Wing Aviation Pty Ltd drones - coming soon to Melbourne

[red750]

A bit of thread drift from home deliveries, but a mate sent me 3 drone videos today. I have seen two of them before.

 

The first one is Forestry.

 

 

 

 

 

[Litespeed]

The first two are good.

 

The last is downright scary.

 

Fortunately at this time that video is a fake and no such systems are currently available.

 

My robotics engineering son and I discussed this exact thing over ten years ago and decided not to proceed as it would be evil and open to mass murder.

 

But it is a indicator of the possible, esp in China where constant surveillance and face recognition is a thing.

 

Fortunately for us, my son and I are not evil. He promised never to make killing machines and we are much safer.

 

Sadly lots of smart bad people exist.

[Student Pilot]

The first video, 100'000 plants a day with one drone? What capacity seed hopper? What weight per seed? As with most of these drone promotions pretty fanciful. I am not against UAV's, just the bullsh!t they peddle. There are some very able UAV's and countries that utilise them to their full potential, most I have seen in Australia are hobbyists or gov bodies who were sold a flawed concept and spend way too much for what they get. 
The Turkish Bayraktar is an example of a capable multi role UAV. 
 

[pmccarthy]

The firefighting picture is BS if you consider the weight and volume of fluid needed to suppress a fire.

[Ian]

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

The firefighting picture is BS if you consider the weight and volume of fluid needed to suppress a fire.

Yes and no.

A battery drone with a payload of water isn't effective.

A drone to control or support hose powered from the ground can have more than enough thrust control a firehose.

Whether it's cheaper or more functional than a ladder is a different matter.

[facthunter]

Changing the angle of the flow near the nozzle would require a fair bit of force.   Nev

[onetrack]

If you've ever hung onto a firehose with a proper fire pump driving it, you will understand the massive pressure required to keep control of it.

The drone firefighting video is pure BS, the pressure from those hoses would be sending the drones backwards at 200kmh.

A lot of firefighting teams use a tripod or a vehicle mounted hose, to ensure they don't get propelled back into the next block.

At the very least, you will often see 3 blokes hanging onto one fire hose to keep it under control.

 

Edited July 23 by onetrack

[Ian]

A hose generates thrust.

A drone needs to be able to generate equivalent and opposite thrust. It's not hard especially once its in a steady state.

It's just maths and power. It wouldn't be as small as the toys in the video but its certainly feasible.

[T510]

I have been working writing policies and procedures to get CASA approval for pressure washing from drones.

 

The system I have got approvals for is limited to a maximum of 3500psi nozzle pressure and 38Lpm. 

The drone just has the spray nozzle mounted and the water/cleaning solution is fed through an umbilical tether from the pressure washing unit on the ground.

 

My little fire trailer I use on my property with a Honda powered fire pump delivers ~250Lpm and it is one of the smaller systems available. We are a long way off fighting fires with drones

[spacesailor]

As to the ' seed dropping drones ' .

Surly that is illegal ,  as in recreational aircraft are not allowed to drop lollies now .

spacesailor

[Student Pilot]

5 hours ago, spacesailor said:

As to the ' seed dropping drones ' .

Surly that is illegal ,  as in recreational aircraft are not allowed to drop lollies now .

spacesailor

So is lots of stuff that is illegal, doesn't mean people don't do it. An example is spraying of chemicals with drones. They use chemicals off label with total volume rates a tiny percentage of labelled rates. If an aerial operator was to do the same thing with normal aircraft they would be litigated out of business with the various State EPA's. Because it's somehow considered "green" to use drones it's ok to do things illegally.

 

[johnm]

I can't se how domestic drone delivery improves society - perhaps a medical delivery

 

..... however it's a great opportunity for neighbouring houses to get in some aerial target practice 

[T510]

20 hours ago, spacesailor said:

As to the ' seed dropping drones ' .

Surly that is illegal ,  as in recreational aircraft are not allowed to drop lollies now .

spacesailor

You are only allowed to drop things or spray from a drone with CASA approval. You must have the appropriate policies and procedures in your Operations Manual and they must be signed off by the CASA RPAS department

[T510]

14 hours ago, Student Pilot said:

So is lots of stuff that is illegal, doesn't mean people don't do it. An example is spraying of chemicals with drones. They use chemicals off label with total volume rates a tiny percentage of labelled rates. If an aerial operator was to do the same thing with normal aircraft they would be litigated out of business with the various State EPA's. Because it's somehow considered "green" to use drones it's ok to do things illegally.

 

Drone aerial sprayers are governed by the same rules as manned aircraft, the operator still needs to have the appropriate licences and permits for the chemicals they are spraying. If they don't they are at risk of litigation same as a manned aircraft

 

A single spray drone can spray up to 14Ha and hour, some you can fly in swarms of 5 drones to one operator, they are not just doing tiny areas.

 

The Aerial Application Association Of Australia hasn't released drone policy since 2021. Their policy said they did not see the use for drones in aerial application. This was a short sighted view when they could have had input in licencing and policies for drone spraying

[spacesailor]

CASA

States .

Only one drone per operator. 

spacesailor

 

Edited July 25 by spacesailor

[Student Pilot]

9 hours ago, T510 said:

Drone aerial sprayers are governed by the same rules as manned aircraft, the operator still needs to have the appropriate licences and permits for the chemicals they are spraying. If they don't they are at risk of litigation same as a manned aircraft

 

A single spray drone can spray up to 14Ha and hour, some you can fly in swarms of 5 drones to one operator, they are not just doing tiny areas.

