whatever that is. I guess that various other fail safe algorithms may be programmed into the software of sophisticated devices but geographical / altitude info can only come from a valid GPS signal.
Also, I guess we read the CASA regulations a little differently. You say
"...Do you realise the way CASR part 101 is written means anyone can buy a Phantom off the net and fly right next to an airport, as long as they are below 400 feet and not in the departure and approach path? Heck, could fly one right up to Brisbane Tower if I wanted to...".
I hope no casual reader of PPrune reads your post and tries this as it would be illegal and, as I'm sure most readers realise, extremely dangerous.
Actually, CASR 101.238 requires:
" the RPA is operated at or below 400 ft AGL by day..." and
"...the RPA is not operated ... within 3 nautical miles of the movement area of a controlled aerodrome..."
Fly Safe
PJ
VH-FTS, Thank you for your response to my post.
You asked the question
"...Not saying it won't ever happen, but what is the risk likelihood..."?
I just tried to put some metrics around answering it although, at this early stage of deregulation, all metrics are supposition.
I don't want to get into a war of words over this but the increase in numbers of RPAs is related to time, so only time will tell.
By the way, real estate agents in my area charge anywhere between $400 - $600 for a sales promotion video of the inside of your house (I know as I have just had 3 x quotes). So I don't think a video of the outside would go for much less - never mind $30. So, using your pricing, the capital cost of a Phantom would be recouped in 4 x property videos.
I agree that the boundary layer effect is better named the bow wave effect. But no, its from the aircraft, not the bird! Anyone who has done "probe and drogue" AAR or line astern formation will have experienced this. Sorry if my post gave the impression that birds had a big boundary layer!
I stand by the comment that if the data link is lost and GPS is not enabled / not fitted / GPS signal is lost, the device has no data to "come home" and will continue on its last vector - whatever that is. I guess that various other fail safe algorithms may be programmed into the software of sophisticated devices but geographical / altitude info can only come from a valid GPS signal.
Also, I guess we read the CASA regulations a little differently. You say
"...Do you realise the way CASR part 101 is written means anyone can buy a Phantom off the net and fly right next to an airport, as long as they are below 400 feet and not in the departure and approach path? Heck, could fly one right up to Brisbane Tower if I wanted to...".
I hope no casual reader of PPrune reads your post and tries this as it would be illegal and, as I'm sure most readers realise, extremely dangerous.
Actually, CASR 101.238 requires:
" the RPA is operated at or below 400 ft AGL by day..." and
"...the RPA is not operated ... within 3 nautical miles of the movement area of a controlled aerodrome..."
Fly Safe
PJ
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because your real estate agent charges that much for a photo package doesn't mean a drone operator can charge the same. We're not comparing apples with apples. Also, the market doesn't even allow that much to be charged at the moment in a lot of cases for aerial photo work, let alone when the new rules come in and supply increases big time. Have a search on Gumtree, guys are already (illegally) advertising photo work for $30. It's going to be a price race to the bottom.
Not going to argue about birds and boundary effect anymore. It's all just opinions anyway. Most birds dive out of the way in my experience.
Finally, regarding the CASRs, there is no CASR 101.238 in the current regulations, did you mean something else? I was referring to CASR 101.075. Read that, and the entire 101 and you can draw the same conclusions as in my above post.
Not going to argue about birds and boundary effect anymore. It's all just opinions anyway. Most birds dive out of the way in my experience.
Finally, regarding the CASRs, there is no CASR 101.238 in the current regulations, did you mean something else? I was referring to CASR 101.075. Read that, and the entire 101 and you can draw the same conclusions as in my above post.
Last edited by VH-FTS; 11th Apr 2016 at 14:50.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think I can answer my own question, Part 101.238 is in the new regulations, which was my point exactly if you go back and read what I said. These do not come into effect for another 6 months. Not saying flying up to Brisbane Tower is safe, but is still technically legal until later in the year based on the current rules. Nothing in the current rules talks about distance from movement areas etc.
Last edited by VH-FTS; 11th Apr 2016 at 21:56.
Did anyone catch the syd atis around a week or so ago re a drone spotted near the glide path on RWY 16L or 16R?
Think I'd rather a bird or a laser!
Obviously the press didn't get hold of it!
