Lets talk drones
 

Drones getting in the way of emergency responders - WECT TV6-WECT.com:News, weather & sports Wilmington, NC

It is coming. Death and destruction from a drone versus EMS or other emergency helo/airplane. ( or commercial aircraft)

I had a conversation with an ATC specialist about five years ago and he admitted to me that the tech was far outpacing the governments ability to handle it. I made some written proposals back then but of course they were ignored.

Here are some of my thoughts, some have evolved over the years.

1. Any drone that can travel 300 yards or more away from the controller will have a transponder squawking a code identifying it as a drone. The squawk will be able to be changed to i.d. the drone specifically to a particular operation.

2. Drone operators doing any operations outside of the 300 yard radius will contact ATC with a specific flight plan and will be either in constant communication with ATC or at least be immediately available to ATC via cell phone etc.

3. Prior to being allowed to purchase a drone of a certain size and or range, the purchaser will read and sign a contract guaranteeing that they and anyone employed by them will follow all rules and regulations set up for drone ops. They will have to sign a legal contract stating that fully understand the severe consequences of violating the rules.

4. Any photo/video/audio material attained by these long range drones will be required to have a digital tag attached to them that identifies the specific drone and owner/operator that took the images. It will be illegal for anyone to purchase any of this material for commercial publication that does not contain the digital tag.

5. Any drone operator caught operating in a TFR without prior permission from all pertinent agencies will be subject to a severe fine. Any damage, injury or death caused by the drone will make the owner/operator subject to severe penalties including murder charges in the event of a death.

6. Any owner/operator that flies within 2 miles of a emergency operation of any kind without prior permission of all pertinent agencies will be subject to severe fines.

In any and all cases, number 1 and 2 must be followed. There is no one size fits all solution but we have to start somewhere.

I don't see how it can be justified that a drone with good range and size can somehow be given a complete pass on any rules that would have to be followed by a one person helicopter or airplane. Yes, the operator is not there with the aircraft so they should have more rules and restrictions, not less. And, yes, I mean aircraft. Calling these drones does give a false sense that they are just fun little small things that can't hurt anyone. They are aircraft being operated by a (I use the term loosely) pilot. The industry will downplay calling the operators pilots because that means they don't need a license and therefore have no regs to follow. That translates into sales.

Ladies and gents, your thoughts, additions, criticisms.

Cheers

However there is this fantastic invention:
http://theamericangenius.com/tech-ne...ws-you-around/

And you are going to enforce this,... how?

Lets talk drones
 

Being charged with murder requires a demonstration that the suspect intended the death of the victim, good luck getting that one through for an "all cases" situation.

How the heck is anyone supposed to know everything that is happening within a two mile radius of them*? Emergency operations, unless they go on for days, are hardly likely to be NOTAMed.

*I suppose you could always send up a drone and have a look... :E:E:E


In the UK, the British Model Flying Association in conjunction with the Civil Aviation Authority have created a number of documents and schemes to regulate their members, professional drone users and those wishing to experiment with the, generally larger, commercial-type drones. What they have produced looks pretty well thought out. There will always be 'cowboys' who ignore these rules, however the existing Air Navigation Orders apply just as much to model aircraft and drones as they do to manned aircraft.

https://bmfa.org/Multi-Rotors

BMFA Multi-Rotor Achievement Scheme - DroneTrest


grumpytroll, you have made the assumption that drones are bought as off-the-shelf entities, whereas at the larger end of the scale the exact opposite is more likely to be the case, with each part of the equipment being selected for the exact application.

These things are for voyeurs and oddballs and should be banned from the sky before they kill someone.

Having had 2 near misses with drones in the past, I would add my thoughts on this in the same way I think about American members of the general public and their love for assault rifles/ grenades etc:

Why does anyone NEED one?

You can license and have legal deterrents etc until the cows come home but why the NEED to have one? Some things are better left as niche things which militaries use. This is one of them in my opinion.

No thank you, added weight and expense reduces mission time. (A simple strobe will do).

I would agree if operating within an aerodrome traffic zone, but when nowhere near an active airport? Not necessary.

Unenforceable therefore waste of time.

Drones are here to stay, there will be lots more of them so get used to it.

crab There are a lot of professional outfits that operate legally and are not voyeurs etc and would therefore suffer if banned.

There have been many many collisions between full-size aircraft, resulting in hundreds of deaths. As far as I am aware, not so with these little drones eh?

Chopjock,

I think Crab's point was why introduce a completely unregulated hazard into the sky when we do a reasonable enough job of crashing the regulated ones into each other already?

They don't have to be here to stay and while I agree that many professionals have them and use them perfectly safely, it's the ones like the goon in Istanbul last year which worry me. it only takes one.

