How much control over UAVs in New Zealand? Anonymous Sunday, October 11, 2015

An article appeared in the Dominion Post (New Zealand) this weekend, asking about the level of control over drone use in New Zealand.  The article is well written, but in my opinion, the reporter had an axe to grind.  However, so too did some of the people interviewed.  Unfortunately, the article made a number of unsubstantiated claims about UAV operators, such as "many don't even read the instructions before they launch their machine".  

The Civil Aviation Authority has made a serious attempt to regulate the use of UAVs, both by hobbyists and commercial organisations, without being too restrictive and stifling development of an industry that is coming, like it or not.

The idea of ID chipping UAVs is quite a good one and might be practical.  The popular argument, repeated again in this article,  that planes have "see and avoid" technology that enables them to spot nearby aircraft is a serious misrepresentation.  Certainly, commercial airliners have Traffic  Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS), but such systems are not normally fitted to smaller general aviation aircraft, such as Cessnas or Pipers.  (Interestingly, FLARM - flight alarm - is often fitted to gliders, which may fly very close together when taking part in competitions).  The development of detect-and-avoid equipment small enough to be put into an aircraft as small as a DJI Phantom, probably the most popular multi-rotor UAV worldwide, will be a major advance in ensuring the safety of general aviation.  Unfortunately, this development is unlikely to happen in the near future and adoption by owners of the hundreds of thousands of multi-rotors already in use is doubtful.

This author is still strongly of the opinion that education of UAV owners is the key to ensuring safety of other airspace users and those on the ground.

A fake, but not helpful Anonymous Friday, June 26, 2015

I saw this link yesterday:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ac3_1435080329

The video clip has been shown to be a fake, produced by a special effects worker, but it went viral.  It's cool, but not helpful.  It has now reinforced the idea in the minds of the general public that UAVs (we don't use the word 'drone'!) are dangerous.

Of course, UAVs in the wrong hands and used in the wrong environment can be dangerous.  New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority is currently writing new rules to cover the operation of RPAS.  This sort of thing is going to make the authorities around the world look even harder at controlling the operation of UAVs

The AUT UAV mission in Antarctica features in New Zealand CAA Vector magazine Anonymous Wednesday, August 13, 2014

Professor John wrote an article for the New Zealand CAA magazine Vector.  The article concentrated on the operational aspects of flying the Fox in the Taylor Dry Valley, specifically the safety procedures adopted to ensure that the UAV did not conflict with helicopter traffic in the valley.

Helicopters are the only effective way of moving people and equipment in and out of the valley, so there may be several flights a day.  In order to operate the UAV safely, a procedure was worked out with Mac Centre and the Remote Operations Facility in Charleston, South Carolina.  The operational procedures are described in the article, which also includes a couple of photographs.

We now have a tested and reliable procedure for operating UAVs in Antarctica and hope that this sets the standard for future deployments.

See:  http://www.caa.govt.nz/safety_info/vector.htm  and download the July/August 2014 issue.

Image from NZCAA Vector magazine.

Frustration and concern Anonymous Wednesday, October 31, 2012

The weather in New Zealand at this time of year is often difficult to predict.  Auckland residents refer to "Four seasons in one day".

The windy conditions prevented us from flying the Hawk during our training week at Skycam UAV.  Since we have returned to Auckland, we have managed to fly twice, owing to the fortuitous visit of Dr. Tim Brooks to Auckland.  Both Tim and the AUT Hawk Team decided that two flights was not sufficient for us to conduct independent operations and that we need more supervised air experience. Now we are all busy with examinations etc. and can't find time for more training.

So, that was the frustration; what about the concern?

UAVs are becoming more readily available - it is possible to buy complete units for a couple of hundred dollars on the Internet, or you can buy the components and construct your own.  Small companies are springing up, offering aerial photography services, and amateurs are flying them just for fun.  At this stage of the development of UAV operations in New Zealand, we don't need publicity like the following:

The on-line newsletter, sUAS News reported that a multirotor had hit a skyscraper in New Zealand, crashed and caught fire.  It appears that the operator broke just about all the rules - the multirotor was operated in a busy, built-up area, there was no attempt at crowd control, it is probable that the flight was not authorised by either the New Zealand Civil Aviation Authority or the city council, as the road was not closed.  The relatively large multirotor was carrying an SLR camera.  The video clip shows two operators, probably one to fly the aircraft, the other wearing VR goggles to control the camera.

The aircraft was taken straight up into the air, apparently without any post take-off check, and climbed to perhaps 75-100ft, at which point it moved rapidly sideways and crashed into the side of a glass-walled building, before falling to the street, where it emitted smoke, probably from the LiPo batteries.  Nobody was hurt, but the potential for injury, or damage to cars, was considerable.  The sound track suggests that someone called the emergency services, but this was not really necessary.

There have been a number of suggestions as to why the multirotor crashed.  Perhaps the operator failed to control the aircraft; perhaps there was a systems failure or loss of communication.  Obviously, there was no emergency landing procedure to kick in should there be a loss of communication.  My own observation of the conditions on the day lead me to believe that the operator lost control of the aircraft as a result of the wind gusting between the tall buildings.

Whatever caused the loss of control, this incident comes at a time when CAA is looking at writing new regulations to control the use of UAVs.  General aviation and airline pilots are, not unreasonably, becoming concerned that sooner or later, a UAV will come into conflict with their own aircraft.  Having been buzzed by a model aircraft while flying full-size, I can confirm that this is a disturbing experience. We await with bated breath the possible fallout of this incident.  Fortunately, NZCAA appears to be taking a reasonable and considered approach to regulation of UAV operations in New Zealand.

My apologies if you have already read a similar version of this post - I accidentally deleted it an hour after posting the original.