Toy Drones
And here's the other side of this, with some legitimate concerns on the research conducted
https://www.dji.com/newsroom/news/dj...ollision-video
https://www.dji.com/newsroom/news/dj...ollision-video
Folks,
Couldn't find a pic., too long ago, but I hit a bird one evening, in an Apache 235 (short nose Aztec) , something the size of a crow.
The damage was very similar to that video, a big hole punched in the leading edge, the remains against the front face of the spar, leading edge collapsed to the ribs on either side, we were not bird experts, so we never knew what it was. I was about 2500AGL, 3000 AMSL, climing at the time. About 120 IAS.
Whether it is a two pound bird or a drone into a direct hit on the airframe or windscreen, it is not your day.
Many years ago it killed a very good mate of mine a bit west of YSBK. Birdstrike on the windscreen, bird blood identified on the remains of the windscreen, which collapsed, sliding canopy blew off with the pressure, took the fin and rudder off, we lost two of the country's best automotive engineers in the one crash.
Personally, I think CASA is derelict in its duty, not having introduced suitable strict, nay absolute, liability penalty regulation to control birds in flight.
Tootle pip!!
Couldn't find a pic., too long ago, but I hit a bird one evening, in an Apache 235 (short nose Aztec) , something the size of a crow.
The damage was very similar to that video, a big hole punched in the leading edge, the remains against the front face of the spar, leading edge collapsed to the ribs on either side, we were not bird experts, so we never knew what it was. I was about 2500AGL, 3000 AMSL, climing at the time. About 120 IAS.
Whether it is a two pound bird or a drone into a direct hit on the airframe or windscreen, it is not your day.
Many years ago it killed a very good mate of mine a bit west of YSBK. Birdstrike on the windscreen, bird blood identified on the remains of the windscreen, which collapsed, sliding canopy blew off with the pressure, took the fin and rudder off, we lost two of the country's best automotive engineers in the one crash.
Personally, I think CASA is derelict in its duty, not having introduced suitable strict, nay absolute, liability penalty regulation to control birds in flight.
Tootle pip!!
Their altitude argument is moot because owners of drones tamper with the software the remove the altitude restrictions. The university could have easily just used a faster aircraft and the speed argument flies out the window. There’s no doubt they are dangerous.
There’s an article floating around about a rescue helicopter at Southport having to delay startup and takeoff on a mission because some clown with their drone was hovering around the helicopter at the spit waiting to takeoff for the rescue mission. Makes your blood boil that one as someone was getting bashed against rocks in the surf and they couldn’t help him.
I hit a large Crane (bird) in a Cirrus at 3500ft and 130 knots. The leading edge popped in and straight out again with only a bit of blood and a 5 inch crack on the leading edge with some missing paint. Would have been pretty bad on a metal wing.
There’s an article floating around about a rescue helicopter at Southport having to delay startup and takeoff on a mission because some clown with their drone was hovering around the helicopter at the spit waiting to takeoff for the rescue mission. Makes your blood boil that one as someone was getting bashed against rocks in the surf and they couldn’t help him.
I hit a large Crane (bird) in a Cirrus at 3500ft and 130 knots. The leading edge popped in and straight out again with only a bit of blood and a 5 inch crack on the leading edge with some missing paint. Would have been pretty bad on a metal wing.
I've personally witnessed numerous examples of irresponsible airpsace violations including some ******** flying one above 500ft in Class C in approach path for Sydney Airport and many examples of other pelicans flying them above 400ft in Victor 1.
For what it's worth, I know a professional drone pilot who also holds a PPLA and is responsible. He conducts courses along with an instructor who delivers most of the content. Legitimate and professional drone users aren't the ones that we should be worried about.
For what it's worth, I know a professional drone pilot who also holds a PPLA and is responsible. He conducts courses along with an instructor who delivers most of the content. Legitimate and professional drone users aren't the ones that we should be worried about.
I recently done a RePL through a reputable trainer a few months ago, I was actually very surprised how dangerous drones can be particularly given that anyone with absolutely no idea can buy one off the shelf and have the thing in the air within about 15 minutes if they really wanted to and get up to no good with it very quickly...........
CASA currently have a NPRM out to tighten up the licensing rules which will help, however they aren't targeting the hobby flyers who are the high risk users. The drone manufactures should be locking their software down to prevent idiots flying them near airports, above 400 ft, at night, etc.
Jack the fines up 10 fold with time behind bars might the the way to go!
CASA currently have a NPRM out to tighten up the licensing rules which will help, however they aren't targeting the hobby flyers who are the high risk users. The drone manufactures should be locking their software down to prevent idiots flying them near airports, above 400 ft, at night, etc.
Jack the fines up 10 fold with time behind bars might the the way to go!