Think I'd rather a bird or a laser!
Obviously the press didn't get hold of it!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing in the current rules talks about movement areas etc.
CASR 101.075 (current rules)
(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.
Not saying flying up to Brisbane Tower is safe, but is still technically legal until later in the year based on the current rules.
Do you still believe that it is legal to fly right up to Brisbane Tower?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think some of you are dismissing this growth area for hazard. Have a look at the alarming growth in number and severity of UK airproxes, including this one http://https://www.airproxboard.org....%202015163.pdf in the hold at LAM at 8000'
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH-FTS I think you need to re-read CASR 101.
CASR 101.075 (current rules)
(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.
101.055 (current rules) (1) A person must not operate an unmanned aircraft in a way that creates a hazard to another aircraft, another person, or property. Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Do you still believe that it is legal to fly right up to Brisbane Tower?
CASR 101.075 (current rules)
(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.
101.055 (current rules) (1) A person must not operate an unmanned aircraft in a way that creates a hazard to another aircraft, another person, or property. Penalty: 50 penalty units.
Do you still believe that it is legal to fly right up to Brisbane Tower?
The new rules tighten this up by providing standard RPA conditions. It will prevent flight within 3nm of a controlled aerodrome, full stop. THIS IS A SAFETY IMPROVEMENT. Personally, I'd like to see it go a step further and prevent flight within 3nm of any certified/registered/military non-controlled aerodrome too.
Moderator
How about this drone?
CASA trying to license and regulating drones will be like trying to flag down the Southern Aurora with a lit match stick.
CASA trying to license and regulating drones will be like trying to flag down the Southern Aurora with a lit match stick.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And right on cue
http://http://www.theage.com.au/worl...17-go8k6k.html
http://http://www.theage.com.au/worl...17-go8k6k.html
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
True, if it went into the engine. A pigeon will do the same, and there are a hell of a lot more of them that we can't regulate.
But how much damage did it actually do? Maybe CASA's research was actually accurate?
The skeptic in me also thinks whether it actually happened. For example: My co-pilot and I could have a long discussion about the threat of drones, and agree we dislike them. I know, let's say we hit one on final to create some action from the authorities.
Is there actually any proof it hit them? No damage found, no drone located in the streets.
I agree the drones are a threat (albeit a small one), but this incident, if true, has shown they are unlikely to cause the mass damage chicken little and co. were talking about earlier.
But how much damage did it actually do? Maybe CASA's research was actually accurate?
The skeptic in me also thinks whether it actually happened. For example: My co-pilot and I could have a long discussion about the threat of drones, and agree we dislike them. I know, let's say we hit one on final to create some action from the authorities.
Is there actually any proof it hit them? No damage found, no drone located in the streets.
I agree the drones are a threat (albeit a small one), but this incident, if true, has shown they are unlikely to cause the mass damage chicken little and co. were talking about earlier.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RENURPP, Les damage than pax on a landed plane that must stop short of the gate because lightning strike happened 15 miles away (at 2 am), and storm moving far from airport. Damm all the Drone were still flying!
Oh dear,
The margin between scepticism and denial is very narrow!
Quote - "The skeptic in me also thinks whether it actually happened" "My co-pilot and I could have a long discussion about the threat of drones, and agree we dislike them. I know, let's say we hit one on final to create some action from the authorities"
A bit like the earlier posting on visiting Brisbane Tower with a Drone, I find myself hoping that the majority of airline pilots are a little more responsible and wouldn't even have this type of behaviour cross their minds. But then again, perhaps I am naive.....?
Am I too optimistic wondering if the poster really believes that a British Airways crew would behave this way?
Fly Safe
PJ
The margin between scepticism and denial is very narrow!
Quote - "The skeptic in me also thinks whether it actually happened" "My co-pilot and I could have a long discussion about the threat of drones, and agree we dislike them. I know, let's say we hit one on final to create some action from the authorities"
A bit like the earlier posting on visiting Brisbane Tower with a Drone, I find myself hoping that the majority of airline pilots are a little more responsible and wouldn't even have this type of behaviour cross their minds. But then again, perhaps I am naive.....?
Am I too optimistic wondering if the poster really believes that a British Airways crew would behave this way?
Fly Safe
PJ