Drones and Sydney NYE Telecast
 

Watching the fireworks on TV last night and a couple of times it looked very much like they cut to footage by a UAS in amongst the actual fireworks. Anyone else see the same or is it just camera tricks that I've messed up?

Hi Keg,

Didn't see last nights coverage, but the previous year's coverage (or it might have been river fire in Brisbane - senile decay has set in and I can't remember) had a drone in the middle of the fireworks - they made specific comment about it.

Pics looked pretty good, though not sure how the operator controlled it - I assume it had an autopilot with a uploaded flight plan (I have the gear for my models to do the same and they cost about 250 bucks, so a professional drone would have much better gear than I do).

Would have made for even better footage if it got shot down :)

It looked quite good to see those shots of the fireworks from 'right amongst it'.
Some of the smoke trails were impressive from those angles / proximity.

And, it seemed to survive the ordeal OK, although that may have been some 'luck', I guess....

Well done I thought, and was it at or below 400ft AGL OCTA?
But then, what else would have been there on such an occasion?

Cheeerrrssss An' a Happy 2016 to all!! :ok:

There was definitely at least one in Brisbane filming the Fireworks, could see it darting around the place. Seemed to have just green lights underneath? Must have been a fair size as it was pretty easy to see even above skyscraper level and it sure moved pretty quickly, would love to know what model type it was if anyone happens to be in the know!

Either that or it was a UFO. :}

No doubt the footage looks great. It just seems a dumb idea to do it. I wonder if CASA has an opinion on the issue.

There was a drone operating just off shore from the Broadwater Parklands at Southport, for last nights NYE activities.

Why a dumb idea keg? I thought the footage looked good - as did the three other pilots watching the TV with me. Obviously a risk that it might get hit by fireworks, but that might be worth the risk for the network for the footage.

I assume there was a notam out for the fireworks anyway, so no aircraft would be in the area. No danger as long as not over the crowds.

Given the media coverage of the event/s the drones would have no doubt been operated by CASA RPA certified operators.

Part of their operational planning would generally require some form of risk analysis to be done. Given the scope and nature of the operation it would not surprise me if CASA personnel weren't involved at least from an operational observation perspective.

Lucky it wasn't operated by Qantas, it would have required weeks of simulator training to prepare for it. :rolleyes:

Sorry Keg, couldn't resist!! :p

Lol. Good one ACMS. Spot on. :D :}

I guess to me the risk of sending a UAS through fireworks and the potential for said UAS to be 'shot down' and ending up embedded in someone's scone is outside my level of acceptability. I'd LOVE to read that sort of risk assessment to find out exactly how they've addressed the various risks.:eek:

You were at the Broadwater Parklands Tail Wheel?? ..... we dare not venture out on NYE ...too much fun to be had relaxing at home around the pool...drinking and carrying on......:ok:

If so bothered we can probably walk up the easement to watch the Surfers Fireworks....was it good down at the Broadwater Parklands??

We heard a fireworks display was cancelled due wind?

Parklands were fine. The traffic jam after was reminiscent of central Bangkok in peak hour!! :yuk:

Dunno know about a fireworks display being cancelled due wind....regrettably the 'Bangkok peak hour traffic jam' will get worse...approvals for more developments without attendant upgrades to infrastructure.....typical Aussie short term vision..:{

Surfers fireworks moved? due to rough seas.

Anyone see the drone crashing just behind a competitor in a down hill ski race?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeviAWB0i4Y

I'm not a UAV or RPA pilot, but isn't it illegal to fly them at night?

Yes it is currently illegal to fly them at night or via First Person View or IMC conditions. Presuming here that they would definitely need approvals from CASA for such operations or an AOC addition.

CASA Flyer:

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/file...trol_model.pdf

I know the guy flying the drone over New Years. They were based on a barge right among the other fireworks barges in the harbour and yes it was pure luck that they didn't get hit by any of the fireworks but as someone has already said it was a cool shot and they decided it was definitely worth it.

They were in a cordoned off area over water so if it had been hit there was little to no risk of injury if it fell and for the cost of the whole NYE spectacle in Sydney the cost of a drone is nothing.

Re the rooles....

"Its illegal to fly for money or economic reward unless you have an unmanned operator's certificate issued by the 'you-can-guess-who'....."

I guess he /she did it free of charge then... or.... they had 'said cert.'....???

Cheeerrrsss...:p

There is the risk assessment Keg! It was a cool shot and they ( I assume the drone operator and the fireworks people)decided it was worth it. As you are in the know Trimset could you also enlighten the aviation community if they got the required approvals from CASA? FYI, approvals from NSW OHS departments don't count when it comes to operating in Commonwealth airspace.

if you noticed where the drone footage was from, it was above Ft Dennison. right in the middle of fireworks restricted zone, i am pretty certain, that CASA would have only allowed it to fly there, after filing a flight plan, and risk assessment forms, probably done after the last NYE show.. so, even if it was hit by a firework, it would have crashed into the harbour a safe distance from everyone.. even those flying over the fireworks on a harbour scenic 2 would be in no danger, min 2100ft and all.

