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
Manfred, I agree with you in principle. I really do. But this is a give and take. We need to put in place *reasonable* regulations. Otherwise, when something happens (and it will), knee-jerk reaction would lead to lawmakers filling the void with regulations we would not like.
I don't think it's unreasonable to put sensible restrictions on the most basic of machines.
Manfred that's it exactlly! Would you please run for president of the united states. lol
How many die per year thru medical botch-ups, car accidents, accidents at home... and how many have died thru model airplanes heli’s and quads so far?
The medical and car domain are highly regulated but does it help???
By all this regulations you take the freedom of many because of a very few.
Okay, so where is someone with a RTF quad supposed to go to learn to fly safely and responsibly? I've done lots of googling and forum searching and as far as I can tell, there's nowhere (in Australia at least) that someone can can go to learn.
Yes, there are RC clubs but they seem to cater solely to fixed wing and helicopters - there's not even a mention or a photo of anything else on their web sites. There's no accreditation (or wings) for multi rotors and if you want to fly at an RC club (with insurance) you'd need to buy a fixed wing or hell and start there.
As far as I can tell, we're mostly flying on our own in locations that are as safe as our experience with equipment failure.
This guy is clearly an attention seeker but until we organise ourselves and make it really easy for people new to the hobby to do the right thing, there isn't going to be a viable counterpoint that the media can report on.
The problem with regulations is they are often [ okay always ] a one size fits all that doesn't make sense. The risks are extremely limited in many rural areas. To tell a guy way out in the country he can only fly 400 feet is just not warranted. I could never fly high enough to reach commercial aircraft I'm too far from the city. And the risk to some Cessna pilot who might be flying by would be tantamount to hitting the lottery. He would have 1000 times more likelihood of hitting one of the thousands of birds flying around than my tiny aircraft on that one given day.
Saw this one the other day R_Lefebvre.
Too many people think just because it's coming from the media it must be true. I remember watching the news and a reporter said how the sun was 93 million feet from earth. The sad part isn't she said that it's that 1/2 the people out there wouldn't know what she said was beyond ignorant.
Because... otherwise we end up with people doing this, just because they can:
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
im with R_Lefebvre and agree that there needs to be some sort of control over the simple cheep set-ups , but even if there is it wouldn't take a genus to bypass or remove that part of the system, the laws and legislation changes are going to be grey and messy for quite a while until something horrible happens and they ban all imports of rc gear, or they come up with a sensible way to stop amateurs like the dude in this video from flying into a fullsize jet (i secretly think he really wants to) , either way something is going to change , whether it is for the best or not , who knows?
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.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 6 Next