Can't fly over people???

[Simmo]

Nah I didnt read the article bud, it was one of many that came up in a google search when I looked for the occurence.
The operator at the time came up with all sorts of conspiracy theories as to why the AC came down, including somone hacking control with a mobile phone!!

Drone operator fined after UAV crashed into Geraldton triathlete

The operator of a drone that crashed onto a triathlete in Geraldton earlier this year is fined by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

www.abc.net.au

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Nah I didnt read the article bud, it was one of many that came up in a google search when I looked for the occurence.
The operator at the time came up with all sorts of conspiracy theories as to why the AC came down, including somone hacking control with a mobile phone!!

Drone operator fined after UAV crashed into Geraldton triathlete

The operator of a drone that crashed onto a triathlete in Geraldton earlier this year is fined by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

www.abc.net.au

Thanks for the link, a lot more info came out in that (Nov 2014), some 7 months after the incident.
It looks like the story about missing her was a bit of BS.

Not the drone owner in control, but a 20yo female operator.
A paltry $1700 fine from CASA for flying within 30m of people. (But the owner know nothing of this ?)
Investigation concluded interference from an event timing device was responsible for loss of control. (Wifi ?)

All a bit suss, and still no idea if they were commercially licensed, other wise they possibly would / should have copped further fines I imagine.

I must google myself and read of some of the many other incidents you found.
Will try drone uav crash injury Australia, see what comes up . . .

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Ok, along with this one in WA 2014, and the infamous Sydney Harbour bridge / vehicle crash 2017, that is all that is mentioned in the recent Senate committee report on Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS), Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) and associated systems (July 2018).
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentar.../media/Committees/rrat_ctte/Drones/report.pdf

This ABC story refers to these and a Gold Coast rescue helicopter / UAV near miss.
Research shows faulty equipment behind over 50 per cent of drone accidents

Though all detail are not confirmed here, this is certainly more than possible, and much more realistic than numbers of so called near misses reported by pilots, estimated at about 90 occurrences from 2012 to 2016, as near encounters between UAVs and manned aircraft.

There seems to be only a hand full of fines by CASA to date, 3 or 4 that I could find.

I agree with the need for more stringent monitoring of hobbyist flyers, no control or registration (apart form DJI type one of 'tests' etc), it has to be across the board so that those that fly UAVs of all types at least know the rules that apply.
Then it is either fly by them or not, and in the latter case penalties need to be applied where necessary, and at a level where it will be noticed.

Found this link when searching . . .
Drone Crashes and Injuries - Class Action UAV Lawyers
We certainly don't want these types of ambulance chasers having a business in Australia, and I'm sure the US flyers don't either !

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

Hmmmm.

Research shows faulty equipment behind over 50 per cent of drone accidents
That ABC story has this gem, last line in the article . . .

"The research did not look at incidents involving drones operated by the military."

Drone incidents Worldwide from military drones would have a very high injury / fatality rate.

 

[Drgnfli]

At no point have I classified a "TOY" with a fully fueled aircraft carrying PASSENGERS. You need to think before you type mate.



Do what the rest of us do and go fly somewhere where there are no people. SIMPLE.



I'm glad that you included "IMHO" because there wouldn't be a rational person on the planet who would agree with such a ridiculous statement.

It is still a toy!

 

[deleted member 877]

It is still a toy!

Maybe flying drones is not something that you should be doing. I reckon those little remote control dune buggies would be more your thing.

 

[Simmo]

I must google myself and read of some of the many other incidents you found.

Sorry mate, you misunderstood me.. I wasn't saying that I found many other incidents (nor looked)... It was one on many results that came up when I looked for the Triathlon accident...

it was one of many that came up in a google search when I looked for the occurence.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

No probs Simmo.
My initial thought was that nothing much of major consequence has happened here in Oz, or indeed as a worldwide thing, with drones.
Especially so as the number has apparently skyrocketed in he past 3 or 4 years.
That said, it is just as apparent that there is something needed to ensure this stays the status quo, and I think CASA are on the right track with this new licensing proposal.
It won’t hurt serious hobbyists, might get the public perception of drones up a notch or two, and should help deter the dangerous ones out there that fly without concern for other people or property (knowingly or unknowingly).
Cheers.

 

[Drgnfli]

Maybe flying drones is not something that you should be doing. I reckon those little remote control dune buggies would be more your thing.

Now you are catching on... those are TOYS too!!!

 

[deleted member 877]

Now you are catching on... those are TOYS too!!!

Whatever you reckon, dude - it's all about you. Just so long as you stop flying drones the world will be a safer place.

In the meantime, if anyone mentions the new FAA enforcement action protocols, you can proudly claim responsibility - LOL

FAA enacts new enforcment actions against drone pilots

 

[Drgnfli]

Whatever you reckon, dude - it's all about you. Just so long as you stop flying drones the world will be a safer place.

