Local quad "expert" asserts that there will be a series of major incidents worldwide using "drones" in the next 6 months.
CAA (NZ) says drone technology has outpaced its regulations and it needs to move with haste to get new rules in place to keep our air space both safe and under some sort of control.
Comments
Because... otherwise we end up with people doing this, just because they can:
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
I hate the fear mongering, but I actually agree with the guy. I'm starting to think that, at the very least, all "RTF" systems should have a hard 400 foot ceiling. We are seeing examples of people doing really silly things more and more often.
What has changed between now and 20+ years ago? LOTS.
1) In the past, even a cheap RC aircraft cost $1000+. And those were 1990's dollars. $200 for a 40 size engine. $2-300 for a radio ($100 for each Rx!). $200 for a kit. $100 for servos. $1-200 in extras... It all added up fast.
Now people can go and get RTF airplanes for $200 all-in. So it's much more accessible.
2) In the past, it would take 100 hours to build a model airplane kit. This meant the user had *considerable* personal investment, and would go to great lengths to make sure they didn't crash it. Now, you just open the box, charge the battery, and go. If you crash, you can just buy another one for $200.
3) In the past, there was nothing BUT 400 foot flying. You couldn't practically fly much higher than that. (maybe exception for some gliders?) And you had to stay in about a 1/4 mile range. And since pretty much everything was a 40-size nitro, you needed a runway to take-off from, which meant chances are you were at a club field, or you personally had access to a large piece of land. Now people are flying foamies and quads from any flat surface, even if it's a patio table on the balcony of a highrise.
4) In the past, if you went out of radio range, the airplane didn't fly very far before crashing. Now, the aircraft can remain airborne until they run out of fuel/battery. This means very high altitudes and long distances in flyaways.
I don't want to be the crusty old guy saying "back in my day..." But things HAVE changed. The risks have changed. More importantly even, the same systems which CAUSE these risks, can easily be used to PREVENT the risks. And they should be. And if manufacturers don't want to do it, then they'll have to be forced.
There will always be ways around restrictions like these. And I think there always should be. I'm not proposing we outright ban any and all long range flights. But at least cut back on these plug-and-fly guys. I can't think of one good reason why there should not be a restriction placed on any RTF systems with a 100m ceiling, and 1 km range. It would still allow 99.99% of valid uses for the systems, while avoiding many of the risks.
This is how our society works. My right to throw my fist ends where your nose begins.
Martin, and yet the FAA still managed to conclude that the RC pilot was at fault.
Lets get this perfect example adjusted a bit.
The biplane did a low flyby without permission and hit the 3D plane that was hovering at around 20 feet AGL
.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znCa-oCfacg (let the flamming begin)
Smart people still do stupid things.
Hi Darrell and others,
I would like to inform you, I really appreciate Manfred's comments because of his flying in his life time as a pilot. He is not only flying at present his TREX traditional Helicopters with APM 2.5 and testing those for us, he has enormous experience in flying with the real big planes, not only here in New Zealand and Australia but also in Europe for many years in the past. I thing he is bang on with his opinion. Thanks Manfred.
Well he flies the quad just about as good as, if not better than most rc pilots...
Reading between the lines, and what he is highlighting is that the risk potential for damage or unwanted activity is very high as the process for ensuring safe UAV flight has practically gone unregulated, because of how it is very difficult to regulate how they are sold, certified and flown. When did you see an unlicensed flyer, or rc enthusiast perform a risk assessment and make sure they had the relevant permissions and insurance before flight. In all my years of this hobby, never once have I seen one performed at the RC level, but every time at the commercial level.
A couple of years ago there was a perfect example of a biplane hitting a large RC 3d plane. The discussions world wide vent viral, but what it did was highlight how many things failed that day to lead up to a potentially deadly event. The video is worth watching if you search for it. In Australia we had a keen rc flier put his corsair into the flight path of a virgin jet landing at perth. It was so close you could read the writing on the side on the jet and see the pearly whites of the pilots. Then the jet wash caught the corsair, and sent it into uncontrolled flight to a messy ending. He received a large fine for his ignorance and spectacular lack of flying skills and knowledge. To think these things do not happen, nor will happen is stupid.
This guys actually speaks the truth, people just don't like hearing the truth.
If someone is stupid enough or has a criminal intention, to fly a model aircraft in to a path of an airliner, no law can prevent that. No number of laws can make the world a safer place.
To make the road safer just outlaw all cars....or something like that???
haha "hexos" id love to hear that in a nz accent
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next