Every time we fly with these around it reminds me of an old military phrase about enemy action: I have to be lucky every time, they only have to be lucky once. Sums up my sentiments of the risks of drones perfectly.

Nowherespecial:ok::ok:

I was talking to a chap just after he filed a MOR for a close call at 1800ft just West of Biggin, a drone around 1.5m diameter and an EC130 7-up. Following alert to ATC, Police Helicopter came to search for the operator but no luck. That was the second close encounter I heard of in the vicinity in a week.


Only a matter of time....

M240. And a crapload of ammo. :E



I/C

Or maybe one of them kiwi deer hunters with a net gun in the backseat at all times.

Seriously: I do agree the drones should carry a transponder whenever flown out of the operators sight so they at least show up on the controllers screen, on TCAS, on PowerFlarm and whatever else is there in that department.

I predict that no drastic measures will be taken until an airliner is brought down by a drone followed by a public outcry. Apparently the incident in Warsaw with the Lufthansa Embraer was not enough for international consequences.

There was a proposal last month to the FAA from Amazon to establish a "drone airspace" below 400 ft agl. plus an exclusion zone from 400 - 500ft agl to separate drone traffic from other air traffic (airports being excluded from this drone airspace for obvious reasons).

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...-the-safe.html

Now, providing private airstrips were also excluded etc. I could see this being feasible for fix wing traffic which would be unlikely to be flying this low outside of an airfield - although it could make an off-airfield emergency landing even more "exciting" that it needs to be!

However, my immediate reaction was this wouldn't work well for rotary traffic which may have very legitimate reasons for being below 500ft agl. outside of an airfield.

Matthew

And virtually all military traffic of course, incl jets doing 7nm a minute and troop carrying Support Helicopters. Let's not even go there on a C130 full of Paras.

But hey someone got some cool overhead photos on a go pro so the risk of killing hundreds of people was def worthwhile....

I agree that they should be regulated through model flying clubs, thing is it took me five years to learn to fly a model helicopter, plenty of time to learn responsibility, but any idiot can buy and put a drone up due to the amount of gyros and gizmos they have

Nowherespecial, as you are talking about risk, the probability of a birdstrike with a goose or buzzard is far greater than with a drone, so maybe you should be insist the RSPB get them all fitted with FLARM and transponders?

Model flying sites are not specifically marked on any air map that I have seen, and the only fatal collision with a model that I am aware of was on a shared site (Hang glider & slope soarer, Devil's Dyke, 1987), so the risk from randomly colliding with a drone in uncontrolled airspace must be equally small.

There was a case recently of a full size aeroplane clipping a model (presumably a slope soarer) at Mill Hill, near Shoreham, this year, but to my mind anyone who does a low approach over a known popular slope soaring site needs their head examined.

Plane nearly crashed after model aircraft smashed into it at 1,000ft - Mirror Online

https://bmfa.org/News/News-Page/Arti...ll-West-Sussex

In the US, drones are already being reported in NMAC situations even within Class B,C,D airspace. The US has a significant problem with laser illuminations, and drones are the next wave of risk creators on a much higher level.

Except that the Cessna was at about 1000' and the site is only cleared for use up to 50' with unpowered aircraft.

That is the big problem, people will kick the a*se out of any permissions granted to fly these thing and, on the whole, the sort of people buying them are not the sort who worry too much about rules and regs anyway.

How is the CAA going to get transponders on these when they are not even mandated on gliders or paragliders - both of which I and my colleagues have had near misses with this year as they don't show up on TCAS and are very difficult to see until you are right on top of them.

The big sky theory only works for so long!

[email protected], Having researched this incident a bit further, it is apparent that the non thermic weather conditions and the type of model involved make the stated collision height of 1000ft highly unlikely.

http://slopesoaringsussex.bl*gspot.c...lar-flyer.html

replace the * with an o

enforcement?
 

Pilot reports of close calls with drones soar in 2015 | Vertical Magazine - The Pulse of the Helicopter Industry

I guess there are some ways to enforce rules regarding drones. The FAA is going to come down hard on anyone found violating the rules. As someone else stated, there will be serious rule changes when an airliner is brought down or an EMS aircraft with a patient on board. I also predict that when fire fighting aircraft are grounded due to drone activity and a mansion or two in California owned by Spielberg, Winfrey et al is lying in ashes, suddenly this will become a big deal to politicians.

