NEW Regulatory Thinking

Discussion in 'sUAV Rules & Regulations' started by Cookedinlh, Nov 9, 2016.

  1. Cookedinlh

    Cookedinlh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2016
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    25
    Location:
    Sarnia ON Canada
    What constitutes a reason for the weight classification? and Why should we regulate? This needs to be resolved before we blanket new drone technology and capabilities with the existing control and safety logic with regulations we've relied on for the past 50 years. UAVs especially the small ones are not like normal aircraft, and their operational uses, automation and reliability are substantially different. This calls for different thinking.

    I have read though all of the notes and recommendations I can find on how Canadian Air Regs (CARS) will be modified soon to accommodate drones . . .sorry "RPAS" . . RPAS is now the new acronym that is generally agreed on internationally by ICAO (International Civil Aviation Org). . so we are going to have to get used to that one now over UAVs or RPVs or UAS or drones. For now I'll just drone for convenience until the dust settles.

    From all my reading of the proposals and recommendations it comes down to CLASSIFICATION. If there is no new lower classification lower than 25kg then we are regulating on fear, not physics and a whole set of over regulated unnecessary and ineffective control will result. The new rules Canada is proposing make perfect sense . . to a point . . . public safety, pilot knowledge, certification, vehicle maintenance and reliability as well as ATC "rules of the air" all benefit from drones being required to meet certain standards. But . . at some point you have to be practical as we have done with other vehicles. . . like bicycles, skateboards and scooters etc that share the road. Airspace is just a 3 dimensional road and the threat to life and property is no less real than with unregulated drones.

    However, given the ability to define rules of the air that automated systems can be programmed to accommodate, there is no reason to further control 1kg machines in aviation, any more than exploding cellphones or hoverboards. We rationally did not ban all cell phones on airplanes just because the Galaxy 7s battery poses a threat to bringing down an airliner with 300passangers. . . . and we do not try to further regulate all cell phone design or performance testing due to a measurable (Non-Zero) threat to aviation.

    So the first order of business, before setting the new regulations in "political concrete" is to correctly, (not arbitrarily) define a weight or size class boundary that makes rational sense according to physics and correct risk analysis of the threat that goes beyond "antiquated" aviation flight experience. . . I say antiquated because we have only just now realized the capability and performance of a 1kg flying camera. There are very capable systems now that general aviation has little or no first hand experience operating.

    I'd like to know what you think . . what are the criteria to make a boundary between drone classifications?
     
  2. westcoast604

    westcoast604 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    7
    Cookedinlh,

    Your post is brilliant and to the point. These issues must be pushed forward with Transport Canada. I would love to see a 50 - 75' or below - flight use drone airspace, providing it still adheres to avoiding roadways and gatherings of people etc. There are so many places where you simply want to launch a drone to film objects on the ground in a low altitude environment and in doing so would pose no risk to aviation. I live in the lower mainland of Vancouver and it is so hard to find places to fly between all the small airports here. At least in the USA you can call the local ATC and get permission to

    I guess a light drone could still potentially interfere with an aircraft if it hit it at a high speed so I imagine a weight classification would have to go very low - into the micro drone weight - before T.C. would entertain that idea.

    If a drone pilot passes an airspace exam and understands the Air Traffic flow of the area he might be flying in , then he should easily be allowed to fly in a lower ceiling operating area of 50-75' AGL.
     
  3. Cookedinlh

    Cookedinlh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2016
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    25
    Location:
    Sarnia ON Canada
    Thanks for the comments WestCoast! . . I agree too, but I think realistically 300ft is fine . . . that's still 200ft separation from any place except helicopters ought to be. Helicopters should be easier to spot and avoid both are able to avoid each other if they both flying responsibly . . . unfortunately . . I've just started going through the official "incident records" on CADORS (Civil Aviation Daily Occurrence Reporting System) database and since Jan 2016 there must be more than 200-300 reports like this:

    2016P0820 2016-06-05 19:10 Day-time Incident PITT MEADOWS BC (CYPK) British Columbia 2016-06-10 - A WestJet Boeing 737-7CT (C-FTWJ / WJA707) from Toronto, ON (CYYZ) to Vancouver, BC (CYVR) was on approach to CYVR when it reported what appeared to be an unmanned air vehicle (UAV) at 6000 feet over Pitt Meadows, BC (CYPK).


    Or this
    2016P0789 2016-06-01 21:25 Day-time Incident LANGLEY REGIONAL BC (CYNJ) British Columbia 2016-06-03 - An unmanned air vehicle (UAV) / drone was spotted at 1 mile to final approach for Runway 19. It was reported to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Information was passed to two aircraft that were in the circuit. There was no impact on operations.

    No wonder everyone in the aviation community is FREEKED! . . I would be too if I was flying at a 6000ft and even a Phantom4 went by me before I could react. But lets focus on the idiots dong this kind of stuff first. . . it's not the machines that are likely to cause a disaster . . it's irresponsible people. We have to get those people under control first . . though education and strict enforcement with the existing regulations we already have.
     
  4. westcoast604

    westcoast604 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    7
    I agree. I am often on the approach to YVR so it is in my head to keep a look out, but I have yet to see a drone where it shouldn't be. What I was thinking is it would be nice to have a 50-75' ceiling where you could fly with no problem, evening within a Terminal Control area. At that altitude, unless you are directly on the approach flight path you should not cause a problem. Then use the 300' - 500' height for people that are licensed and have knowledge of what they are doing and proven themselves responsible.

    I guess it really comes down to responsible operators, but as drones become more commonplace, so do the number of bad operators. I like the idea of a registry like in the USA , and as mentioned in another post perhaps the ability via your cell phone to relay your position to ATC when you are in controlled airspace, like ADS B does.

    Having dealt with Transport before, I know they tend to over regulate without much thought, and then once a regulation is in effect, **** will freeze over before they amend it. The Drone community needs to speak out and provide input because once they have restrictions in place, good luck trying to remove them.
     
  5. Cookedinlh

    Cookedinlh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2016
    Messages:
    92
    Likes Received:
    25
    Location:
    Sarnia ON Canada
    I see what you mean now about the 75ft ceiling . . I think that can be best accomplished by the already workable technology of geo-fencing . . let the aircraft require a human override before entering protected airspace controlled or otherwise. That way the irresponsible ones can be weeded out. . . and those who aren't can fly with more freedom and less regulation. Simple registration can provide that key.

    If you are interested in creating a VOICE for drone use, recreational or commercial please keep in touch at www.inskyphoto.com and I'll do whatever I can to be sure the message is heard .. . and "re-heard" as often as necessary.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads - Regulatory Thinking Forum Date
If you're thinking about a GoPro case for your Mavic! General Discussions Nov 28, 2016
Thinking about packing it all in. sUAV Rules & Regulations Nov 26, 2016
Been around since P3 V+ thinking maybe a MAVIC Pro upgrade Pilot Check In Oct 27, 2016
Cancelling or thinking of cancelling your order? General Discussions Oct 18, 2016

Share This Page