Flying Drone Hazards

Black Swan

The proliferation of flying drones have increased in recent years. In addition to military and other government uses, commercial and civilian applications and use have rapidly expanded. It's become a popular science hobby for many. Unfortunately, such expanded use has been accompanied by related hazards and misuse.

Yesterday I watched on the telly how a rapidly spreading wind-driven brush fire approached a Southern California freeway (I-15), and instead of jumping it to the other side, crossed it setting over 20 cars and 2 trailer trucks on fire. Attempts to rapidly deploy fire retardant from fire department aircraft to save the cars and trucks were halted because there were 5 drones overflying and obstructing the fire zone airspace.

A similar incident occurred late June 2015, and although fire zones were considered restricted airspace, and drones were not to overfly such areas by law, the problem continued posing mid-air collision risks to fire suppressing aircraft.

As the proliferation of drones continues in months and years ahead, I wonder how this problem will be mitigated?

Akrasia

Sales and ownership of Drones will be restricted by law in the next few years. It's inevitable. idiots and A$$holes will ruin it for everyone.

The difference between modern drones and old RC aircraft is that the drones can be operated by anyone without any training and they can fly silently and even autonomously

Apart from the safety concerns of people operating these equipment in restricted air space or built up areas, it's inevitable that commercially available drones will be used in criminal/terrorist activity in the not too distant future.

If some terrorist group decided to use drones to drop incendiary bombs over a busy shopping street or into a crowded sports stadium there would be very little anyone could do about it.

Then there are the privacy issues, if anyone can fly a drone with a telescopic camera over the property of any individual, there will be unacceptable violations of privacy for public figures, and this will accelerate the drive to limit the availability of this technology to the public

Capt'n Midnight

This from Jan 2014 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-25799491

At one stage, police told Norwegian newspaper VG that a helicopter was being delayed because of suspected media drones taking pictures in the area.

"It is important for us to stress that if someone is using drones, they must get them out of there," police spokesman Nils Erik Eggen said.

IMHO
I'm against mandatory licensing of everything, everywhere.

I'm tired of not being allowed have nice things because of overreaction to the behaviour of a few idiots. Green lasers are an awesome way to point out stars. But they are now banned here because some scum pointed lasers at aircraft. A clear case of baby with bathwater. And TBH they should have tracked down those responsible and thrown the book at them as in 160 counts of attempted murder etc.


Anyway ff your drone contributes to damage then people should be able to sue you over your actions.

I don't think there is any need for any changes in the law other than enforcing existing ones.

eg: for Ireland these include (my highlighting)
https://www.iaa.ie/library_download.jsp?libraryID=956

4.5 RPAS Operating Procedures - System with a Mass Less Than 20kg
In addition to the operating conditions detailed in 4.4 above the following specific conditions will be applied to RPAS operations for systems with a mass of less than 20kg as part of the IAA permissions and exemptions process:
(a) the aircraft shall not be operated beyond Visual Line of Sight (VLOS) and not further than 500 metres from the point of operation;
(b) the aircraft shall not be operated at a height of more than 120 metres (400 feet) above ground level;
(c) the aircraft shall not be operated over or within the confines of a congested area except with the written permission of the Authority;
(d) the aircraft shall not be operated within controlled airspace except with the written permission of the Controlling Authority;
(e) the aircraft shall not be operated within an aerodrome traffic zone or closer than 8 kilometres (5 nautical miles) from an aerodrome boundary, whichever is the greatest distance, except with the written permission of the Controlling Authority;
(f) the aircraft shall not be operated over any assembly of persons on the ground nor closer than 150 metres laterally from such an assembly;
(g) the aircraft shall not be operated within 150 metres of any person, vessel, vehicle or structure not under the control of the aircraft operator; during take-off or landing however, the aircraft must not be flown within 50 metres of any person, unless that person is under the control of the aircraft operator.
(g) the aircraft shall not be operated closer than 2 kilometres from an aircraft in flight;
(h) the aircraft shall not be operated unless there is in place a third party liability insurance policy covering the operation of the system which is acceptable to the Authority.

If found guilty then you'll get torn apart by people suing you.

ScumLord

I don't know if a license is necessary. I think part of the problem may be that people see these things as toys (which they are) but don't consider the effects their toys are going to have on everybody else.

I think a simple awareness course should be mandatory, or maybe make people be part of a club that can advise people on how they should behave. Peer pressure can work wonders for keeping people in line. For the most part we only need them to not fly in certain areas at certain times and respect privacy. Outside of that they're not a problem.

papu

Akrasia wrote: »

Sales and ownership of Drones will be restricted by law in the next few years. It's inevitable. idiots and A$$holes will ruin it for everyone.

The difference between modern drones and old RC aircraft is that the drones can be operated by anyone without any training and they can fly silently and even autonomously

Apart from the safety concerns of people operating these equipment in restricted air space or built up areas, it's inevitable that commercially available drones will be used in criminal/terrorist activity in the not too distant future.

