CASA, good luck controlling this!

[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.

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 ).

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

[Andy_RR]

Originally Posted by 404 Titan

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

It's happening

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]

Originally Posted by 404 Titan

(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

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.