Drone dangers: Should unlicensed operators be allowed to fly their drones in New Zealand Skies?

Forums › Off topic › Drone dangers: Should unlicensed operators be allowed to fly their drones in New Zealand Skies?

frednz

993 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 184

Topic # 198201 30-Jun-2016 10:14

In an article on Stuff (29 June 2016) titled: "Catalogue of plane v drone near-misses revealed in CAA data", it says that:

“New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association senior technical officer Dave Reynolds said it was not a matter of whether a drone would hit a plane near one of our major airports, "but when, absolutely".

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/81520599/catalogue-of-plane-v-drone-nearmisses-revealed-in-caa-data

It has been reported that the New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Association (NZALPA) wants to see the compulsory installation of "see-and-avoid technology" on drones, the compulsory addition of identity markings on drones as well as a comprehensive education program for all drone operators.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/72445255/Pilots-union-upset-with-drone-regulations

So what are your views on all this, particularly, should all drones be registered so that the owners can always be traced?

And should drone operators be required to pass a comprehensive theory and practical examination that licenses them to operate their drones? After all, we have to do this before we can drive our cars on NZ roads.

Another issue is the size and weight of drones, should they be limited to a weight of no more than 1kilogram as discussed here:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/77906129/drone-weight-restriction-will-cause-a-lot-of-tears

Cheers

Fred

1 | 2

3344 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1089

Trusted

Vocus

Reply # 1583228 30-Jun-2016 10:59

One person supports this post

IMO small drones (say, less than 1kg) could be operated by anyone within certain limits (sensible ceiling, not near airports, etc)

For something larger perhaps require a simple license, and perhaps larger drones also need to have a small ident transponder so they can be easily spotted/identified if they stray into restricted airspace.

tehgerbil

404 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 187

Reply # 1583240 30-Jun-2016 11:23

One person supports this post

There is no yes/no answer to your question.

However for the love of God don't trust Stuff's fearmongering B$ of stringing together unconnected and very rare drone operators acting like idiots. It's the type of gutter journalism that preys on peoples fears and Stuff have become renowned for it.

On the matter at hand, I believe the CCC's approach has it down pat quite well - Drone operators are celebrating a win after lobbying the city council to alter its proposed policy on the flying machines.

You've got 2 ways I see to 'police it'.

Number 1 - provide prior approval for a public event to take place -

Aka: Jo Blogs has to register their device/sign up to an "owners list" and log every future flight they wish to perform.

Is it really the best use of time for a Park ranger to be monitoring and enforcing these flights? Like the park rangers have have an official duty to find UAV's being flown, identify the operator ask him what he's doing and ask if he has the bureaucratic paperwork that he should have signed up for 3 days ago and has slain the sacrificial goat. Just because he wanted a quick fly around the park? And if he just wanted a quick fly and thought he could get away with it, fine him $150 and tell him he's a bad boy and to not do it again. Cause that would be an awesome use of someones time. /sarcasm.

Or number 2 - have a licensing system of sorts, which means little Johnny who has a new $100 drone for Christmas must cough up $80 (or something) to register himself and to have a peice of paper showing he's a licensed drone operator who can fly in public places. But still has to register those flights before hand (without knowing weather etc) and if he does decide to just have a fly in a public arena, your over zealous park ranger is again expected to somehow identify the UAV being flown, identify the operator, check their license and again fine a 12 year old $150 for "not adhering to his license conditions?"

Neither is ultimately the best use of resources on either side of the fence.

What I suppose we could impose is a weight limit, or a usage option - aka if your drone is being used for commercial reasons and thus will be used around the public you need to have it/yourself registered and licensed to do so.

but again you run into the question of who would actually be upholding the laws on these, who will pay for those to uphold the law, and ultimately whether the system will pay for itself, or if the burden will fall on the rate/taxpayer to uphold the law.

And you also have to factor in the fact there are just not enough UAV operators to bother about this at all!?

Recreationally speaking, it's still performed by a very small group of self governing individuals who ensure their particular hobby is kept out of the limelight to avoid questions exaclty like Ops. :)

frednz

993 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 184

Reply # 1583275 30-Jun-2016 12:27

tehgerbil:

There is no yes/no answer to your question.

However for the love of God don't trust Stuff's fearmongering B$ of stringing together unconnected and very rare drone operators acting like idiots. It's the type of gutter journalism that preys on peoples fears and Stuff have become renowned for it.

On the matter at hand, I believe the CCC's approach has it down pat quite well - Drone operators are celebrating a win after lobbying the city council to alter its proposed policy on the flying machines.

You've got 2 ways I see to 'police it'.

Number 1 - provide prior approval for a public event to take place -

Aka: Jo Blogs has to register their device/sign up to an "owners list" and log every future flight they wish to perform.

Is it really the best use of time for a Park ranger to be monitoring and enforcing these flights? Like the park rangers have have an official duty to find UAV's being flown, identify the operator ask him what he's doing and ask if he has the bureaucratic paperwork that he should have signed up for 3 days ago and has slain the sacrificial goat. Just because he wanted a quick fly around the park? And if he just wanted a quick fly and thought he could get away with it, fine him $150 and tell him he's a bad boy and to not do it again. Cause that would be an awesome use of someones time. /sarcasm.

