Tokyo's Drone Squad
 

In an effort to enforce no-fly-zones across the city, Tokyo's Metropolitan Police Department is launching a drone squad.

Tokyo?s drone squad will deploy 10-foot drones armed with nets to police the sky | Ars Technica

Dronewinder?
 

I've often tried hitting a party balloon with a conventional model a/c - almost impossible but still fun. As for a firework, disposable radio gear could turn out expensive

New FAA Ruling for USA - Drone Operators are Pilots
 

Just saw this on NPR web site, maybe not a complete fix but it covers the larger and more hazardous ones:

"Starting Dec. 21, all operators of small drones — devices weighing between 0.55 pounds and 55 pounds — need to go online and register their names and addresses with the Federal Aviation Administration. The government would issue a registration number that would need to be displayed on that person's entire fleet of drones."

No Longer Just A Toy: Regulators Say Drone Operators Are Pilots : The Two-Way : NPR

Here's the PDF info sheet from the FAA:

http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/media/20151213_IFR.pdf

Complete waste of time. The people who will cause trouble with their drones will ignore it ; the more so to avoid punishment when they pursue their dangerous antics near aircraft.
The only effective (& sane) approach is to ban these aircraft entirely !

There appears to be an insane loophole in the new FAA regs on drone registration. Apparently, non-citizen operators can't register their drones. The FAA, by law, cannot register aircraft belonging to foreigners. They can issue a certificate of ownership, but that seems to be completely voluntary. So I guess any non-citizen terrorists wanting to use a drone can go right ahead without worrying that they are breaking the law! :)

Here;s the FAA's FAQ on this: UAS Registration Q&A

kcockayne:

No doubt you are right for the most part. Maybe the feds have a plan they aren't discussing.

Let us hope so ! I don't wish to be a killjoy to those innocent operators of these machines; but does anyone NEED to use them ?

Whether it's effective or not, what's interesting to me is that somehow the FAA decided to set the weight limit for "dangerous" drones at 0.55 lbs. Obviously there has to be some limit, because flyweight versions of these things are being sold in the thousands now as household toys. But was that based on any kind of testing, or are they just putting it in the "small bird strike" category and assuming it won't be a problem?

What's the result of a helicopter or fixed wing aircraft smacking into a drone that weighs a quarter pound?

Does anyone NEED to use an ageing warbird at an air display (or at Reno)? Does anyone NEED to use a Pitts/Extra/WHY in a public place where they have a track record of injuring the public? Does anyone NEED to use a bottle of Jack Daniels (or even whisky)? Does anyone NEED to have 10 target-shooting firearms and 10,000 rounds of ammunition in their home? Does anyone NEED a motor vehicle capable of more than 75mph or a 0-60 time of less than 20seconds?

Start down that path and all of the above would be next on the list...

€0.03 supplied,

PDR

Depends where it hits and the speed of the aircraft. Relatively light weight squashy birds have penetrated cockpits before.

I am not sure that the average 'drone' user who only changes away from MTV to play call-of-duty or Grand Theft Auto, will know that his drone needs to be registered. It is also this user that will see no problem at all in flying close to an airport.
But the bureaucrats have 'made a regulation' so that problem is solved. :rolleyes:

PDR1

You make a fair point; but the line has to be drawn somewhere. I guess that it is a question of assessing the danger of all these things. I accept that you can't ban everything that might be a danger. However, there must be limits, somewhere, to what you are allowed to do.

Flying drones is completely safe if you use basic common sense and abide by the rules. Don't fly over 400 ft, out of sight, over crowds and respect peoples property and privacy.

The rules are clear about flying near airports, restricted areas or near any aircraft. Most have GPS so won't fly into a restricted airspace or even take off if you are in one. Suggesting banning them with no reason because the word drone sounds scary is silly. Besides being a lot of fun to fly and do aerial photography they are being used a lot more to benefit all of us.

So, why is there a problem with them ? Or, is there ?

Three weeks ago a C152 almost collides with a heavy quadcopter over the N entry point in LELL airport at 3000 feet AMSL (2500 AGL) while descending to land.

Other pilots reported drone activity in the traffic pattern of this airport at 1500 feet AGL.

<However, there must be limits, somewhere, to what you are allowed to do.>

There ARE limits, clearly defined in law both here in the UK and over in the colonies. So what we're looking at here is finding effective means of law-enforcement, not a need for new laws. I suggest that the knee-jerk populism evidenced in the FAA regulation fails to provide effective law-enforcement.