 

The Aerial Application Association Of Australia hasn't released drone policy since 2021. Their policy said they did not see the use for drones in aerial application. This was a short sighted view when they could have had input in licencing and policies for drone spraying

Yes there is regulation in place, it is ignored. An example is most chemicals are labelled at 30 litres to the hectare going up to 50 litres to the hectare. At the lighter rate of 30l your quoted 14Ha an hour would need to have lifted 420 litres in that hour. Yes they can be used in very small areas. As for general use, typical advertising hype.

[turboplanner]

10 hours ago, johnm said:

I can't se how domestic drone delivery improves society - perhaps a medical delivery

 

..... however it's a great opportunity for neighbouring houses to get in some aerial target practice 

SG shot is best.

[T510]

17 hours ago, spacesailor said:

CASA

States .

Only one drone per operator. 

spacesailor

 

With the appropriate policy and procedures in your Operations Manual and CASA approval, swarm flights or "one to many" as CASA prefer to call it are possible.

 

I had a CASA Instrument that allowed up to 400 drones with one pilot in command and a secondary pilot to conduct drone light shows. One pilot running up to 5 ag drones is not uncommon.

 

 

 

 

[T510]

15 hours ago, Student Pilot said:

Yes there is regulation in place, it is ignored. An example is most chemicals are labelled at 30 litres to the hectare going up to 50 litres to the hectare. At the lighter rate of 30l your quoted 14Ha an hour would need to have lifted 420 litres in that hour. Yes they can be used in very small areas. As for general use, typical advertising hype.

Most chemicals is a very generic statement, the spraying method with drones is different as well. The site is typically surveyed with another drone often using a NDVI camera then using that data and an agronomists input the spray drone varies it's application rates to ensure most efficient use of the chemicals.

 

The latest multirotor ag drones available are pushing 100kg MTOW, half of which is payload.  Fixed wing are up around 600kg 

https://www.flypyka.com/pelican-spray

 

There are quite a few companies now doing very well out of drone spraying and ag services. They have CASA approval and have been facing a lot of scrutiny like many emerging technologies. They don't get away with ignoring regulations.

 

For large sites requiring big volumes they can't compete with manned aircraft at this stage but it is coming. 

Removing the risk to a pilot in what is traditionally a high risk aviation activity has it's merit

 

[T510]

15 hours ago, turboplanner said:

SG shot is best.

Shooting at a drone incurs the same penalties as shooting at a manned aircraft, the legislation doesn't differentiate

[Student Pilot]

3 hours ago, T510 said:

Shooting at a drone incurs the same penalties as shooting at a manned aircraft, the legislation doesn't differentiate

Doesn't mean a lot, personal experience tells me people can shoot and hit aircraft with absolutely no consequences. CASA at local and Canberra level and police were not interested and took no action. If the police aren't interested in attempted murder in an aircraft then why would they worry about toys being shot out of the sky?

[Marty_d]

5 hours ago, T510 said:

Shooting at a drone incurs the same penalties as shooting at a manned aircraft, the legislation doesn't differentiate

That doesn't ring right to me.  If you're shooting at an aircraft you're aiming at a person, ie attempted murder or at least reckless endangerment or something.  

Ain't no humans in drones (yet).

[onetrack]

CASA computer says NO to shooting at drones! Besides, there are any number of firearms laws that relate back to improper or dangerous use of a firearm, so I'd think twice before shooting down that annoying drone! 

 

Log into Facebook

WWW.FACEBOOK.COM

---

Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.

 

Drones operate under aviation laws and under CASA control, so I would think it's pretty clear where shooting at drones is covered.

 

AVIATION TRANSPORT SECURITY ACT 2004 - SECT 10 Meaning of unlawful interference with aviation

WWW8.AUSTLII.EDU.AU

---

Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII), a joint facility of UTS and UNSW Faculties of Law.

 

The Civil Aviation Act 1988 defines an "aircraft" as;

 

QUOTE: ["aircraft" means any machine or craft that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air, other than the reactions of the air against the earth's surface.]

 

CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 3 Interpretation

WWW8.AUSTLII.EDU.AU

---

Australasian Legal Information Institute (AustLII), a joint facility of UTS and UNSW Faculties of Law.

 

Edited July 26 by onetrack
addendum...

[T510]

Onetrack is on the money, CASA consider a drone an aircraft, the legislation doesn't mention people on board or not.

 

 

1 hour ago, Student Pilot said:

Doesn't mean a lot, personal experience tells me people can shoot and hit aircraft with absolutely no consequences. CASA at local and Canberra level and police were not interested and took no action. If the police aren't interested in attempted murder in an aircraft then why would they worry about toys being shot out of the sky?

That sounds like a really bad experience, disappointing that nothing was done given people have been arrested for pointing lasers at aircraft.

[Marty_d]

11 minutes ago, T510 said:

Onetrack is on the money, CASA consider a drone an aircraft, the legislation doesn't mention people on board or not.

 

 

That sounds like a really bad experience, disappointing that nothing was done given people have been arrested for pointing lasers at aircraft.

CASA legislation may not differentiate, but I would HOPE laws around firearms and whether you're shooting at a person or a microchip would.

 

Otherwise it's like saying that someone shooting randomly at cars on a freeway is the same as someone shooting a model car.