Worrying new UAV laws.

[Gnarly Gnu]

I'm astounded that there's so many pilots happy to share the airspace with unregulated uav's, there have already been incursions into moorrabin and jandacott airspace

I'm astounded the folk in western Sydney are happy with almost nightly drive-by shooting, the government should ban the guns.

 

 

[SDQDI]

I'm astounded the folk in western Sydney are happy with almost nightly drive-by shooting, the government should ban the guns.

And I didn't give you the winner tag thinking banning guns is a good idea but I appreciate the point you are making gnu.

Getting a gun and shooting into people's houses is already illegal for those who may have wondered as is using UAV's in areas of potential conflict with 'us'

 

This is only for commercial operators no higher than 400 agl in line of sight and not close to an airfield as has already been mentioned. I personally don't fly models or UAVs but for these people it looks as if common sense is having a win. Basically if we hit them at 400 feet then that is entirely our fault for being there in the first place, I still don't see how there is a conflict of airspace.

 

Of course there are those that operate out of the rules but we have them too and making more rules for everyone isn't going to affect those that ignore them one little bit.

 

On the gun subject ........ Nah never mind but I have heard someone seriously say what you mentioned gnu it makes me wonder sometimes:thumb up:

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Are we talking 400 feet AGL and 500 feet QNH? How does the drone operator measure its height? I would like a bit more separation.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

He gusesses...

 

 

[mothra]

Are we talking 400 feet AGL and 500 feet QNH? How does the drone operator measure its height? I would like a bit more separation.

At worst he guesses at best he'll have a GPS derived height. The regs talk about 400agl but modelling suggests there may be as much as a 200 ft discrepancy between baro and GPS height in extreme situations. Heads up!

 

In class G you are on your own, in D and C the RPA must be seaprated as if it were another aircraft, if ATC are even aware of it.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

guys

 

Its my view that today the technology to make this a non issue already exists. I was reading that a number of quad/hex copters now include a GPS/Glonass module and an OEM produced database of no go areas. The aircraft will not penetrate a no go area and if already in it will not take off. The reality is with these type of aircraft that a computer basically stabilises the vehicle, the owner merely identifies where he'd like the machine to go next. Instead of making rules that will be ignored due to an inability to police, and a public that probably wont see a problem until it falls at their feet, Id suggest that CASA go after the importers and make them required to ensure that the technology is within their imports. Adding a 500ft ceiling should be no additional heartache because the geodatabase exists anyway. No geodatabase/gps equals no import or import but retrofit in a way that the mods cant be just removed. Ideally the database has a useful life and if not updated the aircraft cant fly past the update date.

 

We are talking as though this is a uniquely Australian issue but in reality its a global issue, no one wants a 2kg UAV playing blink with jets (or us little lighties!) on TO or Final approach anywhere in the world.

 

The other benefits are that governments can add a bunch of sensitive locations that aren't airports such as military bases, prisons (what a great way to get contraband in and to an exact prisoner when the gimbal mounted camera is on and linked back to the ground station) Telco facilities, international meetings such as G8, or G20 etc, power generating facilities, power transmission facilities), hospitals, schools and so on

 

Sure it will drive up the price, but regulation and policing will cost us anyway just in tax $ rather than upfront $.

 

If the update is done like we do with EPIRBS, ie we register them, then failing to update within an expected window can generate an automated email to the owner saying, "naughty naughty! these are the rules, if you fly it, or try to without updating then we'll send Mr CASA round to havachatwivyah"

 

It seems eminently fixable to me, of course there will be some who want to build from first principles, and they may well not have all the "good gear" on-board, make those possible, but only when fully trained and aware of the rules etc.

 

Andy

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I was standing behind a guy in a hobby shop last week, he was cranky his Phantom wouldn't fly from the park where he lived. The attendant plugged it into his comp and deactivated the new version and its limiting function, so he can fly it now..He lived close to mascott, and the reason it wouldn't fly was because he was within 3 miles.

 

I can only provide the info, if yo guys dont think its a problem then I cant help it.

 

I deal with this every day and all I can say is, you were warned.

 

 

[turboplanner]

He gusesses...

Not necessarily, I'm seeing UAV's with altimeters, and for much of their work you need an accurate height to triangulate for ground measurements on photos.

I wouldn't be making up new oddball separation rules. The current CTA type step graduations are working well; you know you need to be far enough inside/outside them that there will be no incursion either way.

 

If you start bringing in things like 400 feet, people get to know there's a no man's land and will use it.

 

As you have said, people break laws; the idea here is to give then boundaries which stand up in logic, and the precedents of separating commercial and private GA traffic.

 

 

[frank marriott]

"the precedents of separating commercial and private GA traffic."

 

What separation between commercial and private are you referring to here?

 

 

[turboplanner]

"the precedents of separating commercial and private GA traffic."What separation between commercial and private are you referring to here?

These ( see below), and what I'm suggesting is to maintain the same format, ie one specific altitude for each step rather than say a dual 500 feet/400 feet level which will start to confuse people.

 

 

 

[motzartmerv]

At the rsik of being pedantic Tubz. Airspace is not designed to separate Commercial from GA traffic.

 

Airspace boundaries are not the issue at hand.

 

The issue is, with zero oversight, and zero checks in place, theres every chance that un qualified, un knowledgable people will be flying uavs INSIDE the airspace. Regardless of which class. Nobody has ANY idea bout the sheer numbers im talking about here. Im talking literally thousands of thse things could suddenly become commercially viable entities, sharing the airspace with YOU. With no more aviation knowledge then what they gleam from the form they have to sign and send to CASA.

 

The MAAA you speak of that run the "pattern flying" comps, and have their "one or two patterns" that each pilot must fly, so its the same for ALL of them, cant even keep the heights under 400 ft as we so dramatically proved to a local MAAA club. They had NO idea ( or every idea and didnt care) how high this "pattern" was making them fly.

 

These are pretty die hard hobbysit, with at least the "club" and its procedures to employ as a safe guard, that cant even get it right. And you think a few thousand UAV operators that will have sudden cate blanche to fly FOR REWARD ( read Sh!t yea bro, im up there if I can turn a buck from it) are gunna have ANY clue at all?

 

I have a UAV controllers certificate, and I was reasonably happy with the process I had to under go to obtain it. Sure, it could be simplified, but not DISSOLVED!!!!!

 

 

[metalman]

These ( see below), and what I'm suggesting is to maintain the same format, ie one specific altitude for each step rather than say a dual 500 feet/400 feet level which will start to confuse people.

How does that diagram show the separation of commercial and private GA traffic,,,,it simply shows the CTA steps that any endorsed pilot would know well, perhaps a bit of time with an instructor would help you to understand what your looking at

Matty

 

 

[frank marriott]

These ( see below), and what I'm suggesting is to maintain the same format, ie one specific altitude for each step rather than say a dual 500 feet/400 feet level which will start to confuse people.

You are correct , I'm confused, I can't work out what you are suggesting. There is NO separation between com and pvt.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Only in status!! Lol

 

 

[frank marriott]

Andy

 

My question was what turbo was saying, I don't understand what he means. It matters not whether I agree or not, I just don't see what is intended. precedents???

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yes I know frank. I'm confused aswel, I was just havin a dig :)

 

 

[kaz3g]

Bit hard to expect some computer program to operate as a means of identifying ALA's in the area.

 

Any piece of ground that meets the requirements set out in CAAP 92-1 for a particular aircraft may be an ALA. For something very STOL, this may not be very long at all...what suits a Sav may not be ok for a Bonanza.

 

I don't like things that buzz around and can be operated by a 12 yo without any supervision. I'm sure most model aeroplane club members are responsible and have a fair idea of what they are doing but that doesn't mean they should be given open slather, and neither should these things which can be operated much further away from the person ostensibly in charge of them.

 

Kaz

 

 

[turboplanner]

As you have said, people break laws; the idea here is to give then boundaries which stand up in logic, and the precedents of separating commercial and private GA traffic.

OK my wording was bad and meaning confusing. I was trying to simplify the concept separating Heavies using Tullamarine and private aircraft, so I'll leave out what is separated from what because that doesn't really matter.

 

My point was, referring to the diagramme, we have single altitude boundaries now, they are the precedents for separation, and if there was to be a height limit it should not create a dual boundary.

 

 

 

[Marty_d]

There's one fairly major difference between present day UAV's and model aircraft. A radio controlled model is fairly difficult to fly and land (I was flying models at the same time as C172's, and let me tell you, it's a hell of a lot easier to land an aircraft when you're sitting in it). As I understand it these things can be controlled with an Iphone, they hover with no inputs and pretty much fly themselves. You can't really compare the MAAA which is mainly comprised of enthusiasts who know what they're doing, with any d1ckhead buying a self-flying brick from the internet where the only knowledge required to operate the aircraft is how to connect the battery.

 

Having said all that I don't believe that regulation via CASA would make any difference whatsoever. Maybe what we need is some sort of device you can fit on manned aircraft, which if it detects a UAV on collision course, overrides the UAV's controls and makes it dive 200ft. That should fix the problem, especially if its "pilot" is 150 feet directly below it.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Hopefully!, The model aircraft will be flying out of Richmond airbase NSW on the 16th of this month, but it's not official as yet. Some are much heavier than a couple of k's.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

"In less than a minute, this gadget turns a paper airplane into a drone that can be controlled with your smartphone. The PowerUp 3.0 is a miniature propeller, rudder and engine that will carry your paper airplane a full 60 yards and back with its Bluetooth-controlled components."

 

 

 

[sain]

Reason the little ones need to be regulated:

 

http://www.complex.com/tech/2014/04/drone-crash

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

the lawyers will sort it out

 

 

[kaz3g]

Bit hard to expect some computer program to operate as a means of identifying ALA's in the area.Any piece of ground that meets the requirements set out in CAAP 92-1 for a particular aircraft may be an ALA. For something very STOL, this may not be very long at all...what suits a Sav may not be ok for a Bonanza.

 

I don't like things that buzz around and can be operated by a 12 yo without any supervision. I'm sure most model aeroplane club members are responsible and have a fair idea of what they are doing but that doesn't mean they should be given open slather, and neither should these things which can be operated much further away from the person ostensibly in charge of them.

 

Kaz

Pmccarthy gave the above a "creative" comment and I wonder which part he found fanciful...the bit about CAAP 92-1 or the prospect that UAV's might be/already are being operated by 12 year olds?

 

Kaz

 

 

[Aerochute Kev]

If "not within 4 km of any uncontrolled aerodrome or aircraft landing area"was added to the proposed "This would only apply in the standard operating conditions, which includes operations in visual line of sight, less than 400 feet above ground level, non-populous areas, more than 30 metres from people and outside controlled airspace" from a regulatory point of view this should cover the issue. They would not be operating in the flight path or circuit and below 400 feet so there would be no problem. Any other issues with idiots doing what they like already exists & you can't regulate against stupidity.

We (RAAus) do have a class of aircraft that is legal at 300ft and as usual, because they are not big in numbers are forgotten when people start talking of changing laws/rules. So to include those aircraft do we just push for having UAV's limited to 100ft or maybe just try to ground them all?