RPAS, UAV / Drones - More Regulation Needed?

Forums › Gadgets, robotics, home automation, electronics (including wearables) › RPAS, UAV / Drones - More Regulation Needed?

ResponseMediaNZ

518 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#232064 27-Mar-2018 15:55

Airways concerned about an increasing drone sightings in controlled airspace. http://bit.ly/2unHhXx

Air traffic control organisation Airways New Zealand says it is concerned about an increasing number of drone sightings in controlled airspace.
CEO Graeme Sumner says, “Over the past year we have received reports of at least one drone per week operating illegally in controlled airspace. Air traffic control technology is currently unable to detect small objects such as drones so we rely on drone operators to follow the rules and register with us before they fly to ensure all aircraft are integrated safely into our airspace.
“Drone detection technology is still in its infancy globally but Airways has been actively looking for solutions and we plan to begin trialling a new system within the next three months.”

Airways has operated the airshare.co.nz website for four years, allowing drone operators to request flight clearances from air traffic control and providing information on where they can fly safely. In that time the number of drone flights logged with the system has increased from 30 to 600 per week with more than 7,000 users registered.

Drone operators in the Canterbury and Queenstown area can also join Airways’ AirMap trial - a free iOS and Android app, which they can access to seek necessary airspace and public landowner approvals to fly, file flight plans, and access real-time information about other aircraft in the area.
Airways urges all drone users to register with airshare.co.nz and log their flights before they fly.

--
Is it time to licence operators and restrict sales to only licenced operators?
Its only a matter of time before we have a serious near miss or even a event that involves a aircraft and a drone...

1 | 2 | 3

5963 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1984407 27-Mar-2018 16:30

I just read an article online that said a drone came within 5m of a commercial aircraft in Auckland recently.

Surely the people that are operating these drones are idiots that would be there doing this whether they're more heavily regulated or not?

I am not a drone operator, but even I know that flying one at altitude next to a commercial airport is a dumb thing to do.

Edit: Atrocious spelling

Handsome Dan Has Spoken.
Handsome Dan needs to stop adding three dots to every sentence...

Handsome Dan does not currently have a side hustle as the mascot for Yale

*Gladly accepting donations...

Norton

Get easy to use, easy to install Norton antivirus protection against advanced online threats (affiliate link).

Oblivian

6943 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

#1984410 27-Mar-2018 16:37

And don't forget this case http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12002836

(To me it looked to be doing aerial shots of the house for sale, but apparently multiple times so maybe not)

It's rookie fad ticket clippers cash in on :(

Cycle of life

Party pills: Stores pop up

Stores close when restricted

Synthetic cannabis - big seller at stores and dairies

Stores closed when regulated, dairies scale back

Now its vape, hookah and all those wee shops popping up left and centre often in the same tattoo/synthetic funk bones from previous.

I see it the same with UAVs. Soon as they became cheap enough for your kids to get one at christmas, it was all on

Should really have been limited to outlets like specialty photography and model shops. Where the people coming in can at least get a bit of reasoning in their ear, rather than CLICKBUY 'look at me ma, ima pilot!' or off the shelf supermarket stores where they don't ask questions or guide.

neb

8906 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1985409 29-Mar-2018 13:58

Oblivian:
And don't forget this case http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12002836

(To me it looked to be doing aerial shots of the house for sale, but apparently multiple times so maybe not)

That one seems like a bit of an over-reaction, the thing was quite some distance away and from the descriptions given by neighbours the most likely explanation was someone trying out their new toy. Heck, when we got a DJI Phantom to play with for a few hours the first thing we did was buzz the neighbours to see how they'd react :-).

fearandloathing

420 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#1985663 29-Mar-2018 20:41

And this

Pilot says drone likely cause in Waihi plane crash

tehgerbil

995 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Subscriber

#1985696 29-Mar-2018 21:19

fearandloathing:

And this

Pilot says drone likely cause in Waihi plane crash

Man this makes me angry, no proof whatsoever but he's shooting his mouth off for his 15 minutes of fame.

We (drone flyers) get enough disgusted looks as it is without some pilot dick saying:

"I crashed my plane and despite having no evidence whatsoever I think it was a drone.

Why yes Mr Reporter you can pay me for my story.

Yes, I am a arrogant douche who doesn't care about blaming drones despite having no idea if this was the cause."

Make sure you get my good side with the photo.."