Or number 2 - have a licensing system of sorts, which means little Johnny who has a new $100 drone for Christmas must cough up $80 (or something) to register himself and to have a peice of paper showing he's a licensed drone operator who can fly in public places. But still has to register those flights before hand (without knowing weather etc) and if he does decide to just have a fly in a public arena, your over zealous park ranger is again expected to somehow identify the UAV being flown, identify the operator, check their license and again fine a 12 year old $150 for "not adhering to his license conditions?"

Neither is ultimately the best use of resources on either side of the fence.

What I suppose we could impose is a weight limit, or a usage option - aka if your drone is being used for commercial reasons and thus will be used around the public you need to have it/yourself registered and licensed to do so.

but again you run into the question of who would actually be upholding the laws on these, who will pay for those to uphold the law, and ultimately whether the system will pay for itself, or if the burden will fall on the rate/taxpayer to uphold the law.

And you also have to factor in the fact there are just not enough UAV operators to bother about this at all!?

Recreationally speaking, it's still performed by a very small group of self governing individuals who ensure their particular hobby is kept out of the limelight to avoid questions exaclty like Ops. :)

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. The Civil Aviation Authority of NZ (CAA) refers to the rules on flying drones here:

https://www.caa.govt.nz/rpas/

The rules are made under the Civil Aviation Act 1990 by the Minister of Transport.

It says on this site that:

There has been huge growth in the development and use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS). You can see examples everywhere of aeroplanes and multi-rotor ‘helicopters’ in toy and electronic stores.

So, this is one of the main factors that is being experienced here and overseas. The number of drones is increasing, they are becoming more sophisticated, and their price is reducing so that they are affordable to a lot more people than previously.

I agree that most operators are probably very responsible and just want to quietly enjoy flying their drones. But, as you become more experienced in flying your drone, you may be tempted to send your craft on longer flights and at a greater altitude than when you first started.

One of the CAA rules says that you must be able to see the aircraft with your own eyes (eg, not through binoculars, a monitor, or smartphone) to ensure separation from other aircraft (or use an observer to do this in certain cases). However, I suspect this rule is sometimes ignored as it certainly doesn't take long before you can lose sight of your drone against a blue sky!

This can increase the risk of "flyaway" drones, where operators lose contact with their drones, which can lead to crashes that have the potential to cause serious harm to people and property. The risk of operator error would certainly reduce if all operators had to be licensed and pass tests before being able to fly drones. If the number of drone operators increases rapidly, don't you think licensing is the best answer for protecting the public?

Fred

dickytim

2515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 541
Inactive user

Reply # 1583280 30-Jun-2016 12:29

Weight class, height sealing, no fly zones around airports etc. then require a licence.

I am sure the $50-100 drone is not capable of getting to the heights that would interfere with an aircraft.

If it still becomes problematic then further restrictions, maybe having to limit the altitude smaller devices are allowed to fly at.

As far as policing, maybe a hit squad of marksmen to shoot down a few illegally flown drones to get the message across?

frednz

993 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 184

Reply # 1583487 30-Jun-2016 17:20

dickytim:

Weight class, height sealing, no fly zones around airports etc. then require a licence.

I am sure the $50-100 drone is not capable of getting to the heights that would interfere with an aircraft.

If it still becomes problematic then further restrictions, maybe having to limit the altitude smaller devices are allowed to fly at.

As far as policing, maybe a hit squad of marksmen to shoot down a few illegally flown drones to get the message across?

Now here's the thing, if a drone often flies over your backyard and takes away your privacy, I think you would actually be breaking the law if you shot the drone down, even though this would be a very tempting thing to do! Perhaps a lawyer reading this could say whether or not we are legally entitled to shoot down illegally flown drones?

Requiring a licence for flying drones would ensure that operators are aware of the basics of flying! Consider this forum post, for example, about how weather conditions affect drones:

http://www.phantompilots.com/threads/how-does-weather-affect-your-drones-performance.82705/

There are lots of videos on YouTube which show how wind affects flight performance and it seems that just about every drone operator has experienced a few crashes!

Regards

Fred

DarthKermit

4539 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2510

Trusted

Reply # 1583492 30-Jun-2016 17:28

Yes they should be able to. How else is the modern day peeping tom supposed to get his jollies?

frednz

993 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 184

Reply # 1583500 30-Jun-2016 17:42

DarthKermit:

Yes they should be able to. How else is the modern day peeping tom supposed to get his jollies?

You've hit the nail on the head, and here's an article I've just found that deals with the legal situation about operators who are peeping toms:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/81461614/peeping-incidents-among-dronerelated-complaints-made-to-civil-aviation-authority

It looks like it would be up to the courts to decide whether remote drone cameras spying on people are breaking the law or not! Apparently, legislation hasn't yet caught up with the current technology.

