Drones get OK’d to fly, lend a helping hand

These are interesting reading with regard to operation in commercial airspace.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1209/S00384/wellington-unmanned-drone-poses-significant-safety-risk.htm

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/9885743/Getting-commercial-drones-aloft-proves-tricky

Tiny drones pose air safety risk - National News | TVNZ

Bearing in mind that radar doesn't cover the oceans and there is a dependance of aircraft based systems to report where they are.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10875042

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10874979

Every other object that flies in the airspaces requires to have a transponder, but no-one has come up with something for drones.

I think more focus on how to identify where they are is equally important, which will also help with the complaints from neighbours, etc.

Mark

and this conversation is one that is more worrying due to ignorance of what the rules are and why.

http://www.parkflyers.org.nz/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=4069

I'm no expert in this, but I was wondering, I suppose if these devices had the capability to (say) automatically self-land in a slow controlled manner when batteries are running low, have some mechanisms to avoid flying into people (e.g. thermal or usual camera imaging) then it might accelerate getting accepted by many people, i.e. some basic set of requirements that should be something that people could look for when purchasing these, e.g. a "safety level 1" mark (not saying this needs legislation [I know nothing about quadcopters so I can't comment]).

Shabaz, John

The issue is a drone or more correctly a UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) is not just your average toy quad, hex or even opto-copter.

There are some serious sized ones out there being used for Search and Rescue, along with the really large sized Military drones we've seen.

Currently NZ Coastguard have one large enough to drop a liferaft and can fly for 12-13hrs before refuelling.

Anything flying in a controlled airspace is either a hazard because it could end up getting sucked into an engine (birds get chopped up, but metal things tend to destroy the blades), or a distraction to pilots landing, hence the need to control airspace around an airport.

Aircraft generally have a transponder on board which is then visible to ATC and can interact with the other aircraft's TCAS system, so even if they haven't filed a flight plan (ie told ATC where they are going), the systems can work to avoid a near miss, or collision.

I know there is work being done to provide an approved 'transponder' that will suit UAV, but it's not public information and I'm not sure of the size UAV they wish to apply them to.

For hazards to persons on the ground, then yes in an ideal world the safety mechanism onboard could make a controlled descent.

Will this always work?, From my many years in electronics, failure is inevitable ...it's just when.

Can you safely land an opto-copter with a 2kg payload and 8 high speed and very sharp blades into a crowd of people from above when they are crossing a noisy street.?

I suggest NO, so the 'fail to safe' option here is limit where and when they can fly.

Is it fair?. Well maybe not, but then the only uncontrolled thing I know on the streets is a bicycle, skateboard or mobility scooter, since you don't need registration or a licence/test to operate it, and it's capable of injuring one or more people, however they don't generally sneak up on you from above.

The noise issue is a secondary problem, that the various regional or local authorities can control, in much the same way if you decided to play loud music all the time.

Luckily in America you can carry a gun and use it, so you have the distinct advantage of shooting the damn thing, and if the operater was using POV display he might get the idea when you wave the gun at it.

So while the PR types sit in their rooms dreaming up these weird and wacky marketing ideas, the real world tends to apply logic and safety so that no-one gets hurt.

When you're sitting in the aircraft about to take-off or land, you might want to contemplate on which side is making the rules for your safe flight.

Mark

Shabaz, John

The issue is a drone or more correctly a UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) is not just your average toy quad, hex or even opto-copter.

There are some serious sized ones out there being used for Search and Rescue, along with the really large sized Military drones we've seen.

Currently NZ Coastguard have one large enough to drop a liferaft and can fly for 12-13hrs before refuelling.

Anything flying in a controlled airspace is either a hazard because it could end up getting sucked into an engine (birds get chopped up, but metal things tend to destroy the blades), or a distraction to pilots landing, hence the need to control airspace around an airport.

Aircraft generally have a transponder on board which is then visible to ATC and can interact with the other aircraft's TCAS system, so even if they haven't filed a flight plan (ie told ATC where they are going), the systems can work to avoid a near miss, or collision.

I know there is work being done to provide an approved 'transponder' that will suit UAV, but it's not public information and I'm not sure of the size UAV they wish to apply them to.

For hazards to persons on the ground, then yes in an ideal world the safety mechanism onboard could make a controlled descent.

Will this always work?, From my many years in electronics, failure is inevitable ...it's just when.

Can you safely land an opto-copter with a 2kg payload and 8 high speed and very sharp blades into a crowd of people from above when they are crossing a noisy street.?

