RC Multicopter Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Other Toys/Hobbies' started by sgtraven, Jan 15, 2013.

  1. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,520
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I regularly see light fixed wing aircraft over my estate at well less than 120m, as measured with a laser range finder with angle compensation capacity. but apparently it's OK for full sized aircraft to break the rules, because reasons. dog help a model aircraft pilot.

    RPV fixed wing model aircraft are in my observation far more rare than multirotors because you generally can't buy them ready to go. they're also a lot harder to fly than a gyro and GPS stabilised drone that any idiot can get in the air. between the assistance required to build and successfully fly one, most people get exposed to the modelling community that already has a safety focused and conservative attitude towards preserving the hobby, so they learn the right sort of outlook. you don't get that exposure buying a DJI Spark from JB Hifi for $500.

    some dickhead had a drone over Flemington Racecourse yesterday.
     
  2. ShadowBurger

    ShadowBurger Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,743
    Location:
    Melbourne
    you're right about better pilot knowledge for us in the fixed wing hobby. but the law makes no distinction, they apply to all 'remotely piloted aircraft', which is a major PITA
     
  3. MR CHILLED

    MR CHILLED D'oh!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    144,730
    Location:
    Omicron Persei 8
    I think what we see here is organisations being proactive about it before we have a situation such as a drone bringing down an aircraft and people dying. They have the potential to cause problems I guess....I'm not really sure in practicality how much of a risk they represent.
     
  4. franny

    franny Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Messages:
    297
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria
    Possibly, but sometimes simple is good.
    It makes it easy for the consumer to understand what they are supposed to do.
    It makes it easy to enforce, as you just weigh the the drone (including any attachments)
    They can be taught on a smaller drone prior to doing a test
     
  5. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,520
    Location:
    Melbourne
    sometimes simple is also overly simplistic and stupid, too. for instance, the rules state no flying within 30m of people, and not over people (so not 31m over them). that sounds quite reasonable in of itself, nobody wants someone else endangered.

    but what about opt-in? by the strict letter of that law, I can't have someone standing next to me while I fly, because that's a "people". what about someone inside a building with a roof between them and the aircraft, does the rule still apply?

    I'm not supposed to fly a drone heavier than 100g within 5.5km of a controlled aerodrome, so theoretically 101gm is unsafe? that's the same idiotic reasoning that says I'm safe driving at 60km/h but the world comes to an end at 61km/h.

    how about people just not do dumb shit?
     
  6. MR CHILLED

    MR CHILLED D'oh!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    144,730
    Location:
    Omicron Persei 8
    In both aspects however there needs to be a cut off point. You understand that right.
     
  7. MR CHILLED

    MR CHILLED D'oh!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    144,730
    Location:
    Omicron Persei 8
    Anyone catch the officeworks DJI Mavic Pro sale yesterday? Great price. I nabbed one but unsure if it will be fulfilled or not. Crossing fingers.
     
  8. Athiril

    Athiril Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,026
    Location:
    Tsumagoi-Mura, Japan
    it’s within 30m horizontal distance to people not involved with the flying

    the rule doesnt apply when you’re separated by a building, airspace laws don’t apply indoors
     
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2019
  9. Athiril

    Athiril Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,026
    Location:
    Tsumagoi-Mura, Japan
    Most are uncontrolled, and it’s more specific there’s a over 40m height off ground rule for it over 100g I think outside the aerodome paths, what’s on casa’s site is more simplified than what’s in the legislation
     
  10. Athiril

    Athiril Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,026
    Location:
    Tsumagoi-Mura, Japan
  11. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,520
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I agree that common sense would suggest so for both, but the simplistic rules at https://www.casa.gov.au/drones/rules/drone-safety-rules say:

    You must not fly your drone:
    • closer than 30 m to people — other than those helping to fly or navigate your drone
    • over or above people at any time or height

    as a private individual I shouldn't have to be a lawyer to understand the rules for flying a toy I can buy for a couple of hundred bucks.
     
  12. jcorney

    jcorney Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    3,840
    Location:
    Brisvegas
    to the people that talk about whingers because they don't like having their hobby restricted

    this is what I had to deal with today in brisbane.

    yes on a day with turbulence, crosswinds close to the limit of the aircraft to deal with some twatwomble decided to endanger everybody for their own shits and giggles

    INFO E. SIGWX: SEV TURB FCST B050. QNH: 998. RWY 19L. UNAUTHORISED RPAS ACTIVITY REPORTED 3000 FT ON UPWIND RWY 19L. TMP: 32. VIS: GREATER THAN 10 KM. WND: 230-300/12-33, MAX XW 33, MAX TW 5. CLD: FEW030.

    https://twitter.com/ybbnatis/status/1201320096234266624
     
  13. Athiril

    Athiril Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,026
    Location:
    Tsumagoi-Mura, Japan
    That’s what the basic guidelines are for, they’re simplified from the legislation. But they don’t tell you the whole story.

    CASA only has jurisdiction over airspace, they don’t have jurisdiction over what goes on indoors. So people indoors are outside CASA’s jurisdiction, and the airspace rules don’t apply there.

    Additionally I would also argue that if you’re within say 20m horizontal distance of other people and flying on a beach or something and those people are 20m above your drone up on a cliff, then that wouldn’t apply there you either if tested in court.