In the meantime, if anyone mentions the new FAA enforcement action protocols, you can proudly claim responsibility - LOL

FAA enacts new enforcment actions against drone pilots

Wow! Who **** in your beer? I guess I should quit this site because I thought this was an "opinion" website where you could express your ideas. Remember, Pete, opinions are like ( Mod Removed ) - everyone has one!

 

[deleted member 877]

Wow! Who **** in your beer? I guess I should quit this site because I thought this was an "opinion" website where you could express your ideas. Remember, Pete, opinions are like (Mod Removed ) - everyone has one!

Sure, of course, everyone is allowed to express their opinions but your first post (see below) on this thread was simply too misinformed and inflammatory for it not to attract criticism.

"How can you classify a "TOY" with a fully fueled aircraft carrying PASSENGERS? There are times we have to fly our toys over people just to fly. The FAA & others make it sound like drone flyers are trying to kill thousands of people... IMHO!... "

A couple of highly knowledgable members (not me - LOL) then explained in great detail the obvious differences between UAVs and manned commercial aircraft and why the FAA regulations are what they are. But you kept rabbiting on about "TOYS" as if by some perverse magic anyone was going to suddenly take you seriously.

 

[dirkclod]

OK guy's this is the second time I have had to post in this thread and the next will be just to close it .
Some of you just want to be arguminitive with each other and should do so in a private message .
The way I see this is the horse is about to fall over in this so just be aware when it does I told ya so .

 

[deleted member 877]

For new forum members, as part of the registration process, I reckon the moderators should combine and republish the facts posted on this thread by @BigAl07 (#97) and @787steve (#99) in a new article and then add a checkbox to indicate that it has been read and understood.

 

[Bobby Brown]

Whatever you reckon, dude - it's all about you. Just so long as you stop flying drones the world will be a safer place.

In the meantime, if anyone mentions the new FAA enforcement action protocols, you can proudly claim responsibility - LOL

FAA enacts new enforcment actions against drone pilots

How will they enforce? Can’t

 

[BigAl07]

How will they enforce? Can’t

Can't? Ha... don't be that guy.

 

[deleted member 877]

I believe that as more drone detection and identifying technology is implemented it will become easier for the FAA to enforce the regulations. Excerpt taken from a fairly recent article follows:

Rogue Drones: What Does the FAA Do to Enforce Drone Laws? New Report from GAO Offers Insight

Commercial drone operators flying responsibly want more enforcement to keep rogue operators in line. A recent GAO report sheds some light on what the FAA can do to enforce drone laws.

dronelife.com

“FAA officials told us that given its overall responsibilities for aviation safety and the lower risk posed by small UAS compared to manned aircraft, its resources for actively pursuing unsafe small UAS users are limited, and identifying such users is challenging,” says the report.

What can the FAA do? The GAO report describes three options:

“FAA officials told us that the agency is following its “compliance philosophy” to help ensure users abide by the small UAS regulations,” says the GAO report. “Under this philosophy, FAA’s approach involves three types of possible actions: (1) compliance actions, (2) administrative actions, and (3) legal enforcement actions … The compliance philosophy also calls for the FAA to emphasize the use of compliance actions over enforcement actions whenever appropriate.”

“Compliance Actions” are about education, on-the-spot correction and notification. “Administrative Actions” are letters of correction or warning letters; and “Legal Enforcement Actions” may involve civil penalties and/or suspending or revoking an operator’s license.

“According to FAA’s data, from June 7, 2007 through May 2, 2018 the agency took 420 compliance actions, 49 administrative actions, and 49 enforcement actions against small UAS users; the data do not distinguish between recreational and commercial users,” says the report."

 

[OnlyMavic]

OK, so how does a pilot like this guy get away with some of the shots you see in this video, AND posting it publicly, without getting in trouble? He's obviously flying over all sorts of groups of people. Look at that fly-over of Griffith Observatory? Technically, he's in violation, and publishing that fact. I guess there's really not a lot of enforcement going on.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[dirkclod]

If you really want you can find thousands on YouTube and ask
the same thing .?‍

 

[Earthman]

The FAA’s regs say that you can’t fly directly over a person or moving automobiles. But, I contend that it’s nearly impossible to tell by eye or even by looking at a video if a drone is or was flying directly over a person or an automobile. In the video, it appears very likely that the drone was directly over people or moving automobiles, but you can’t tell for sure. In any case, the PIC is flying recklessly, which is also against the law and that’s what the FAA can act on in this case.

It is a violation to fly a UAV recklessly, it is stupid to flaunt it publicly, the FAA doesn’t have enough enforcement to act on all of this kind of activity, but making it public does increase the careless, clueless, or criminal PIC’s chances of getting caught. The FAA seems to focus on high high-profile cases and they have people watching YouTube, and I assume, forums like this. The PIC may not “get away with it.”

If the FAA was smart and wanted to get these kind of violations under control, they should fine such perpetrators and award some portion of the fine collected to the first person reporting the violation to the FAA. Maybe if they did this, it would be easier for some of us to make a living from drones, or at least watching YouTube videos of people violating the law with drones. ?