I suggest NO, so the 'fail to safe' option here is limit where and when they can fly.

Is it fair?. Well maybe not, but then the only uncontrolled thing I know on the streets is a bicycle, skateboard or mobility scooter, since you don't need registration or a licence/test to operate it, and it's capable of injuring one or more people, however they don't generally sneak up on you from above.

The noise issue is a secondary problem, that the various regional or local authorities can control, in much the same way if you decided to play loud music all the time.

Luckily in America you can carry a gun and use it, so you have the distinct advantage of shooting the damn thing, and if the operater was using POV display he might get the idea when you wave the gun at it.

So while the PR types sit in their rooms dreaming up these weird and wacky marketing ideas, the real world tends to apply logic and safety so that no-one gets hurt.

When you're sitting in the aircraft about to take-off or land, you might want to contemplate on which side is making the rules for your safe flight.

Mark

Yeah the sub foot diameter things are fairly harmless but as you say I've seen plenty even around here used for  Photographic purposes that are over a Metre in diameter and stay up for ages. Now the price has reduced and they are proliferating I can as you say see the problems when them and us interact.

Mark could you imagine a world where 1000's of Amazon Drones dance across any given city delivering your orders, they would be quite massive ...BOZO Drone

could you imagine a world where 1000's of Amazon Drones dance across any given city delivering your orders

No. It's fantasyland as the reality is far too hard to do in the real world.

It would need a vision system to deal with wires, trees and other unplanned obstacles.

In NZ (and I imagine similar in the rest of the world) the limit for aircraft is 1000ft over a built-up area, and 500ft over rural.

A 2, 3 or even 5kg payload is a lot of damage if it were to have the ability to go bang.

Mark

Yeah, obviously an explosive one would be very bad but they wouldn't care about the rules anyway .

A 5Kg package would mean at least  say a 20 KG craft. Could you imagine a 25KG craft with blades crashing in to you at say 50+MPh  or a car or even a house it would cause plenty of damage!

You are right about not caring about rules, however currently anything like that attracts a lot of attention, since its NOT normal.

I'm not sure about weight to payload, but like most things that defy gravity, every extra kg means more fuel, so the battery will be a limiting factor for run times to be worthwhile.

In this whole fantasy, the delivery is probably the least expense, since you still need to warehouse the goods, arrange for a robot/human to remove it, and package it for flight, program the drone about where to fly and attach the package, then open the door and send it, along with the return.

So I'm unsure where they think they will save money, given the high initial cost, and the high maintenance v a few dollars to the courier.

There are some potential uses for SAR, but from what I've seen so far its the designer/supplier who is providing most of the "need".

We saw a few get used in Chch after the earthquakes to survey the inside of buildings, but the reality was the pictures were not HD quality, they kicked up dust making close inspection a problems, and one became MIA, so what use they were is debatable when you can't see cracks in structural beams, etc.

There is GPS controlled one that a guy in our club used to take regular videos over the city centre, but was done with full permission.

https://quakestudies.canterbury.ac.nz/store/collection/350

http://www.ceismic.org.nz/news/aerial-videos-of-christchurch

Mark

It's an interesting thought experiment. If UAVs became one day safer than road vehicles, (e.g. vision/sensors improving to the point

that it's safer than a human) would people want to reduce the lorries on the road, in preference to more UAVs? For example if UAVs could

always minimise flying over humans if at any time they were aware of where all humans were (every human wearing a chip!), or an

algorithm that would maximise flights over buildings, rivers etc rather than streets, to reduce the risk of casualties when they fail.

(Not saying this is where we want to see our world heading to of course - just a very dystopian example).

I wonder if the issues are solvable. Maybe a decade ago people may not have thought google could create autonomous road vehicles.

Accidents could still happen, but if it eventually became safer than a road vehicle then maybe they would be preferable.

If it doesn't happen, there are some other ideas to make sure we get our Amazon or Wall-E style Buy 'n' Large purchases with near-local

assembly of things that you need, either because logistics firms stock popular building-blocks more intelligently or printing or

nanotechnology used more so that some things are created closer to where they are consumed. This could be either soon or decades

away maybe, but I heard car manufacturers already locally stock car options for when people order (say) leather interior trim, to minimise

the delay. This is a bit of a digression of course. From what little I know it seems current consumer-use UAVs and safety capabilities are

not where they should preferably be, and even then I don't know if they will ever be considered acceptable for residential areas.