Realistically, these things are going to become a dangerous nuisance, like a swarm of mosquitoes. In big cities especially, when an accident happens, news helicopters are dispatched. Now it will be drones. Not only drones with responsible operators but anyone with a police scanner and a desire to get a shot of the tragedy. Currently when responding to a scene and there are news helos in the area, we TALK to each other. Directly. I can tell them which way I will be departing and when. News helos are squawking so the local ATC can coordinate traffic as necessary. ATC can let other EMS aircraft inbound know who and what is around the scene. If drones were at least squawking a code they would be visible on TCAS and radar and if they have a unique squawk, others can be warned that drones are indeed operating in the area. I believe that responsible drone operators would participate in communications efforts with ATC. First, I don't think they are cavalier about having a multi-thousand dollar drone destroyed by a multi-million dollar helicopter. Second, they don't want this situation to become so bad so quick that regulations come down that essentially ban them completely. Third, the local news organization that operates a drone that brings down an EMS or police helicopter...can you say bad publicity? Finally, there is a requirement for aircraft operation in class B and C to have two way radio comms and a transponder with mode C. Additionally, a 30 mile mode C veil from surface to 10,000 for Class B. So how is a drone allowed to operate in direct conflict with these rules that are required for all other aircraft?

Can't enforce the rules, seriously. Yeah, ask the fools who are caught shining lasers at aircraft if they have been dealt with. 10 years in some cases. Of course you can't stop everyone, just like you can't stop drunk drivers. You can sure enforce the rules with a firm hand and slow the thing down considerably. Or we could just say its all unenforceable, throw up our hands and stomp away.

Fair point. Would certainly make sense to make transponders mandatory for all aircraft in all airspaces. But I think there is an additional risk when it comes to unmanned aircraft: They are just that, unmanned, so nobody sitting in there risking his own bum (which usually does the trick to make you a bit more motivated not to crash). Instead the jolly drone operator sits somewhere, detached from what's going on, piloting the thing around. Or even better, he just typed in some coordinates and sends the damn thing off into the skies, trusting the old gods and the new that his shiny toy will return eventually.

https://youtu.be/UU8sJ8aeyC4

with more of these....:E

Privateers. Maybe we can issue Eagles and other raptors letters of marque.:)

Are you guys serious or just "old". Drones are coming - big style. They will completely swamp our airspace in every shape and form, be it Amazon delivering parcels, to sheep rearing, to aerial assessment of crop health, to filming individuals as they go about their sports and interests, to law enforcement, spying, journalism, selling houses, assessing building repairs, on and on and on.

Nothing will stop this tsunami of activity and the CAA are caught completely on the hop. There are even companies devising systems which knock drones out by interfering with their transmissions so that airfields can be protected, convoys etc etc.

get real.

This is most certainly the future. Commercial aircraft will become pilotless, certain manned helicopter activity redundant.

Be prepared

I can agree that things are changing and drones are here to stay but am more concerned with the here and now. It isn't just drones,I've had experiences with paramotors flying at low level over our FATO and even using it out of hours without asking and with no radio,no advance warning,and apparently unregulated by the CAA.

Thomas Coupling :D

The solution to this problem is to have drones limited to 4mph and preceded by a smaller drone carrying a red flag.

Guys, do your research please. In the UK the CAA are far from being behind the curve. They are actually leading the field in regulating commercial drone operation. You need a 'permission to work' before being allowed to operate commercially. This involves ground school and a written exam, writing an OM-A and B and getting it approved and successfully passing a flight test with an examiner, carrying specialist insurance, providing a written risk assessment for every job, keeping log books for the machine and pilot and charging records for every battery. It's not something that everyone is going to put themselves through. Most of the more commonly used drones have software that prevents them from flying too close to airports, flying above 400 feet or more than 500 meters from the operator (these are the legally established limits which also include not flying in vis below 5k, within 50 mtrs laterally and vertically of persons, vessels, vehicles and structures not under your direct control etc ).
The main problem is that anyone can buy one. The best regulation would probably be to prevent purchase of a machine unless the buyer can prove that they are suitably qualified.
There is vast potential for valid commercial use of drones and they are definitely here to stay but maybe there are a lot of operators on here who are against them because they will surely take a lot of work from helicopters? ;). And just to put my head right above the parapets, I am a fixed wing ATPL who also operates a drone business.....

In exactly the same way that anyone can go and buy an airworthy aeroplane or helicopter.

Thank you McDoo for a very good exposition of the situation. Best declare my interest here: my big bruvva (ex-RAF pilot) has just completed the licensing process described by McDoo, and is every bit as professional in his (and his observer's) approach to the task as any AOC holder should be. If I was only sharing the low-level airspace (and you don't get much closer to the ground than following 11kv wires much of the day) with operators like him I would be extremely comfortable and confident.

I am not particularly worried about them taking over my job; the range and versatility of a heli still beats UAS at least 98% of the time in our work, although there ARE specialised instances where a drone can achieve better imagery.