There didn't seem to be all that many scenics on the night, the odd chopper and the ApplicancesOnline blimp had been flying for much of the day and into the night.

Unfortunately I don't know him that well but the UAV operator was Rotorworks. I would be certain they would have all required permits and licences. If you want to see what I could see look up "Surf 2 Summit Media" on Facebook.

Ultralights, from the photos there, you're spot on. They were right at Fort Denison. Looks like they were pretty well set up for the night!

Yes Lookleft, that's my impression of the risk assessment too.

So the risk assessment included historical data or research of the performance of a UAS after struck by fireworks that indicated it would crash straight down?

Maybe it did. Like I said, I'd love to read the risk assessment on this one.

Drones could do anything when hit by fireworks... It's electronics after all and a knock could upset the gyros and it could spear off in any direction and into anyone. All the failsafes in the world may not stop it... Refer to ATSB report for loss of control of a UAV at the Melbourne MCG.

But, are they safer than a single engined Squirrel overhead at night? Probably.

On that basis, no "first of type" or "first time this has been tried" would ever get off the ground, correct?

Or would you set up a firework display or a series of displays in the middle of nowhere and fly a UAV through the display hoping that it would get hit to determine how it would react?

How many times would you need to do this to get sufficient "historical data" and how many hits would you need to determine that the struck UAV would not do other than crash straight down?

What a stupid question! First of type go through rigorous design and testing before they even take-off.

The statement suggests that this experiment was done with a lot of fingers crossed.

G'day 601. I'd want to know how well the UAV flies after having one of its rotors smashed and the thing turned on its side. Maybe it'd plummet straight down. Maybe it wouldn't. I'd want to know how well it recovers from a hit to the electronic control box. IE when the 'link' is cut. Then do that with the rotor out. Then a couple of rotors out.

We aren't talking about a first flight of a type. We're talking about flying a known type into a completely hostile environment. It's basically a combat zone but one with hundreds of thousands of people hanging around as close as possible to an exclusion zone that was designed for fireworks, not errant UAVs.

Fly just above the fireworks, beside them, heck, even from below and to the side. Through them though?

By type I was referring to the operation NOT the aerial vehicle.

These multirotor autopilots sacrifice altitude control for the inner control loops which provide aircraft attitude stability through differential thrust. A loss or partial loss of power to one or more motors in an autopilot mode will cause the remaining motors to reduce power and the aircraft will descend. Of course the most likely scenario is the machine immediately loses stability and crashes.

The wreckage will be found very close to where the original issue occurred in either case.

The likelihood of a "fly away" event due to getting hit by fireworks is so remote it does not need additional control measures to reduce that risk further.

Have a read of the ATSB report on the Melbourne MCG drone as it lost control (and had a fly-away occurrence) possibly due to saturated frequency airwaves due to the high number of mobile phones due to the footy match. How many phones etc were there for NYE???

i thought it was television transmissions from vans parked below it that was teh cause of that one? as mobile phones are ona differeing frequency, but television is pretty close.

Right you are UL, hence my use of the term "etc" to cover the full spectrum of frequencies :-)

From ATSB report summary, my bolding.

The operator’s investigation into the accident concluded that radio frequency interference was the most likely cause of the accident.
...
The operator acknowledged that further testing and analysis was required before the primary cause of the accident could be confirmed beyond doubt.

Given the profile of this incident, it would have been very beneficial to the sector for the ATSB to have conducted or arranged an independent investigation into the cause of this accident and based the report on actual evidence.

The availability of autopilot telemetry would show very specifically what went wrong.

Investigation: AO-2015-112 - In-flight break-up involving a DJI S900 remotely piloted aircraft, at Toowoomba, Qld on 19 September 2015

Although short, this one makes for some interesting reading. This one could have ended very differently!

Probably NOT.

In the period 2000 to 2013 there were over 150 crashes of helicopters and a few fixed wing, whilst engaged in aerial filming or photography.
Whilst there were scores of crew injured or killed in these accidents, no member of the public was reported injured or hospitalised.

Yet filming drones have already injured bystanders and members of the public.

So whilst drones are far safer than helicopters for their crew they are not yet safer for the public.

I'd agree that unless a independently powered kill switch with a dedicated receiver was used, then there was a risk of partial damage by fireworks and loss of control that could send the craft off into a crowd, rather than straight down.

Note: The incredible record of filming pilots keeping the public safe was broken last year when a news chopper fell from a rooftop helipad and crashed into a car, killing its driver.


Mickjoebill

Does this not prove that there are huge areas available in which to crash even sizable aircraft with little risk of hitting a person?

Drone operators both recreational and professional must continue to improve performance in managing the risks, but let's not overstate the real risk to the public.