Cheers

Fred

mattwnz

14442 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1893

Reply # 1583540 30-Jun-2016 19:36

What about Google and apple whose 3d maps give detailed views of people's back yards. I withdrawal have thought these shouldn't be allowed to be published.

dickytim

2515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 541
Inactive user

Reply # 1583558 30-Jun-2016 19:41

Any area that can be expected to be seen by the public is fair game, i doubt Google climb over your fence to take pictures of your back yard

frednz

993 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 184

Reply # 1583694 30-Jun-2016 21:19

Rappelle:

There's already a height ceiling, exclusion zones around aerodromes, and laws set in place requiring consent to fly above places for privacy reasons. Adding a license will do SFA else frankly, because the people who are breaking these laws already are completely ignorant to the laws. Spend some money on raising awareness of the laws instead of putting extra barriers in the way of hobbyists.

When you look on YouTube etc at some of the drone videos taken of New Zealand, it’s clear that some of them have been recorded by visitors to New Zealand. I wonder if tourists would have taken the trouble to check out all the local rules about flying drones here?

It should also be remembered that each city council has its own rules about the operation of drones, including which particular parks and reserves can be used by operators. I wonder how many tourists travelling around NZ would look up the local rules for each region that they fly their drones in?

Our rules on obtaining the consent of property owners before flying over their properties are quite demanding and would exclude operators from flying over built-up areas because there are so many property owners who would have to first give their permission. Consider this story for example:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/72059994/Authorities-to-question-drone-operator-over-video-of-Upper-Hutt-gunman

IMHO, all this points to the fact that everyone who flies “powerful” drones in NZ should be required to pass a test on the applicable rules and all drones should be able to be identified back to a registered owner. It’s just too easy at the moment to buy a drone and start flying it without having to proving to anyone that you know what you’re doing!

Fred

blakamin

Aussie
4310 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1256

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1583707 30-Jun-2016 21:39

Media beat-up as usual.

Do aerial photographers ask for permission?

Do you need a licence for a 75mm zoom lens?

A pervert can go buy a telescope.

Nothing to see here.

BTW, linking to stuff.co.nz has as much credibility as infowars.

driller2000

647 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 219

Reply # 1583716 30-Jun-2016 21:44

2 people support this post

I fly UAV's - incl toy grade quads around the house - and aerial video quads and racing quads at local parks.

I am completely OK with the rules as they stand both via the CAA (Part 101) and Auckland Council:

https://www.airshare.co.nz/rules

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/en/parksfacilities/sportrecreation/pages/drones.aspx

They are imo fair and reasonable and provide for the enjoyment of a hobby AND provide for the safety and privacy of others.

frednz

993 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 184

Reply # 1583730 30-Jun-2016 22:05

blakamin:

Media beat-up as usual.

Do aerial photographers ask for permission?

Do you need a licence for a 75mm zoom lens?

A pervert can go buy a telescope.

Nothing to see here.

BTW, linking to stuff.co.nz has as much credibility as infowars.

A fair point you make about using telescopes and long telephoto lenses, but a 75mm lens won't get you far, more likely 500mm to 1000mm and then you are getting somewhere!

But even with "land-based non-aerial" photography, some newspapers won't publish intimate photos of people obviously on private property where they would have the expectation of enjoying privacy. I wouldn't take intimate photos of people in their own homes and publish them on internet, for example, because wouldn't such people have the right to sue you for damages? Similarly, I wouldn't fly a drone low over a private property with the intention of "spying" on people, you are just asking for trouble (IMHO)!

Fred

blakamin

Aussie
4310 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1256

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 1583734 30-Jun-2016 22:13

frednz:

but a 75mm lens won't get you far, more likely 500mm to 1000mm and then you are getting somewhere!

Exactly... and a drone doesn't even have a 75mm lens on it. That was my point! :D

frednz: some newspapers won't publish intimate photos of people obviously on private property where they would have the expectation of enjoying privacy.

It doesn't mean the photographers/newspapers don't have it "for personal use".

frednz

993 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 184

Reply # 1583739 30-Jun-2016 22:18

driller2000:

I fly UAV's - incl toy grade quads around the house - and aerial video quads and racing quads at local parks.

I am completely OK with the rules as they stand both via the CAA (Part 101) and Auckland Council:

https://www.airshare.co.nz/rules

http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/en/parksfacilities/sportrecreation/pages/drones.aspx

They are imo fair and reasonable and provide for the enjoyment of a hobby AND provide for the safety and privacy of others.

Council rules are quite demanding and sometimes it could be difficult to fly a drone without breaching one of the rules!

For example, take a look at this video and consider how difficult it might be to get the approval of all the property owners in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-gVXTK0AAk

But at least this operator says she has "...asked the owners permission to film on these locations." I suppose that, if you are flying high enough over hundreds of properties, owners wouldn't mind you publishing a video of their properties etc and such videos surely wouldn't require the specific approval of hundreds of property owners??

p.s. It's interesting to see that the drone in the above video came quite close to several birds in flight, yet another hazard of flying a drone!

Fred

1 | 2