As for operating them at airfields - if you subscribe to CAA bulletins you'll see that one of the most recent INs concerns UAS ops at airfields. Who would want to? How about operators of large aircraft who want to carry out pre-flight/ post-flight inspections... I for one would not enjoy clambering over a Beluga to achieve the kind of look-see that I can give my EC135. Give me access to a good UAS and a competent operating team and I'd be delighted with the results.

Drones are here to stay - get them (and pocket l@sers...) out of the hands of the untrained and they'll be no more hazardous than anything else we have to deal with.

Agreed, or a few dozen Chinese Lantern flying fire hazards!

Hey T&B, don't worry about your job, the Achilles heel of the drone is the same as iPhones, great technology but rubbish battery life. I don't see any huge improvements on the horizon but maybe the battery manufacturers should talk to Tesla who are leading the field in electric cars with sensible range.
I live close to an airport and know a lot of the folk there. I would love to do some publicity work for them but within the protected zone around the airport my drone won't even allow me to start the motors! There are some dodgy methods to possibly get around this but like your Bro, I'm far too professional to even consider attempting to do so as I can't make the risk assessment viable....

Regarding enforcement of drone misuse, there are many licensed operators now whose businesses could be threatened by irresponsible users.
I can say that although the CAA can't be omnipotent, any such operator will not hesitate to report the bad guys if they come across them. At the moment the CAA are better at responding to this than they are at enforcing the rules on dodgy charters by non AOC operators....

...and you'll never get approval for single engined turboprop commercial fixed wing operations.....oh, hang on a minute....Luddite alert!

NOT aimed at you TC or Mechta, Irony mode engaged....

McDoo - Three big difference compared to the rest of the flying world, here in la la land.
Drones are cheaper than push bikes.
Drones can be flown by anyone with a modicum of co-ordination.
Drones will proliferate in their hundreds if not thousands.

All of this will leave the CAA on the back foot - big time. They are massively understaffed currently and looking at further cutbacks. They are reducing their audit frequency's. They don't have a department that is proactive. They 'react' weeks if not months after the event.
Something very very sinister is going to happen before the Authorities wake up to the problems associated with drone ops.
Rules and regs are for ethical operators remember.

The CAA really have absolutely NO idea how to handle this new threat.......and it will become a threat.

Lets talk drones
 

I worked along side a drone for the last month up at Detour gold mine in N.Ontario. It was doing survey work of the pit. Was a tad concerned originally when I got the email advising this. All my ops work @500 AGL on a longline due to short distances hauling heavy loads. Said drone was going to operate @ 600 AGL. At the end of the day, caused me no problems. Drone Pilot very professional, emailed me their flight plan and times every morning and kept in touch on FM. Security also advised on FM when it was going to fly.

Pesky things hard to spot, I didn't see it once in a month, but the drone crew did understand that every 5-10 minute turn would be out a longline window for a couple. Gave me my airspace and we made it work.....Now Joe Bloggs and his super duper all lights and gadget drones.....Mmmm pleased I fly in the bush...we got bugs the size of drones!!

Hope fire season is treating you well up North....we got our ass handed to us on a plate down here in CA......

Problem with the drones down here is that anyone can afford one and they are all trying to get the CNN shot to sell to the news stations and do not understand or care that we are flying low level over the fires.....

The future has already arrived:

https://www.airdog.com/

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...-10250471.html

Are we not making a basic error in thinking of a universally available (and priced) drone in the same terms as a commercial sized (and priced) helicopter, just because they both fly and occupy airspace?

Doesn't a small shift in head space provide some better perspective? For example; if I want to buy a gun, ANY gun (In Australia) I have to submit a licence application, wait a few weeks for the process, attend a course, pass a test and then register (attach myself) to the serial number of any subsequent guns I buy. If I go out with my gun and kill somebody I will be locked up. If I even frighten somebody with my gun there's a good chance that I will also get prosecuted, I will certainly have my gun and my licence confiscated.

I and many of my farming neighbours have guns for perfectly legitimate purposes but there is a universal respect for the fact that they are dangerous. Fathers teach their sons great respect for that danger at a very early age. The licence course reinforces that. Peers consistently reinforce it. Ignorance of those dangers is no defence when a gun is used irresponsibly. In other words there is an established and universal social culture, allied to harsh and unforgiving laws.

Shouldn't a drone (based on cost, size, availability and danger factor) be regarded, and therefore dealt with, as more like a gun than an aircraft?

In those terms where would the main danger still lie? ... autonomy. Would you ever licence, or even allowed to be sold, an autonomous gun. I don't think so!

Asking a cut-back aviation regulatory body to be responsible for policing drones (below a certain size) isn't ever going to work. But there are plenty of options available for restricting the sale, the purchase and the use of any commodity that has the potential to kill.