Senate Report on RPAS (Drones etc)
Thread Starter
Senate Report on RPAS (Drones etc)
Senate Report
The whole shooting match can be found in the link. Not surprisingly, the recommendations for control of Remote Piloted Aircraft Systems includes all forms of flying objects such as Radio Controlled Model Aircraft as well as Drones.
If implemented in its entirety, I still think it won't stop rogue operators.
The whole shooting match can be found in the link. Not surprisingly, the recommendations for control of Remote Piloted Aircraft Systems includes all forms of flying objects such as Radio Controlled Model Aircraft as well as Drones.
If implemented in its entirety, I still think it won't stop rogue operators.
More rules! ...and what makes them think the idiots will be aware or take any notice. High power lasers are prohibited weapons but idiots still shine them at police helicopters.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's always the same problem: updating the rules only affects people who are actually following the rules. Making the rules tighter just punishes the people who are following them.
I wonder whether it would be better to re-phrase the registration as "register your drone so that it can be identified when it escapes" - much like registering a dog or a cat. With the flip-side being that if your drone isn't registered, then ownership is essentially "finders keepers".
The other approach I can see would be to require manufacturers to register their radio control systems, and then produce an aircraft- or airport-based jamming system for exactly those protocols. This can be fairly straightforward if the protocols are known; certainly much smaller and more efficient (and with fewer side effects) than trying to wipe out the whole 2.4GHz band. Designing a radio system is a good deal more challenging than building a drone, and it's not something that would normally be done by a hobbyist. Similarly, a jammer for these protocols would be a substantial project for a hobbyist and so the risk to drones flying in "legitimate" airspace would be minimal. For smaller drones, it'd make sense to have an exemption for very low power outputs (eg. 2mW) that would cover the sub-100m range.\
I’ve got a DJI drone that use legally and very cautiously for all the obvious reasons.
I’m pretty sure the drone manufacturer knows exactly what I’m doing with it every time I upload all the data on the app, they certainly know who owns it as I’ve registered it with them for warranty and support just after I purchased it.
After having done a CASA approved training course to get my RePL and having a bit of experience now flying drones, I can see exactly how dangerous these things could potentially be/are, particularly when in the hands of a Bloggs who has no savvy. Even a very small drone could do some major damage if in the wrong hands.
Not sure what the best way to tackle this issue is, however the problem is certainly not going to go away anytime soon.
I’m pretty sure the drone manufacturer knows exactly what I’m doing with it every time I upload all the data on the app, they certainly know who owns it as I’ve registered it with them for warranty and support just after I purchased it.
After having done a CASA approved training course to get my RePL and having a bit of experience now flying drones, I can see exactly how dangerous these things could potentially be/are, particularly when in the hands of a Bloggs who has no savvy. Even a very small drone could do some major damage if in the wrong hands.
Not sure what the best way to tackle this issue is, however the problem is certainly not going to go away anytime soon.