I fly a toy drone frequently, and I am very serious about drone flying I don't think this kind of negative press is helpful, except for clickbait. /rant.

I agree with DJI's implementation - force registration and ceiling caps for ATC zones.

For the toy ones, honestly, if you lose sight of them in anything but a calm breeze you've pretty much lost it forever.

linw

2688 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1985700 29-Mar-2018 21:22

The jury has to be out on the Waihi crash. He didn't see birds so it couldn't have been a bird. But he didn't see a drone so it must have been a drone. Logic screwed, surely.

How many drones could get to 1600 ft? Certainly not the cheapos.

And where did the blood on the wing come from? Could only have come from the pilot or a bird. That can readily be determined.

So, like I said, jury is out.

JimmyH

2816 posts

Uber Geek

#1985709 29-Mar-2018 21:30

Handsomedan:

I just read an article online that said a drone came within 5m of a commercial aircraft in Auckland recently.

Surely the people that are operating these drones are idiots that would be there doing this whether they're more heavily regulated or not?

I am not a drone operator, but even I know that flying one at altitude next to a commercial airport is a dumb thing to do.

I'm not an expert on drones. But Bruce Simpson pretty much is. He is crying "cobblers" on the alleged Auchland incident. And I find his rebuttal here pretty compelling. Hand-waving hysteria, lots of media jumping on the bandwagon, not no actual evidence that it happened.

tehgerbil

995 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Subscriber

#1985775 29-Mar-2018 22:23

JimmyH:

I'm not an expert on drones. But Bruce Simpson pretty much is. He is crying "cobblers" on the alleged Auckland incident. And I find his rebuttal here pretty compelling. Hand-waving hysteria, lots of media jumping on the bandwagon, not no actual evidence that it happened.

Damn - after reading that linked article he's like this is pilots whipping up mass hysteria and the media eating it for lunch *mic drop*.

He does lean towards conspiracy theory with the pilots wanting to lay the seed of further regulations to ensure their jobs are safer for longer, however much like the Taxi industry heavily lobbied for Uber et al to be heavily regulated while enjoying a monopoly I think he has a valid point.

JimmyH

2816 posts

Uber Geek

#1985879 30-Mar-2018 10:55

Drone hysteria seems to be one of the main sources of clickbait fodder for Stuff and granny Herald for the last few months. Every story is somehow more sensational if they can somehow out "OMG Drone!" in the headline somehow. Double points if they can somehow work the words "pervert" and "children" into the story. Often with little to no evidence of any actual wrongdoing or ill intent, but usually hysterical quotes from someone on how upset and frightened they were to see a drone pass by.

Honestly, how is a small toy (which may not even have a camera) flying at the beach or park any more wrong than someone using their cellphone camera at the beach or park, which pretty much most people will do when they go to the or park beach with friends?

richms

26388 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1985885 30-Mar-2018 11:20

Its in pilots interest to cause more regulation making them harder to get. Otherwise they will do them out of more aerial photography/filming jobs, and perhaps one day start to be used for other things that pilots do like crop dusting and similar.

Its new and therefore bad is very much the in thing for aviation.

Richard rich.ms

Technofreak

6102 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1985888 30-Mar-2018 11:50

tehgerbil:

Damn - after reading that linked article he's like this is pilots whipping up mass hysteria and the media eating it for lunch *mic drop*.

He does lean towards conspiracy theory with the pilots wanting to lay the seed of further regulations to ensure their jobs are safer for longer, however much like the Taxi industry heavily lobbied for Uber et al to be heavily regulated while enjoying a monopoly I think he has a valid point.

His rebuttal is a load of cobblers. He really has a negative bias against pilots and ALPA.

Having flown past various objects and birds at the speeds he mentions it is quite easy to identify a small object at those speeds. Yes, it is also possible to misidentify something too. Certain phases of flight have a high workload and others not so. Some phases are very much eyes outside of the cockpit. To try and suggest the pilots would never have had time to observe a small object like a drone is pure bollocks.

His other claim that pilots are fearing for their jobs because of the introduction drone type technology is laughable. It really does show Mr Simpson's ignorance of the facts. Firstly there is a world wide shortage of pilots. Secondly the sort of aircraft being trialled in Christchurch is many years away from ever being a threat to pilots jobs. In fact it may never be a threat. I don't see too many people stepping aboard a pilotless aircraft.