If some terrorist group decided to use drones to drop incendiary bombs over a busy shopping street or into a crowded sports stadium there would be very little anyone could do about it.

Then there are the privacy issues, if anyone can fly a drone with a telescopic camera over the property of any individual, there will be unacceptable violations of privacy for public figures, and this will accelerate the drive to limit the availability of this technology to the public

The privacy aspect is a straw-man argument , anything you want to do with a drone you could already do with a Kite or balloon .

ScumLord

papu wrote: »

The privacy aspect is a straw-man argument , anything you want to do with a drone you could already do with a Kite or balloon .

You could maybe hang a camera off a kite or balloon but you'd have next to no control over what it's looking at.

seamus

Laws and licensing are of limited use; people will still be able to get access to them and use them.

Most likely what will come will be the development of anti-drone technology which is deployed onto emergency services helicopters. Anything in the way gets a short blast of a strong magnetic field or something and drops like a stone.

Law enforcement agencies could even have rifles which fire a specific electrical bolt which attaches to the drone and shorts it out. These guys usually fly pretty low, so should be easy to hit.

They'd be rarely used of course. Once someone realises they might lose their equipment, they won't put it in harm's way.

papu

ScumLord wrote: »

You could maybe hang a camera off a kite or balloon but you'd have next to no control over what it's looking at.

I'm sure you could put it on a moveable gimble. point is you can invade privacy and drop things drop the sky without using drones.

the only real danger and what should be considered is crashing into people and other aircraft.

ScumLord

papu wrote: »

I'm sure you could put it on a moveable gimble. point is you can invade privacy and drop things drop the sky without using drones.

the only real danger and what should be considered is crashing into people and other aircraft.

It's maybe possible to put a gimbal on a balloon, you'd still be at the mercy of the weather. A drone gives you a very stable platform to stick a very good camera on and literally fly up to someones window and hover there for as long as the battery lasts. I don't think that's actually going to be happening all that often but it's the level of precise control that puts drones into another league.

jackofalltrades

I think there should be mandatory training to use them.
I really don't like the idea of sharing the sky with people who are completely clueless of the rules.

As others have said they're seen as toys by owners, who probably have no idea how dangerous flying can be.

I think they'll be a collision some day followed by an inevitable harsh crackdown.
I can also potentially see a rise in anti-drone technology.

5rtytry56

The "toy" perception of the drone will be re enforced to some insofar as Lidl were recently retailing one for 29.99. I wonder how many Irish parents, unaware of the legal implications for instance bought this thing for a child less than 14?

ScumLord

5rtytry56 wrote: »

The "toy" perception of the drone will be re enforced to some insofar as Lidl were recently retailing one for 29.99. I wonder how many Irish parents, unaware of the legal implications for instance bought this thing for a child less than 14?

I didn't see that drone but I'd imagine at that price it's not going to be much of a problem. They tend to be indoor toys that wouldn't be able to operate in the slightest of breezes.

It's the bigger ones people are using for video, these are hefty devices that can fly up into the path of real aircraft and have enough bulk to do serious damage to a light aircraft or helicopter.

Capt'n Midnight

Just a reminder. We don't need new laws or licensing. There are laws. They just need to be seen to be enforced.


http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33612631

An Airbus A320's wing passed 6m (20ft) below a drone hovering at Heathrow, said the Civil Aviation Authority.

It said drone pilots would face prosecution if they put the safety of other aircraft at risk.

News about the mid-air encounter comes only days after a Lufthansa jet nearly collided with a drone on the approach to Warsaw's international airport.

...
Recklessly endangering an aircraft is a criminal offence, said Mr Johnson, and those convicted could face a five-year jail sentence.

darragh o meara

Simple solution to the issue where the fire planes couldn't attend, just fly higher and drop it's payload, if the drones get in the way.. tough ****.

ScumLord

darragh o meara wrote: »

Simple solution to the issue where the fire planes couldn't attend, just fly higher and drop it's payload, if the drones get in the way.. tough ****.

They're going to need to drop at a specific height to get the proper spread. To low and you dump in one small area, dump to high and the spray would be spread too thin.

Police should be able to shot down the drones in cases like these. That would quickly put a stop to them flying them in inappropriate places.

jackofalltrades

darragh o meara wrote: »

Simple solution to the issue where the fire planes couldn't attend, just fly higher and drop it's payload, if the drones get in the way.. tough ****.

Which would be fair enough when lives/property are in danger.
But there's rules against that.

FAR 91.15

Dropping objects.

No pilot in command of a civil aircraft may allow any object to be dropped from that aircraft in flight that creates a hazard to persons or property. However, this section does not prohibit the dropping of any object if reasonable precautions are taken to avoid injury or damage to persons or property.

That and a 20kg drone could do a bit of damage to a plane/helicopter.