Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

Drones in NZ make the news

The NZ Herald seems to have chosen drones in NZ's airspace as its story de jour today.

Apparently, at the same time that NZers are repeatedly threatened with dire consequences if they dare to break CAA's "policies" in respect to unmanned aerial systems (aka drones), the USA has been flying its drones in and out, through and around NZ's airspace with impunity.

What's more, even though the hundreds of kiwi owned and operated drones tend to be flown very near the ground and away from commercial air-traffic, the USA's ones are right up there, passing through altitudes where 747s and other passenger jets move.

Once again we're being told that authorities (ie: CAA) are increasingly worried about the presence of privately owned/operated drones in NZ's airspace, with one of today's articles (see the news links page) stating that "authorities are to take urgent action to monitor rapidly increasing drone activity".

The big question has to be -- how?

Last weekend I watched three people flying "drones" over an airfield here in Tokoroa.

How would CAA know about this?

Some of the best-selling toys in recent times have been little multi-rotor craft that are increasingly being fitted with cameras, how on earth will CAA "monitor" their use?

The reality is, of course, they can't.

Once again, from the NZH story: "Those involved in the industry say that the Civil Aviation Authority faces a huge task to try and track the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), or "drones" - and are already way behind."

This is true, so very, very true!

Why on earth are CAA dragging the chain so much in respect to drafting, passing and enforcing *sensible* regulations regarding these craft?

Not enough resource?

Insufficient people in the organisation that understand the technology?

Too much reliance on "external consultants" with vested interests?

I suspect it's all of the above -- but that doesn't help solve the problems they face.

From where I stand, as someone who's deeply involved in the hobby aspect of these craft and who also has a commercial interest in their use, I think CAA has to pull its finger out and start stratifying this problem into easily managed chunks.

The number one thing to do is to create a "low risk" class of UAVs. These are craft with a total mass of (say) less than 1500g and which are largely made from soft or frangible materials. This would encompass all those "toys" we're talking about, as well as the bottom end of the hobby spectrum. Make these craft exempt from regulation -- aside from some simple commonsense requirements -- such as staying clear of people, buildings and not flying in a manner likely to endanger public or property. Nice, quick, simple.

Once that's done, CAA will have a much easier task of dealing with the "heavy duty" UAVs and no longer have to worry about the vast majority of people who fly these lightweight craft and represent no real threat or danger to anyone else.

Unfortunately for all concerned, CAA seem to be suffering paralysis through analysis and can't bring themselves to create any sensible policy -- for fear of making a mistake perhaps?

While this is the case we have the ridiculous situation (as I'm sure I've mentioned before) where it is actually *illegal* for me to fly my tiny 40g multirotor using onboard video in my own garden, if I disappear behind a tree or bush.

It is also stupid that if I fly one of these drones with an onboard camera and take video then (providing I don't fly out of sight) it's quite legal and above board. However, if even 12 months later, I sell the video I took from that flight, suddenly (and retroactively), that flight becomes illegal in the eyes of CAA.

What the?

If this is all about safety (which ought to be CAA's primary concern), how can something which happens 12 months after a flight affect the safety of a flight which took place a year earlier?

And before CAA get their panties in a bunch over small UAVs flying in parks and paddocks around NZ, maybe they ought to start spending some time and effort policing full-sized craft and their pilots.

Last week I watched with amazement as a microlight spent 30 minutes flying over Tokoroa township -- something that is strictly forbidden by CAA regulations.

If a little multirotor falls to earth in a paddock somewhere, nobody is likely to be hurt. If a 500Kg microlight falls into a row of houses -- well you figure out the consequences!

Perhaps the real reason that CAA is taking so long to sort this mess out is that they're obviously being heavily lobbied by existing commercial aviation interests. Last week a very expensive turbine-powered helicopter with 4 people onboard dropped into the Tokoroa airfield to refuel. This craft and its crew were checking out the power transmission lines in the district and it was costing thousands of dollars per hour to do so -- much of that money going into Helipro's pockets. Using a drone, the same task could be accomplished for a fraction the sum -- and that money would be going into someone else's pockets.

Of course using a drone would also be a hell of a lot safer for those involved -- an engine failure while hovering at pylon-height would likely produce a very nasty crash!

It's only natural therefore that companies who have a huge investment in "old fashioned aviation" are going to be demanding that CAA protect them from new technology and the potential of being undercut by new entrants with their fancy "drones". This has resulted in some daft policies and proposed regulation coming out of CAA in respect to this technology.

In the meantime, we continue to waste huge amounts of fuel (with CO2 emission to boot) carrying people around in dangerous pursuits when, for lack of sensible regulation, many of the tasks I'm talking about could be much more safely, cheaply and efficiently performed with unmanned craft.

Before CAA publish and enact their regulations however, I'd like to see that they were not simply a diktat from existing commercial players and that they were made after reasonable consultation with those who have been actually using these "drones" -- rather than those who are simply threatened by them or who have merely read the brochures and watched the news reports.

Fat chance though.

What has already happened is that CAA's iron-fist attitude to regulating the bottom end of the market has pushed many people "underground" where they'll never be seen, monitored or regulated. While most of these operators are sensible and responsible -- unfortunately there are some who are not. This could spell big trouble.

Here is an example of the work of a sensible and responsible (but not licensed and therefore not legal) operator. The aerial shots in that video were done using a multi-rotor -- but it was almost certainly a breach of CAA's stated policies/regulations.

Even our own local district council has been somewhat complicit in breaking CAA's regulations by having promotional videos like this made using an unlicensed drone operator.

Clearly, neither of these examples represented *any* risk to people or property -- so why might CAA consider them to be illegal?

Because they were for commercial purposes -- that's why.

As I said -- the real problem here is the vested interests of existing players in the commercial aviation industry and that is *not* the way to shape regulation! Questions need to be asked and answers ought to be demanded.

Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say on this...

PERMALINK to this column

Oh, and don't forget today's sci/tech news headlines

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font