networkn:

frankv:

freitasm: I think it hilarious that one needs to file a flight plan with Airshare because Wellington is mostly controlled air space.

I'm not so amused. CAA has a bad reputation of overstepping its authority.

You might not feel so outraged if someone you know was in an aircraft who had one of these little devices sucked through an engine or interfering with passenger plane flights. If you don't think this is a real risk, not sure what to tell you.

wellygary:

mattwnz: It does seem that councils at least aren't that aware of this law, or have been caught out.

Yip, and you wait until they go and "consult" with residents and interested parties,

recreation drones are about to get majorly grounded in NZ, until eventually, after being bugged by drone owners, the Councils will demand that the goverment goes away and sets a national standard,

Something it should have worked out in the announcement the comes into effect tomorrow, .....

But hey, It always easier as a goverment department to say, nope its someone elses problem.....

• Should google be getting my permission to photograph my back yard for google earth or is it high enough not to show anything in too much detail. 
• Photo recon / I believe the council uses some form of it for tracking both new erections (yes I am aware it is a funny word but it is what they call them)  for rates and permitting and also for checking who put out their recycling bins etc in time. 
• All the new camera equipment on top of traffic lights / speed cameras 
• Geo mapping photos for Dept Lands and Survey

hashbrown: Key words "endanger property". Drone = someone's property.

Drones are no worse than bird strike and the engines on an aircraft are rated to survive bird strike. And your far more likely to have a flock of birds than you are a flock of quads hitting a aircraft.
This is a good read from an actual commercial aircraft pilot https://jethead.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/airliners-vs-drones-calm-down/

MikeAqua: I think a key difference is that it's hard to use a bird maliciously against an aircraft, but would it would be relatively simple to weaponise a drone.

Maybe one day we will see airport security drone cordons that protect airports from potentially malicious drones.

Drones are no worse than bird strike and the engines on an aircraft are rated to survive bird strike. And your far more likely to have a flock of birds than you are a flock of quads hitting a aircraft.
This is a good read from an actual commercial aircraft pilot https://jethead.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/airliners-vs-drones-calm-down/

MikeAqua: I think a key difference is that it's hard to use a bird maliciously against an aircraft, but would it would be relatively simple to weaponise a drone.

Maybe one day we will see airport security drone cordons that protect airports from potentially malicious drones.

qyiet:

MikeAqua: I think a key difference is that it's hard to use a bird maliciously against an aircraft, but would it would be relatively simple to weaponise a drone.

Maybe one day we will see airport security drone cordons that protect airports from potentially malicious drones.

It's damn easy site easier to weaponise a radio controlled car than a flying drone, and we've hardly seen a rash of carbombings via RC Cars since RC got cheap.

I think that getting most drone to deliberately intercept a flying aircraft would be tricky at best.  A lot harder than the RC car example anyway.  Possibly less so for helicopters, as you just have to get above them while they are on the ground.

1eStar: A composite/aluminium bodied plane may not have quite the same magnetic attraction as a steel-hulled vessel or vehicle for your magnetic mine. Cool story tho.

geocom: 
Drones are no worse than bird strike and the engines on an aircraft are rated to survive bird strike. And your far more likely to have a flock of birds than you are a flock of quads hitting a aircraft.
This is a good read from an actual commercial aircraft pilot https://jethead.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/airliners-vs-drones-calm-down/

Kyanar:

geocom: 
Drones are no worse than bird strike and the engines on an aircraft are rated to survive bird strike. And your far more likely to have a flock of birds than you are a flock of quads hitting a aircraft.
This is a good read from an actual commercial aircraft pilot https://jethead.wordpress.com/2015/08/08/airliners-vs-drones-calm-down/

Maybe so, but birds don't have a lithium polymer battery with a non-zero chance of going boom when sucked into a jet turbine. Even if the chance is negligible, unless it's zero I wouldn't be happy letting them near jet engines.

geocom: 

Jet engines already suck in a liquid that burns what difference is a lipo going to make. Lipos burn when punctured they don't just explode.

Kyanar:

geocom: 

Jet engines already suck in a liquid that burns what difference is a lipo going to make. Lipos burn when punctured they don't just explode.

The difference is the stuff that burns in an engine burns in places designed for it to burn. They are probably not designed to have metal objects sucked into the turbine with various electrical stuff including batteries (which can explode - despite what you'd like to believe).