Why? The people covered in the scope of this regulation can be divided into three groups:

1. Hobbyists (both "conventional" RC model flyers and "multicopter/FPV" flyers). These people have a long-term experience of and interest in the hobby. They are mostly members of national associations (like the BMFA in the UK or the AMA in the colonies), and carry 3rd-party liability insurance. They are aware of, and generally abide by the laws, restrictions, codes-of-practice and safety procedures applicable to their hobby and present insignificant risk to the public or to man-carrying aviation. The new regulation will not change their risk in any way.

2. Commercial or pseudo-commercial (academic) operators. These people have discovered the emergent multicopter technologies and use them to perform legitimate activities. They're a varied bunch - aerial photography for estate agents ("realtors" to colonials), aerial crop survey, small-scale crop-spraying, archaeological survey, wildlife photography & study* and even search & rescue** . Heck, last year I had a roofing specialist out to quote me for repairing leaks on my rental property. It's an old 3-storey edwardian house with high, gabled rooves that need scaffolding just to get up and take a look. This guy had a multicopter with an HD video camera and accurately surveyed the job in 20 mins, saving £1,00 on the final bill. These people are useful. They are also commercially licensed both in the UK and the states. They have an approved Operations Manual (very similar to any other Air Operator) which defines their operating limits, procedures, separations etc etc and they stick to them, They carry insurance, and these chaps & chapesses aren't a threat to anyone else either, and the new regulation will have no effect on their risk.

3. The "Hooligan" element. These are the people who do crazy things to get attention on youtube. Some film themselves driving cars through city centres at 200mph in the early hours of the morning. Some film themselves strapping fireworks to cats. Some film themselves playing silly-beggers with guns, and some use multicopters to take daring or dangerous footage (like filming aircraft in the pattern at airports). You can also include the peeping tom filmers and intrusive journalists in this group. These people are basically stupid. They are dangerous, ungovernble and reprehensible, and constitute the best argument I've seen for moving the abortion limit from 28 weeks to around 70 years. They represent a significant risk to the public and to manned aviation. This new regulation will have no effect on them whatsoever, because they won't register. They will simply operate covertly - the FPV vehicles which they use can be flown from inside the back of a van with blacked-out windows. Sure, Police officers might shoot down and seize an offending multicopter, but they'll have extreme difficulty finding the owner, and the owner will just go and spend another $600 on another one.

So the regulation will place a burden on those who are NOT a problem whilst being completely irrelevant to those who ARE a problem. And at a rough guess based on observations, of the people in the scope of the regulation well over 98% fall into the first two categories. Way to go, lawmakers!!

There is, of course, an interesting observation to make when it comes to conflicting demands on lower VFR airspace. Both the UK and the colonies are democracies. If it was ever deemed that general aviation and RC hobbyists could play nicely and share airspace so it came to a straight fight over who has the right to (say) the first 2,000 feet AGL I would be willing to bet a fairly substantial sum**** that the RC hobbyists outnumber the VFR man-carrying aviation fraternity by something like 50:1 in the UK and possibly a bit less in the states. So being a democracy the only *ethical* course of action would be to ban man-carrying aircraft from the lower (say) 3,000 feet AGL anywhere outside an ATZ. Do we *really* want to go there?

€0.03 supplied,

PDR

*A friend of mine does this commercially and has taken hours of footage of migrating birds in flight in africa and the various upper layers of rainforests for academic researchers and film/TV companies

** We've had cases of multicopters being used to take water, food, pocket-warmers and survival blankets to people trapped in bad weather on the moors or on cliff ledges where the mist was far too clagged in to consider flying a helicopter to them

*** [this footnote intentionally left blank]

****Perhaps two or even three Arbies Steak Sandwiches - not something I normally risk lightly

One reason for the 400 ft altitude limit and line of sight with drone at all times is to keep them clear of aircraft. Pilots use "See and be seen" to avoid other aircraft. Drone operators can not easily judge exactly how the drone altitude compares with a much larger aircraft so must stay below altitudes they normally use. The occasional helicopter that might fly lower can be avoided at ease.

I agree that the rogue operators will always be a problem because they don't follow any rules. Don't let them ruin it for the rest of us.

There is a military low-flying corridor that passes over chez G-CPTN.

The area was flooded last weekend, and at the height of the flood, a guy turned up with a quadricopter that he had 'just bought' (for £1500).

It was fitted with a camera that was connected to the iPhone on the 'controller' so that you could see what the camera saw.

The guy remarked (not bragging, just stating 'fact') that it would operate up to 1500 metres (high), and he flew it at least half a mile away (as the crow flies) to hover over the flooded properties on the other side of the river.

Video subsequently appeared on the website of the local newspaper.