    CASA’s rules apply above ground where the drone is at that point in time. Your drone is not above ground where those people are, and so should theoretically speaking be legally not considered to be flying in airspace at the location of those people, since airspace is above ground.

    Also I could have flown in the middle of the CBD without breaking CASA’s rules. I was up very early on Melbourne cup day and it was deserted.

    There may be council rules saying you’re not allowed to fly a drone over council land, but that’s invalid, CASA has sole jurisdiction over airspace, landing, taking off from and operating on council land is different, but you can do it from non council land like private property despite their illegal bylaws, the same with state and national parks in Victoria as long as you do everything outside of it and stay within CASA’s rules it’s legal.

    The general legislation doesn’t disallow flying above 120m in uncontrolled airspace iirc, but there’s an instrument add on to it that doesn’t allow it. But that instrument expires In September 2020. Hopefully it doesn’t get renewed, I don’t think they’re that on the ball with it since the exception allowing authorised areas like flying clubs to fly fpv expired.
     
  14. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,520
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I've had many of these arguments with other people before and broadly I agree with you.

    I could make similar points re the 30m from people rule - theoretically if I hover 31m above ground and 1m to the side of someone, I am compliant as per the CASA published rules (yes, it would be dumb, but it illustratex that so are the published rules). how hard would it be so insert the word "laterally" or "horizontal" to the sentence so it makes logical sense? I'd equally argue that Joe Average has been adequately diligent by following the published rules on the CASA website, if they chose to oversimplify the legislation to the point where someone can be marginally noncompliant over some quibbling letter of the law, then that is their fault for publishing inaccurate information on an official government form of communication.

    I completely agree that there's no reason you can't fly in the middle of the CBD if there are no people around. it's well outside the no-fly footprint of Essendon so what rule does it break? same with an argument I saw on reddit recently over a photo taken over Albert Park. the local council prohibit flying drone from their land, but they have no say what goes on over it - just don't take off or land from there.
     
  15. Athiril

    Athiril Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,026
    Location:
    Tsumagoi-Mura, Japan
    However they definitely mean 30m horizontally, and would still fine you.
    https://www.casa.gov.au/knowyourdro...9o7UChH_IESK6omRlqq95zOiq7yiU7_MaAkCfEALw_wcB
     
  16. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,520
    Location:
    Melbourne
    then say so in the damn rules is all I ask. don't publish misleading information.
     
  17. jcorney

    jcorney Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    3,840
    Location:
    Brisvegas
  18. Athiril

    Athiril Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,026
    Location:
    Tsumagoi-Mura, Japan
    It doesn’t state this in the legislation at all. It just says 30 metres away. The info on CASA’s website is not legally binding, it’s just derived from the legislation, and it’s the legislation which will be applied to you, not a fact sheet summary on a website.

    It also only states 30 metres away on the casa website rules list, if you read the rules you could be just like “an yep okay, distance from drone to person 30 metres”, and then be done with it.

    You specifically have to find your way to the “know your drone” to even see that rule, any reasonable person would already thunk they’d be clear on the rules after having read the rules.

    As far as I can tell, you can’t even make you way to that “know your drone” page from the drone rules section.


    You have to click the English translation version PDF of the rules (even though the rules are already in English so you wouldn’t generally bother) to even see it.

    https://www.casa.gov.au/drones/rules/drone-safety-rules
     
  19. Athiril

    Athiril Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,026
    Location:
    Tsumagoi-Mura, Japan
    and here is the legislation
    [​IMG]

    Pay attention to:
    (4) Subregulation (1) does not apply if:
    (b) the airship approaches no closer to the second person than 10 m horizontally and 30 ft vertically.


    They also mention horizontal distance between them when they want to. But never state it for operation in proximity to people.

    Also note (2) where or states unless the person is standing behind the operator during take off. By extension they don’t have to stand behind the operator /after/ take off.

    Most drones will be vertical take off, so they will still be within 15m horizontal distance after take off before flying out, but that person doesn’t have to stand behind the operator before flying out, further implying it’s not horizontal.
     
    Last edited: Dec 3, 2019
  20. jcorney

    jcorney Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2002
    Messages:
    3,840
    Location:
    Brisvegas
    if you think the loophole is big enough then give it a go. get yourself a lawyer and go up against CASA, actually if you are so right don't even take a lawyer.

    every one of these regs are because people can't be trusted to exercise good judgement

    and if you want to know which hammer they will smack you with while you are feeling clever. note the strict liability bit

    101.055 Hazardous operation prohibited

    (1) A person must not operate an unmanned aircraft in a way that creates a hazard to another aircraft, another person, or property.

    Penalty: 50 penalty units.

    (2) A person must not launch a rocket that is not an aircraft in a way that creates a hazard to an aircraft.

    Penalty: 50 penalty units.

    (3) A person must not launch a rocket that is not an aircraft in a way that creates a hazard to another person or to property.

    Penalty: 50 penalty units.

    (3A) An offence against subregulation (1), (2) or (3) is an offence of strict liability.

    Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

    (4) It is not a defence to a charge of contravening subregulation (1), (2) or (3) that the relevant unmanned aircraft was being operated, or the relevant rocket was launched, in a way that complied with the operations manual of an approved aviation administration organisation.

    (5) In subregulations (2) and (3):

    rocket includes a firework rocket.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2019

Share This Page

Advertisement: