Sharing Airspace with UASs

[Guest SrPilot]

Sharing space with UASs is becoming an issue in the U.S. - AvWeb is reporting:

 

Pilot Reports Of UAS Sightings On The Rise

 

By Elaine Kauh

 

 

Pilot reports of unmanned aerial systems have topped 650 so far this year – well over the 238 reported for all of 2014, the FAA said this week. The agency said there was a big jump in sightings this summer, with 138 pilot reports in June and 137 in July. Meanwhile, there were just 52 reports for the June-July 2014 period. The sightings were at altitudes up to 10,000 feet and came from a variety of aircraft, from large air carriers to helicopters, the FAA said. On Wednesday, a medical helicopter reported having to maneuver to avoid a UAS while flying at 1,000 feet AGL. Over the summer, unmanned aircraft interfering with aerial firefighting operations prompted the FAA and the National Interagency Fire Center to issue a warning to UAS flyers to stay clear of fires, reminding them that unsafe operations could result in jail time and fines up to $25,000. The FAA, while wrangling with forming UAS safety rules in the personal and commercial sectors, has attempted to curtail problems with similar public safety announcements for airports and sports venues.

 

The FAA hasn’t been tracking UAS encounters for very long and this could be a factor in the big jump in numbers, as noted in a Wall Street Journal report on the rise in sightings. “Last year’s data would be much less certain because the process wasn’t in place,” former FAA executive Jim Williams told the Journal. “Some of what you’re seeing year-over-year is just an increase in reporting.” Williams, who now advises UAS makers, also said in the report that despite the concerns, collisions with a small UAS aren’t a major hazard overall. “People tend to forget how big the sky is and how small these little quadcopters are,” he said. “Every airplane is designed to take a hit from a 5-pound bird and keep flying. If an engine eats [a drone], it’ll be expensive to fix. But the likelihood of one of these little guys taking down an aircraft is very remote.”

 

=

 

This week, while lunching with some aviation friends, the talk turned to the growing use of UASs. Those who flew model airplanes reminded us that they were members of the AMA, had liability insurance, signed a code of ethics, were limited to 400 feet AGL on their flights, and could not fly in any controlled airspace. Many UAS owners, on the other hand, are beginning a new hobby which is quite unregulated in the States and issues are arising. A crew in our local police department helicopter unit had to take evasive action last week when a UAS flight conflicted with the helicopter operations. The crew attempted to ID the person operating the UAS. I've been told that a reckless endangerment investigation has been opened. In another case, a Kentucky man shot down a UAS while it was flying low over his property.

 

http://www.wdrb.com/story/29650818/hillview-man-arrested-for-shooting-down-drone-cites-right-to-privacy

 

To date, UASs haven't meant much to me. I looked at one and decided that although I might enjoy flying the device, at US$1200-2000, it just was not worth it. I need another ANR headset instead. But as UAS incidents surface, perhaps we in the aviation community should be conversing about the issue and developing our views because we likely will be drawn into the debate already underway, and we may even have to take evasive action while flying to avoid a new type of bird strike. Perhaps the story will develop differently in Australia, but I suspect that the UAS phenomenon will become a significant issue in the U.S. aviation community (and possibly beyond) unless it dies away like CB radios and hula hoops.

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

Sharing space with UASs is becoming an issue in the U.S. - AvWeb is reporting:

 

Pilot Reports Of UAS Sightings On The Rise

 

By Elaine Kauh

 

 

Pilot reports of unmanned aerial systems have topped 650 so far this year – well over the 238 reported for all of 2014, the FAA said this week. The agency said there was a big jump in sightings this summer, with 138 pilot reports in June and 137 in July. Meanwhile, there were just 52 reports for the June-July 2014 period. The sightings were at altitudes up to 10,000 feet and came from a variety of aircraft, from large air carriers to helicopters, the FAA said. On Wednesday, a medical helicopter reported having to maneuver to avoid a UAS while flying at 1,000 feet AGL. Over the summer, unmanned aircraft interfering with aerial firefighting operations prompted the FAA and the National Interagency Fire Center to issue a warning to UAS flyers to stay clear of fires, reminding them that unsafe operations could result in jail time and fines up to $25,000. The FAA, while wrangling with forming UAS safety rules in the personal and commercial sectors, has attempted to curtail problems with similar public safety announcements for airports and sports venues.

 

The FAA hasn’t been tracking UAS encounters for very long and this could be a factor in the big jump in numbers, as noted in a Wall Street Journal report on the rise in sightings. “Last year’s data would be much less certain because the process wasn’t in place,” former FAA executive Jim Williams told the Journal. “Some of what you’re seeing year-over-year is just an increase in reporting.” Williams, who now advises UAS makers, also said in the report that despite the concerns, collisions with a small UAS aren’t a major hazard overall. “People tend to forget how big the sky is and how small these little quadcopters are,” he said. “Every airplane is designed to take a hit from a 5-pound bird and keep flying. If an engine eats [a drone], it’ll be expensive to fix. But the likelihood of one of these little guys taking down an aircraft is very remote.”

 

=

 

This week, while lunching with some aviation friends, the talk turned to the growing use of UASs. Those who flew model airplanes reminded us that they were members of the AMA, had liability insurance, signed a code of ethics, were limited to 400 feet AGL on their flights, and could not fly in any controlled airspace. Many UAS owners, on the other hand, are beginning a new hobby which is quite unregulated in the States and issues are arising. A crew in our local police department helicopter unit had to take evasive action last week when a UAS flight conflicted with the helicopter operations. The crew attempted to ID the person operating the UAS. I've been told that a reckless endangerment investigation has been opened. In another case, a Kentucky man shot down a UAS while it was flying low over his property.

 

http://www.wdrb.com/story/29650818/hillview-man-arrested-for-shooting-down-drone-cites-right-to-privacy

 

To date, UASs haven't meant much to me. I looked at one and decided that although I might enjoy flying the device, at US$1200-2000, it just was not worth it. I need another ANR headset instead. But as UAS incidents surface, perhaps we in the aviation community should be conversing about the issue and developing our views because we likely will be drawn into the debate already underway, and we may even have to take evasive action while flying to avoid a new type of bird strike. Perhaps the story will develop differently in Australia, but I suspect that the UAS phenomenon will become a significant issue in the U.S. aviation community (and possibly beyond) unless it dies away like CB radios and hula hoops.

 

 

[SDQDI]

"But the likelihood of one of these little guys taking down an aircraft is very remote"

 

What is it with all these puns.........

 

And stating "every aircraft" is designed to take a hit from a five pound bird seems to ignore us smaller folks.

 

I like quadcopters and the likes and it worries me that the response will be a little too heavy handed. I think the current rules are basically adequate (just not enforced hard enough) and it seems to me that most of these incidents are when the rules aren't being followed. seriously flying a uav at 10,000 feet?

 

 

[SDQDI]

"But the likelihood of one of these little guys taking down an aircraft is very remote"

 

What is it with all these puns.........

 

And stating "every aircraft" is designed to take a hit from a five pound bird seems to ignore us smaller folks.

 

I like quadcopters and the likes and it worries me that the response will be a little too heavy handed. I think the current rules are basically adequate (just not enforced hard enough) and it seems to me that most of these incidents are when the rules aren't being followed. seriously flying a uav at 10,000 feet?

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I worry that many little planes have a thin Perspex windscreen.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I worry that many little planes have a thin Perspex windscreen.

 

 

[pylon500]

The irony here is that the media will get hold of this and beat it up (as usual), but the incident with the forrest fires, was actually media quad-copters getting footage for the news!!!

 

As usual, the originators of the hobby, aeromodellers, will bear the brunt of accusations, even though the problem will come from the over the counter freelancers and those using them for commercial purposes without being properly informed, or holding the required training or paperwork.

 

As mentioned though, generally the quad-copters are hovering or travelling slowly, so while not saying they are not a problem, one can only hope that when the first impact occurs, it will have minimal effect on what it hits (or what hits it, as the case would be)

 

I guess the best bet would be to mandate that all these machines come with BIGGER warning notices, including the value of FINES that could be incurred.

 

Maybe a centrally advertised website for purchasers to go to, to discover all the problems (fines) they could be in for, if they don't play by the rules, then get the media to advertise the site...

 

ps, for the modellers out there, I'm on your side, I've been flying models for years, and don't want to see us suddenly become the equivalent to drug dealers, politicians, pedophiles or what ever the current anti-flavour of the moth is.

 

 

[pylon500]

The irony here is that the media will get hold of this and beat it up (as usual), but the incident with the forrest fires, was actually media quad-copters getting footage for the news!!!

 

As usual, the originators of the hobby, aeromodellers, will bear the brunt of accusations, even though the problem will come from the over the counter freelancers and those using them for commercial purposes without being properly informed, or holding the required training or paperwork.

 

As mentioned though, generally the quad-copters are hovering or travelling slowly, so while not saying they are not a problem, one can only hope that when the first impact occurs, it will have minimal effect on what it hits (or what hits it, as the case would be)

 

I guess the best bet would be to mandate that all these machines come with BIGGER warning notices, including the value of FINES that could be incurred.

 

Maybe a centrally advertised website for purchasers to go to, to discover all the problems (fines) they could be in for, if they don't play by the rules, then get the media to advertise the site...

 

ps, for the modellers out there, I'm on your side, I've been flying models for years, and don't want to see us suddenly become the equivalent to drug dealers, politicians, pedophiles or what ever the current anti-flavour of the moth is.

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

The irony here is that the media will get hold of this and beat it up (as usual), but the incident with the forrest fires, was actually media quad-copters getting footage for the news!!!

Well, pylon500, one saying is "never let the facts get in the way of a good news story . . . even if the story is factually incorrect or incomplete."

 

General Aviation News also has released a story on UASs so the stories have legs and opinions are developing faster than candidates are joining the U.S. presidential campaign.

 

Drone restrictions supported by majority of Americans

 

AUGUST 12, 2015 BY GENERAL AVIATION NEWS STAFF 3 COMMENTS

 

While GA pilots have varied opinions about remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) — also known as drones or Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) — a new survey by FindLaw.com finds that an overwhelming majority of Americans say they support restrictions on the use of drones as they become more commonplace.

 

The FindLaw.com survey says 78 percent of Americans support at least some restrictions on the use of drones by businesses.

 

In June, a drone successfully delivered medical supplies to a clinic in Virginia, but concerns about safety remain, according to FindLaw.com officials. Firefighters say a number of drones interfered with their fighting of a wildfire in California recently. And aviation authorities in the UK report there have been at least six recent near-misses involving drones and commercial airliners.

 

The use of drones for business or commercial purposes, such as package delivery or news photography, is currently banned in the U.S. The FAA has proposed new regulations specifying how drones can be used in business. While more than three-quarters of people surveyed said they support some regulation of drone use, the FindLaw survey found that people have mixed views on which specific restrictions they would like to see:

 

• 54% said drone operators must pass a knowledge test and obtain certification from the FAA,
   
   
  
• 37% said drones must always remain with the operator’s visual line of sight,
   
   
  
• 36% said drones cannot be flown over people who are not directly involved with the flight,
   
   
  
• 31% said drone flights must be limited to 500 feet in altitude and 100 mph in speed, while
   
   
  
• 22% did not support any of these restrictions.
   
   
  

 

 

The FindLaw survey was conducted using a survey of a demographically balanced sample of 1,000 American adults and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 4%.

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

The irony here is that the media will get hold of this and beat it up (as usual), but the incident with the forrest fires, was actually media quad-copters getting footage for the news!!!

Well, pylon500, one saying is "never let the facts get in the way of a good news story . . . even if the story is factually incorrect or incomplete."

 

General Aviation News also has released a story on UASs so the stories have legs and opinions are developing faster than candidates are joining the U.S. presidential campaign.

 

Drone restrictions supported by majority of Americans

 

AUGUST 12, 2015 BY GENERAL AVIATION NEWS STAFF 3 COMMENTS

 

While GA pilots have varied opinions about remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) — also known as drones or Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) — a new survey by FindLaw.com finds that an overwhelming majority of Americans say they support restrictions on the use of drones as they become more commonplace.

 

The FindLaw.com survey says 78 percent of Americans support at least some restrictions on the use of drones by businesses.

 

In June, a drone successfully delivered medical supplies to a clinic in Virginia, but concerns about safety remain, according to FindLaw.com officials. Firefighters say a number of drones interfered with their fighting of a wildfire in California recently. And aviation authorities in the UK report there have been at least six recent near-misses involving drones and commercial airliners.

 

The use of drones for business or commercial purposes, such as package delivery or news photography, is currently banned in the U.S. The FAA has proposed new regulations specifying how drones can be used in business. While more than three-quarters of people surveyed said they support some regulation of drone use, the FindLaw survey found that people have mixed views on which specific restrictions they would like to see:

 

• 54% said drone operators must pass a knowledge test and obtain certification from the FAA,
   
   
  
• 37% said drones must always remain with the operator’s visual line of sight,
   
   
  
• 36% said drones cannot be flown over people who are not directly involved with the flight,
   
   
  
• 31% said drone flights must be limited to 500 feet in altitude and 100 mph in speed, while
   
   
  
• 22% did not support any of these restrictions.
   
   
  

 

 

The FindLaw survey was conducted using a survey of a demographically balanced sample of 1,000 American adults and has a margin of error of plus-or-minus 4%.

 

 

[diesel]

If your glass sinner weighing a few grams comes off and hits your prop blade it will break. A blade off may give you three seconds before your engine is missing. Thats as in gone and heading for mother earth without you. A small drone could easily stuff you day. I bet the owner would sue you for hitting it. As usual who pays? Chas

 

 

[diesel]

If your glass sinner weighing a few grams comes off and hits your prop blade it will break. A blade off may give you three seconds before your engine is missing. Thats as in gone and heading for mother earth without you. A small drone could easily stuff you day. I bet the owner would sue you for hitting it. As usual who pays? Chas

 

 

[pylon500]

The use of drones for business or commercial purposes, such as package delivery or news photography, is currently banned in the U.S.

Must admit I was unaware of this, and I wonder how many of the media people are aware of it?

I don't think we have those restrictions here yet, as I see many news reports obviously shot from a drone, but;

 

a, I haven't been following the local reg's much, and;

 

b, I don't have a drone anyway.

 

If your glass spinner weighing a few grams comes off and hits your prop blade it will break 9the blade)

Not saying this will not happen, but, I have lost a spinner, and seen others let go, and they generally just damage a blade or two, leaving splits, chips, nicks and the like.

The amount of inertia behind a typical wood or solid composite blade will instantly destroy a glass spinner, however, the lightweight composite blades like Bolly, Arplast and Kiev, I'm not so sure...?

 

 

[pylon500]

The use of drones for business or commercial purposes, such as package delivery or news photography, is currently banned in the U.S.

Must admit I was unaware of this, and I wonder how many of the media people are aware of it?

I don't think we have those restrictions here yet, as I see many news reports obviously shot from a drone, but;

 

a, I haven't been following the local reg's much, and;

 

b, I don't have a drone anyway.

 

If your glass spinner weighing a few grams comes off and hits your prop blade it will break 9the blade)

Not saying this will not happen, but, I have lost a spinner, and seen others let go, and they generally just damage a blade or two, leaving splits, chips, nicks and the like.

The amount of inertia behind a typical wood or solid composite blade will instantly destroy a glass spinner, however, the lightweight composite blades like Bolly, Arplast and Kiev, I'm not so sure...?

 

 

[diesel]

A few years ago a corby lost one. The pilot does not want to repete the experience. He was lucky the engine held in but many bits did not land with it. I have flown a taylor mono that had earlier had it happen on takeoff. Lots of whistles and bells. Cessna engines dont stay long if a blade goes. Yes it is very real. Chas

 

 

[diesel]

A few years ago a corby lost one. The pilot does not want to repete the experience. He was lucky the engine held in but many bits did not land with it. I have flown a taylor mono that had earlier had it happen on takeoff. Lots of whistles and bells. Cessna engines dont stay long if a blade goes. Yes it is very real. Chas

 

 

[kaz3g]

What I found interesting, particularly having read up a little about CASA and ASRA controls on gyros, is that UAV's can go up to 400' outside of controlled airspace and no licence required provided it's not being used for commercial purposes.

 

Gyros can fly legally as low as 300'.

 

If you want to use one commercially and have an Area Authority, you need to do a full blown risk assessment...I bet a lot don't!

 

Heaps of stuff on the CASA website.

 

Kaz

 

 

[kaz3g]

What I found interesting, particularly having read up a little about CASA and ASRA controls on gyros, is that UAV's can go up to 400' outside of controlled airspace and no licence required provided it's not being used for commercial purposes.

 

Gyros can fly legally as low as 300'.

 

If you want to use one commercially and have an Area Authority, you need to do a full blown risk assessment...I bet a lot don't!

 

Heaps of stuff on the CASA website.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Guest SrPilot]

If your glass sinner weighing a few grams comes off and hits your prop blade it will break. A blade off may give you three seconds before your engine is missing. Thats as in gone and heading for mother earth without you. A small drone could easily stuff you day. I bet the owner would sue you for hitting it. As usual who pays? Chas

It can be catastrophic. One friend of mine lost a prop tip in flight and before he could do anything, the engine tore loose from the mount and dropped. The hoses, cables, cowling, etc held the engine with the airplane but the oil escaped over the canopy and the airplane was virtually uncontrollable. He tried to land but could not flare the airplane; he hit the deck in a rapid descent. He was knocked unconscious, the engine left the aircraft; it flipped and landed upright with no landing gear or engine. The fuselage tank ruptured and dumped his fuel load in his lap. He awakened in a stupor and a soaked lower body. Had the engine stayed with the aircraft, he probably would have been burned alive. All from loss of a portion of a prop. (Cassutt) Two other friends of mine were killed when a fuel cap departed their airplane. It went through their pusher prop, breaking off a portion of the prop. The pilot tried to land before the engine came off. He hit hard, putting himself and his wife between the hard deck (which was going nowhere and the engine which was coming their way. (Varieze) Loss of even a portion of a prop is not a good thing.

 

I do agree with pylon500 that

 

Not saying this will not happen' date=' but, I have lost a spinner, and seen others let go, and they generally just damage a blade or two, leaving splits, chips, nicks and the like.[/quote'] To some extent the truth of the statement comes from the amount of space taken by the prop blades compared to the amount of space between the prop blades. If the bird, UAS or other object is incoming, it is quite possible that it will go through the prop's path without touching a blade or even if it touches a blade, it catches the blade's edge rather than hitting the blade straight on. In those events, the blade may well remain undamaged or only leaving scrapes and bruises. I've had two birds go into my engine compartment through the intake area of the cowling (two separate occasions while instructing in Cessna 150s. One occurred while we were on final; the other was during low level S-turns across a road). Neither bird did damage to the prop but the props were metal and the birds were small. But we made precautionary landings on both occasions.I also inspected a Piper Tomahawk that collided with a 1/2 inch (1.27cm) antenna on top of a tower. It struck the left wing maybe two feet (60cm) from the fuselage. The left wing tank was destroyed, and the leading edge D-section of the wing was severely damaged all the way to the main spar. Something hit the left horizontal stabilizer, again severely damaging it back to the spar and tearing the leading from the fuselage. The left elevator was almost severed and the rudder was damaged. How did the guy get the plane back to our airport some 5-6 miles away? Good piloting after some bad judgment.

 

Admittedly, these events involved light aircraft, but that's what most of us fly most of the time. And even so, I have seen damage to a KC135 from a collision with a goose.

 

As an acquaintance of mine who struck two cows with his motorcycle (in separate incidents) said "Those things are not as soft as they look!"

 

I think a UAS could easily damage an airplane (and possibly even bring it down) if it collides with the airplane in a vulnerable location.

[Guest SrPilot]

If your glass sinner weighing a few grams comes off and hits your prop blade it will break. A blade off may give you three seconds before your engine is missing. Thats as in gone and heading for mother earth without you. A small drone could easily stuff you day. I bet the owner would sue you for hitting it. As usual who pays? Chas

It can be catastrophic. One friend of mine lost a prop tip in flight and before he could do anything, the engine tore loose from the mount and dropped. The hoses, cables, cowling, etc held the engine with the airplane but the oil escaped over the canopy and the airplane was virtually uncontrollable. He tried to land but could not flare the airplane; he hit the deck in a rapid descent. He was knocked unconscious, the engine left the aircraft; it flipped and landed upright with no landing gear or engine. The fuselage tank ruptured and dumped his fuel load in his lap. He awakened in a stupor and a soaked lower body. Had the engine stayed with the aircraft, he probably would have been burned alive. All from loss of a portion of a prop. (Cassutt) Two other friends of mine were killed when a fuel cap departed their airplane. It went through their pusher prop, breaking off a portion of the prop. The pilot tried to land before the engine came off. He hit hard, putting himself and his wife between the hard deck (which was going nowhere and the engine which was coming their way. (Varieze) Loss of even a portion of a prop is not a good thing.

 

I do agree with pylon500 that

 

Not saying this will not happen' date=' but, I have lost a spinner, and seen others let go, and they generally just damage a blade or two, leaving splits, chips, nicks and the like.[/quote'] To some extent the truth of the statement comes from the amount of space taken by the prop blades compared to the amount of space between the prop blades. If the bird, UAS or other object is incoming, it is quite possible that it will go through the prop's path without touching a blade or even if it touches a blade, it catches the blade's edge rather than hitting the blade straight on. In those events, the blade may well remain undamaged or only leaving scrapes and bruises. I've had two birds go into my engine compartment through the intake area of the cowling (two separate occasions while instructing in Cessna 150s. One occurred while we were on final; the other was during low level S-turns across a road). Neither bird did damage to the prop but the props were metal and the birds were small. But we made precautionary landings on both occasions.I also inspected a Piper Tomahawk that collided with a 1/2 inch (1.27cm) antenna on top of a tower. It struck the left wing maybe two feet (60cm) from the fuselage. The left wing tank was destroyed, and the leading edge D-section of the wing was severely damaged all the way to the main spar. Something hit the left horizontal stabilizer, again severely damaging it back to the spar and tearing the leading from the fuselage. The left elevator was almost severed and the rudder was damaged. How did the guy get the plane back to our airport some 5-6 miles away? Good piloting after some bad judgment.

 

Admittedly, these events involved light aircraft, but that's what most of us fly most of the time. And even so, I have seen damage to a KC135 from a collision with a goose.

 

As an acquaintance of mine who struck two cows with his motorcycle (in separate incidents) said "Those things are not as soft as they look!"

 

I think a UAS could easily damage an airplane (and possibly even bring it down) if it collides with the airplane in a vulnerable location.

[diesel]

What I found interesting, particularly having read up a little about CASA and ASRA controls on gyros, is that UAV's can go up to 400' outside of controlled airspace and no licence required provided it's not being used for commercial purposes.Gyros can fly legally as low as 300'.

 

If you want to use one commercially and have an Area Authority, you need to do a full blown risk assessment...I bet a lot don't!

 

Heaps of stuff on the CASA website.

 

Kaz

Kaz I read some data from China about more powerfull vertions. They wanted to restrict these as they carry a lot of gear and are able to fly into upper airspace regions. Even farming mags suggest farm surveys at two thousand feet. Time for a 30 in the Jodel wings? Chas

 

 

[diesel]

What I found interesting, particularly having read up a little about CASA and ASRA controls on gyros, is that UAV's can go up to 400' outside of controlled airspace and no licence required provided it's not being used for commercial purposes.Gyros can fly legally as low as 300'.

 

If you want to use one commercially and have an Area Authority, you need to do a full blown risk assessment...I bet a lot don't!

 

Heaps of stuff on the CASA website.

 

Kaz

Kaz I read some data from China about more powerfull vertions. They wanted to restrict these as they carry a lot of gear and are able to fly into upper airspace regions. Even farming mags suggest farm surveys at two thousand feet. Time for a 30 in the Jodel wings? Chas

 

 

[Marty_d]

As an acquaintance of mine who struck two cows with his motorcycle (in separate incidents)

Do you think the universe is trying to tell him something? Perhaps "stop riding your motorbike through herds of cows"...

 

Back to topic though... surely it can't be too hard to limit these things to say 250" AGL which is plenty for anything remotely controlled (civilian that is...) and 2 - mandate a strobe light on top to add to safety. Or is that unnecessary red tape?

 

 

[Marty_d]

As an acquaintance of mine who struck two cows with his motorcycle (in separate incidents)

Do you think the universe is trying to tell him something? Perhaps "stop riding your motorbike through herds of cows"...

 

Back to topic though... surely it can't be too hard to limit these things to say 250" AGL which is plenty for anything remotely controlled (civilian that is...) and 2 - mandate a strobe light on top to add to safety. Or is that unnecessary red tape?

 

 

[diesel]

Do you think the universe is trying to tell him something? Perhaps "stop riding your motorbike through herds of cows"...Back to topic though... surely it can't be too hard to limit these things to say 250" AGL which is plenty for anything remotely controlled (civilian that is...) and 2 - mandate a strobe light on top to add to safety. Or is that unnecessary red tape?

That sounds easy Marty but these guys dont even know how that really is. Have a look at some youtube vids. Even in the farming scene over rolling country. Thats around 2.5 nz pine trees high. Chas