The mention of Uber is valid from the point of the death caused by one of their driverless cars. What worse the car had a driver on board and the accident still happened. Will Uber survive the the fallout from this? Think of the impact this style of accident will have on pilotless passenger aircraft.

Mr Simpson is right about one thing, there needs to be more education. If he'd done his research he would know this is what ALPA advocates, then and only then if that doesn't work hit the offenders hard.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Technofreak

6102 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1985892 30-Mar-2018 12:03

richms:

Its in pilots interest to cause more regulation making them harder to get. Otherwise they will do them out of more aerial photography/filming jobs, and perhaps one day start to be used for other things that pilots do like crop dusting and similar.

Its new and therefore bad is very much the in thing for aviation.

Bollocks.

Drones are already doing these jobs. Pilot's aren't trying to make things harder.

Your last sentence shows a level of ignorance about aviation. Typically aviation has been at the leading edge of technological change but that has always been tempered with the need to be absolutely sure any new technology is safe. Even then they don't always get it right. Look at the battery issue in the 787's.

Another example of the problems of new technology is portable devices and lithium ion batteries. These are potentially a very big problem aboard an aircraft. When they burn they are almost impossible to extinguish. When they catch fire in an aircraft they put the lives of everyone on board at risk.

While it may seem in some cases aviation is slow to adopt or approve new technology there are very good reasons for this.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

mattwnz

19378 posts

Uber Geek

#1985898 30-Mar-2018 12:32

That video of the hovering drone looks to be some distance for the neighbours sunbathing, and doesn't appear to be actually over their property. Not to mention that the height it is at, the size of people would look tiny, as they use very wide angle lenses. Google maps and other aerial photography esp from planes can get similar photos of peoples back yards and people sunbathing, and there are many examples of this. I don't think there is a large amount of hysteria over google doing this. The only difference is you get warning with a drone due to the noise it creates.

If you buy a DJI one it will restrict you from using it near airports and restricted areas, and will restrict the max height and distance and will log the trip. So maybe they should only allow dji ones to be sold, or ones with the same features. But that would create a monopoly. Any registration will create ticket clippers and big fees, and won't stop the 1% of idiots who will ignore it anyway. Not to mention tourists who aren't following the rules

This hysteria does appear to be media driven, and appears to want to create fear with drones. The word drone seems to cause more fear, than the word quad copter, or toy helicopter. Not much else happening in the news at the moment, and is one of those many topics that gets rotated from time to time. But what is missing is details and proof

Similar regulation occurred with lasers, where they were effectively banned, but there are still occurrences of laser strikes on planes.

Yes, there will be some idoits out there, and that is also a case where the 1% of idiots out there ruin it for the other 99% of users who respect the rules. But knives are also dangerous and they can kill, but they are regulated. The main risk with drones, is hitting a plane. But restricting them from airports and restrcting the height they fly would solve this, and using far smaller lighter drones that won't cause damage. Birds IMO pose far more risk to planes, and some bird are huge. Should we also cull them?

I have never flown a drone myself to date. But from what I have seen, it is a low risk recreation activity that many people enjoy, that gets people out their creating fantastic scenic videos of NZ and the landscape. Especially compared to other recreations like shooting, car racing, even mountain biking. But NZ seems to have some backwards attitudes, especially as there are no national standards over the rules with councils, so some allow them, some don't, and some require permission each time you fly over council land and roads.

sdav

846 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1985901 30-Mar-2018 12:44

JimmyH:

Handsomedan:

I just read an article online that said a drone came within 5m of a commercial aircraft in Auckland recently.

Surely the people that are operating these drones are idiots that would be there doing this whether they're more heavily regulated or not?

I am not a drone operator, but even I know that flying one at altitude next to a commercial airport is a dumb thing to do.

I'm not an expert on drones. But Bruce Simpson pretty much is. He is crying "cobblers" on the alleged Auchland incident. And I find his rebuttal here pretty compelling. Hand-waving hysteria, lots of media jumping on the bandwagon, not no actual evidence that it happened.

I've seen enough Air Crash Investigation (I'm an expert now!) to know that human error is generally at fault, if not the cause, of an incident. There's no way pilots make mistakes!

mattwnz

19378 posts

Uber Geek

#1985903 30-Mar-2018 12:48

When watching those programs, it is almost as thought they are trying to find whether there is any possibility whatsoever, if it could have been human error with the pilots. In some cases it seem to still only comes down to a high probability, rather than actual 100% proof.

1 | 2 | 3