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
That stroppy legal letter from DJI is a feckin joke
Their complaint is all on the basis that a Mooney wouldn't be at that speed at low level, and therefore the damage couldn't be that severe in real life
Completely disregarding the fact that we're not actually concerned about Mooneys hitting drones, we're concerned about big pax jets hitting drones ... and they DO approach at exactly the kind of speeds shown in the video.
Just, it's rather expensive to trash an airbus or a boeing wing for the sake of research
Their complaint is all on the basis that a Mooney wouldn't be at that speed at low level, and therefore the damage couldn't be that severe in real life
Completely disregarding the fact that we're not actually concerned about Mooneys hitting drones, we're concerned about big pax jets hitting drones ... and they DO approach at exactly the kind of speeds shown in the video.
Just, it's rather expensive to trash an airbus or a boeing wing for the sake of research
https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-pag...rcraft-systems
If this is the NPRM you are talking about Duck Pilot then I do not see any major changes and as you say, the sub 2kg category for private use is unchanged.
The manufacturer is often the pilot who assembled a kit from parts bought either in Australia or from overseas. Both completely legal. Difficult to regulate. Then again no different to model aircraft and helicopters for the last thirty years. People seem to get bent out of shape to an irrational level when a "drone" is involved.
If this is the NPRM you are talking about Duck Pilot then I do not see any major changes and as you say, the sub 2kg category for private use is unchanged.
The drone manufactures should be locking their software down to prevent idiots flying them near airports, above 400 ft, at night, etc.
I was at Eden and saw a guy flying 8kms off shore and filming the migrating whales... to put it into perspective.
A large majority of the drones being used are manufactured by DJI, they aren’t home built. You can pick one up from any major electrical retailer starting at about $500. The user can unlock the legal limitations, particularly the 400ft ceiling, also nothing to stop one flying a drone at night or close to a major airport particularly with on older version of firmware.
I live close to Darwin Airport and I’ve seen idiots flying drones around the area and even at night. In their defence, most people just don’t know or understand the rules. The retailers don’t give a toss, they just want to get the things through the checkout.
I live close to Darwin Airport and I’ve seen idiots flying drones around the area and even at night. In their defence, most people just don’t know or understand the rules. The retailers don’t give a toss, they just want to get the things through the checkout.
also nothing to stop one flying a drone at night or close to a major airport particularly with on older version of firmware.
Eventually you have to accept that not everything can be legislated and regulated. The lack of demonstrated accidents shows that the current system is working satisfactorily surely? In other words, what is the problem you want to fix?
I live close to Darwin Airport and I’ve seen idiots flying drones around the area and even at night.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017L01370
People being able to buy drones off the shelf with absolutely no aviation savvy and punching them up into airspace which contain manned aircraft is the crux of the problem. I’ve got a DJI Spark that’s supposedly got a 7km range, I can’t legally operate it beyond about 1km in order to keep it in visual sight, loss sight of it an I’m illegal and it then becomes potentially dangerous - forget all the rules.
Plenty of uneducated drones pilots have lost their $3000 toy by punching it up high then flying it BVLOS out a few Kms in a tailwind and then decided to hit return to home when the battery gets to 30%, only to find that the drone is punching into a strong headwind and lands or crashes in an unknown location! Not really smart! A PPL holder would be able to easily work this problem out. And we have uneducated people being able to buy one of these drones straight off the shelf and hit the airways. Bit like a 10 year old kid buying a car and driving it home....
Plenty of uneducated drones pilots have lost their $3000 toy by punching it up high then flying it BVLOS out a few Kms in a tailwind and then decided to hit return to home when the battery gets to 30%, only to find that the drone is punching into a strong headwind and lands or crashes in an unknown location! Not really smart! A PPL holder would be able to easily work this problem out. And we have uneducated people being able to buy one of these drones straight off the shelf and hit the airways. Bit like a 10 year old kid buying a car and driving it home....
Eventually you have to accept that not everything can be legislated and regulated. The lack of demonstrated accidents shows that the current system is working satisfactorily surely? In other words, what is the problem you want to fix?
Too much common sense in recent posts.
The flying things with which I’ve had the majority of close encounters in the air: Birds.
Wedgies seem to have a particularly poor attitude to the safety of air navigation. They fly around like they own the sky. I think all wedge-tailed eagles should be fitted with ADS-B.
There: I’ve said it.
The flying things with which I’ve had the majority of close encounters in the air: Birds.
Wedgies seem to have a particularly poor attitude to the safety of air navigation. They fly around like they own the sky. I think all wedge-tailed eagles should be fitted with ADS-B.
There: I’ve said it.
Regardless of what the Uni done, it still doesn’t discount the fact that a collision in between a manned aircraft and a drone could potentially result in serious damage if not fatalities, it’s only a matter of time.