Well, the simple answer is that there clearly isn't any problem other than humans inability to correctly assess risk.

Airplanes Hit More Turtles Than Drones | Popular Science

But please don't let science and statistics get in the way of the anti drone crusade......

In the U.K., in 2015, up to September, 15 Airprox reports have been filed involving 'drones'. One report involved a B757, doing 250kts in class 'A' airspace at 5000' to the west of Macclesfield. The CPA (closest point of approach), was estimated to be 150' (vertically). These filed reports are the encounters that are known about, there are likely to be others. Quite rightly, The Guild Of Air Traffic Controllers, (GATCO), is rather concerned about the proliferation of RPAS.

Any Airproxes involving turtles ?

You may laugh at the turtle-strike risk, but given that we all know the world is a disk supported on a large stack of turtles (the whole "spheroid ball floating in an infinite universe" thing having obviously been shown to be NASA propaganda to assure the funding they needed to fake the moon landings) any turtle collision could risk destabilising the stack and the ending of the world as we know it. Fox News would see this as almost as serious threat as democrats.

But more seriously - in a nation which has schoolyard massacres every other month due to it's refusal to properly address its fire-arms fetish, spending time and money regulating the yet-to-materialise potential threat posed by "drones" is clearly populist twaddle. More of the general public have been killed or injured by light aircraft than by "drones", so clearly the first step should be to ban general aviation.

You know it makes sense.

PDR

Registration is going to do absolutely nothing other than be a cost and inconvenience for safe and law abiding drone users. Anyone that wants to use a drone to do harm or fly in a restricted airspace is going to build their own and ignore the registration requirement.

Before anyone jumps to, "we need to restrict the sale of drone parts!", it's not gonna work. The parts are cheap and readily available. All you need to build one are some electric motors, a battery, an RC transmitter & receiver, and a flight control board, oh, and some open source software. Keep in mind, the pioneers of hobby drones used the remote control from your kid's Nintendo Wii connected with a simple off the shelf board for their flight control boards!

The only thing excessive and pointless regulation is going to do at this point is prevent the advancement of drone technology for beneficial and commercial uses.

"the advancement of drone technology for beneficial and commercial use"

Good observation PDJ, so how did we progress from interglacial cave-dwellers to our present state without this?

Glad you asked.

We progressed by ignoring the Luddites who told us that just about every disruptive tech ever invented would bring our doom.

Alpine ski star Marcel Hirscher nearly taken out by a drone - Dec 22, 2015
 

From NBC sports article on a World Cup ski race in Italy titled:

Quote:

---

Marcel Hirscher nearly hit by falling drone camera in slalom run (video)

---

VIDEO: Skier Marcel Hirscher nearly hit by falling drone |

The drone was being used to video the race for TV.

Yikes. After looking at it from a number of angles from different sources, it seems the whole drone (not just the camera, as per the NBC headline) just dropped straight down out of the sky. The rotors appear to still be turning when it hits the ground. He appears to be very lucky it missed him.

Weight?
 

How much does a drone that size weigh?

Dean

sadly, this will perhaps garner more publicity around the potential dangers of drones than lots of reports from pilots of near-misses.

At this stage, any publicity about how dangerous and unregulated these things are is good publicity.

This is completely untrue in Australia at any rate.

https://www.casa.gov.au/operations/s...d-aircraft-rpa

I believe the UK is also strict.

My apologies for my lack of clarity. It's true they are regulated in a number of countries, HK included.

Civil Aviation Department - Guidelines on Operations of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)

From what I've seen here however, there is little to no enforcement of any of these rules, particularly the VLOS one.

Example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvVu3qfADgw

And these things are on sale everywhere - toy stores and hobby stores all over the place. It's only a matter of time before something goes badly wrong, IMO.

Icarus,
 

It appears from media reports that this drone was fully licensed and operating accordingly. Still this near miss happened. This puts the incident into another, to me more severe, category than thrill seeking toy drone operators.

EDIT: Please let me explain. A toy drone operator near-missing an aircraft might conceivably think of his drone as relatively unharmful. After all, he may have seen videos of airplanes subjected to birdstrike tests in certification, and may have the impression that an airplane is somewhat robust.

Whereas an operator flying a drone over a racecourse, presumably with spectators close by without any form of protection, surely must be acutely aware of the risk to unsuspecting third parties his operation entails. I'm not downplaying the risk of drones to commercial aviation, but there is an equal risk to other unsuspecting people as shown here.

