Discussion in 'Other Toys/Hobbies' started by sgtraven, Jan 15, 2013.
Wait till a few of the so called ignorant get fines/possible confiscation of said drone?
CASA have always been big on strict liability for any regulations. I have no doubt this will be the same.
The problem is it has gone too long without meaningful regulation and enforcement. if I had my way they'd just lock the drone operators and the laser dicks in a room and let them fight it out rats in a barrel style
the laws have been in existence for some time now. how many people get fined and their equipment confiscated now, bar the odd fool who crashes their gear into a prominent building? and if the drone isn't registered, how do you trace it back to someone unless they're conveniently standing there with a transmitter in their hand?
I don't see what this solves. it doesn't necessarily get more people complying with (or even aware of) the rules. voluntary registration (and presumably marking of any aircraft with operator details) might get a few of the idiots to pull their heads in, but again - only if they're aware of the rules, if they're not then blame was already retrospectively assigned.
they went through all of this in America not long ago, it was a loser then too. same issues, same knee jerk reaction from their FAA (licence all the things!) and same failure. in their case, it was defeated by someone who went to court and pointed out that the FAA was specifically excepted from managing model aircraft.
and that bit won't happen here, CASA have the government well captured. if they want to regulate it they will be given it if they haven't already.
the problem is the issues are the same here, the main issue being there are irresponsible people that feel the regulations don't apply to them sending things up in to the sky (firefighting at bruny island, rescue chopper in qld this week, my personal experience in broome are all examples) and causing a massive safety hazard. When I lived in broome I got in to an argument with an aspie photographer (no hate, but it is accurate) who even after having the rules explained to him and giving him one of my charts with the 3NM ring marked on it just told me he didn't care.
Unfortunately broome airport is in the middle of town and for a lot of flights we used to fly straight down cable beach as our base leg to final for runway 10. this put us at 1000ft descending to 500ft for final, technically all the drones should have been under us right? I can tell you even at 1000ft they weren't.
I was flying quite legally at 120m not long ago when a light plane went past well below my altitude. I could see the top surfaces of both wings quite clearly with him straight and level. this was about 10km from the nearest airport. guess who would have been blamed if there was an incident?
again, rules don't stop people doing dumb stuff. especially when they don't know about them. this won't change that.
ever more government red tape, yay.
the plane should certainly be blamed at that point, min alt is 500ft or 1000ft over built up areas unless taking off or landing.
How do you know you were at 120mtrs from ground level?
I am led to believe the information below is correct.
"That the drone relies mainly on the barometer for measuring height that is referenced to the ground level. Although GPS is able to measure elevation, its low precision could often introduce error to the height measurement".
they should be. good luck to me proving it.
because the telemetry from the aircraft said so.
that's the same method the a full sized aircraft uses, so subject to the same degree of error.
How did you access the telemetry of the aircraft & why did you not record it if concerned?
Was it from casa data online or acars etc?
Except the quality of the equipment used & hence its accuracy of that in commercial aircraft would be far greater than that in a general purpose drone.
Someone told me recently the registration was already in force.....but from the news page it seems to be mid 2019?
The quality of telemetry from a shitty Chinese drone control board is surprisingly accurate, i'd even go as far as saying within +/- 1% for a baro equipped board.
A baro in a real aircraft is probably similarly accurate, but given the use case comes with more testing and a nice liability policy.
It's fairly common for these boards to record telemetry and fairly trivial to access it.
Having flown both a fixed wing aircraft and several fix, rotor and multi rotor models the instrumentation accuracy is fine all round.
I'm on the fence here, people who fly RC models get way to much shit for the handful of assholes that do the things that muddy the hobby.
I'd encourage people to remember that for every dickhead doing something stupid there are hundreds of responsible flyers out there, the good guys just don't get much media attention.
As far as registering goes i think it's pointless, all it does is keep the honest people honest.
If it has to happen then it should happen across the entire range of RC aircraft, limiting registration to 'drones' makes no sense.
Also the wording has to be spot on, when they say 'drones' do they mean drones, or do they mean multicopters?
The word drone generally suggests some level of automation, so if the model is flown manually does it count as a drone?
Likewise, if i automate a fixed wing or rotor wing model i think that should count as a drone, but they only seem to be after quad copters in the rego (yes, well aware rules apply to all models, but rego only applies to quads).
This overall is a knee jerk reaction to the drones that are now said weren't really there at Heathrow recently, and other related events.
If i were in charge i'd put the whole damn thing on hold and re-write the rule book for ALL remotely controlled, and autonomously controlled aircraft, drones, quads, multis, helis, fixed wing, lighter than air, etc.....
Then i'd run an education campaign.
Making rules is useless unless you're actually going to tell people about them, and relying on word of mouth is not a great idea.
Vic roads can take a leaf out of this too.
As for people doing clearly stupid and deliberate things with RC whatevers and lasers etc, chuck 'em in jail.
The rest of us doing the right things won't miss 'em.
it's part of the control functionality of the aircraft.
because I was more concerned about making sure the silly bastard wasn't going to hit me.
and now you're clutching at straws in a losing argument. off you go.[/QUOTE]
Being a former supervisor of a Nata certified laboratory along with my electronic engineering degree I am honestly interested in accuracy of measurements.
You appear by your dismissive comments regarding accuracy/importance of measurements to be typical of the sort of person who is dismissive of rules and regulations, especially if it gets in the way of their hobby/fun.
I used to fly rc planes but only at a designated club ground, with full public liability insurance & adhering to the regs
Based on your comments here, i doubt very much that you adhere to all the regs when flying your drone & wonder how long before you upset/have caused grief for joe public.
Seems illegal drone use again over Heathrow Airport UK grounds more flights.
I was going to type a reply repudiating that, but I honestly CBF. I'm not interested in how butthurt you feel over it, or any assumptions you make.
i personally liked the claim that the non adjustable barometer would be as accurate as the one in my 30mil aircraft.
remembering that every hPa out is worth 30ft of error
it doesn't need to be adjustable. it zeros itself against the takeoff reading, the display is relative to that. throw in GPS altitude correlation and it's adequate for need.
I quite regularly see negative altitudes when I fly down into valleys from a high launch point.
it's not a full sized aircraft where everything needs to be calibrated against sea level to allow for potentially travelling considerable distances to a destination at a different altitude.
ok, so it is a guess (non adjustable), calibrated against a guess (don't over estimate the accuracy, especially vertical of GPS) and you want to run all the way up the limit of the height you can fly to?
I'm not playing this "not adjustable" word game. it self adjusts as required to need. move on.
yes, sure I fly at 120m. that's what CASA regs say I can, other considerations allowed for.
it isn't a word game, adjusting against the ground height (based on GPS) when the barometric pressure can change while in flight and not be adjusted for. and like i said, every hPa is worth 30ft (or almost 10% of the height you can go to)