I was listening to a recent TV report about what the UK is considering about regulation. Stable door & horses comes t mind, but late is better than never. One thought comes to mind. Regulation is one thing, but identification is another. If people are flying drones in open residential space and they cause damage, or even cause a car crash what happens to identify the owner/operator? Imagine the ski crash happening on a motorway. Are drone carrying serial numbers which are registered on a central data base at purchase? Surely, if something is operating remotely, with a strong change of causing an offence, be it social disturbance or damage, then the operator should be identifiable.
Regulation without the ability to follow it up is ineffective.

Serious question.

Why are you all so concerned about drones?

Yes they have the potential to cause accidents.

So what?

A million things are a higher risk but we ignore them.

Statistics show that drones which have been around for years now have so far caused absolutely no accidents whatsoever to civil aircraft.

Everything has risk.

Intelligent people concentrate on the high risks first.

Americans have guns.
Guns can be shot at aircraft.
guns are shot at aircraft.

Are guns regulated?

Cessnas (other puddle jumpers are available!) flown by PPLs have a long history of killing airliners and people on the ground.
If they are allowed to continue, they will kill more people.
They are entirely for the entertainment of those on board.

Should we ban them?

People need to get a life and accept risks, particularly vanishingly small ones.

Tourist,

we are accustomed to a "minimize risk" environment. It is hard to argue that UAVs pose "no risk".
Your blunt statement is...true. It is about relative risk - how one dangerous thing compares to another dangerous thing. You cannot fight all battles - pick the ones that matter.

Imagine the horror when motor vehicles became available! ANYONE could go get one. You had to have a flag man walk ahead of you (the government's feeble attempt to use railroad rules to control the automotive dangers).

Society learned, to a point, to cope with this invention. People continue to kill themselves and others with it. It is acceptable to society. Not banned or outlawed. Controlled - but not even to the best of its abilities (we could mandate self-driving-capable car technology, so that technology could overrule driver input, when the latter is stupid or dangerous). We choose to use this with very, very much restraint (stability systems etc., but no automatic limiter to speed limits, for example).

Good post, Tourist.

Myth busting: Luddites were not against new technology because it was new, it was because the technology introduced during the Industrial Revolution threatened to replace them with less-skilled, low-wage labourers, leaving them without work.

I think you are missing the point, and quoting Luddism is not relevant. No-one is against the correct use of the technology. It is a brilliant invention and has some extraordinary uses, many could be life saving in sending recede drones before an assault (military) and in a search & rescue roll (civil) You could send up a squadron of GPS autopilot controlled camera drones to grid search an area, be it for lost climbers or even at sea for a missing boat. Absolutely excellent. Also monitor a crash scene on a motorway to help the logistics for the attending services.
Equally you can go to any toy shop and buy a toy and cause severe injury even death. Read #436. Did this drone crash due to technical failure or operator error. Now imagine some muppet flies one over a motorway in the same way people stand on bridges to gawp at the traffic. They lose control or it fails and there is a multi-car pile up. It was not a certified a/c operated by a licensed operator in a safety critical public place. What would your reaction be if your family was in one of the cars? What would your reaction be if some muppet had drop a concrete block off a bridge, same result. (it has happened). What's the difference? Surely you would like to trace the culprit. There is no registration number on a concrete block but there could/should be on drones, surely.
This is not an argument isolated to drones v a/c.

People continue to kill themselves and others with it cars.

Yes, but you can identify by whom.

I can guarantee the first time severe injury or death is caused by a toy drone there will a clamour for registration/regulation. We are in an industry that is supposed to be proactive in accident consideration, not reactive.

Yes, I'm aware what Luddites were.....

How strange that many people who are against drones which fly themselves around without highly trained well paid pilots are in fact highly trained well paid pilots....

Fancy that?

I agree, there will be knee jerk reaction.
Let's be honest there is lots of knee jerk reaction despite the fact there has been nothing to react to yet!



The drone crashing on the ski slope was a professional camera drone. I am willing to bet it was operating in a regulated manner, yet still it crashed.

A bit like when regulated helicopters carrying cameras crash really.

Tourist: I'm not concentrating on 'regulated' drones & 'regulated' operators: I'm concentrating on being able to identify who owned the drone that causes damage or worse.I'm talking about registration. That does not mean their use is restricted in any unreasonable manner; it just means you know which muppets are using them after they've crashed & burned somewhere they shouldn't.

Let's be honest there is lots of knee jerk reaction despite the fact there has been nothing to react to yet!

I don't think you can react in a 'knee jerk' manner before anything has happened: by definition. Being proactive, after sensible considerations about possibilities, is something quite different. It is what many of us in aviation do on a daily basis. If we did not do so the victim public would castigate us for not doing so.