More effort is required from BOTH the rule makers (to fix the rules) and the drone pilots (to obey the rules).
But that wouldn‘t allow for aircraft at the same height as your drone - it’s not just about obstacles. The simplest rule is the existing one: “Maintain VLOS with your drone at all times”. It’s clear, unambiguous and covers every eventuality from a safety point of view.
There are two rules which are designed to protect aircraft
??? Okaaaaay.
www.casa.gov.au
www.casa.gov.au
I don't know about Australia, but in the UK we have good coverage with air ambulance helicopters that are authorised to, and will use pretty much any flat area for landing without warning. These are not NFZ and I'm pretty sure the ground altitude here is under 120m.
???. Okaaaay.
In the last 10 years, how many Ambulance Helicopters have hit a drone? None that I’ve ever heard of. However regular drone crashes (into trees, buildings, etc) occur 100 (?) times a day.
Just directly quoting the rules from the linked CASA page and then their stated penalties that can apply. That isn't my opinion ?
Rubbish! You clearly live in a very remote area. If not, you don’t know much about how helicopters, in particular, operate. I spent a good portion of my career as a helicopter pilot flying below 500ft. Police, air ambulance, search and rescue, coast guard, pipeline inspections and military aircraft (to name but a few) all regularly operate below 500ft. I had a number of near misses with drones and model aircraft over the years so I’m speaking from personal experience when I say that they are definitely a potential threat.
Drones crashing into trees rarely threaten lives. But that’s not the point. Many regulations in the aviation world are based on assessments of potential threats to flight safety, not always as a reaction to actual incidents. If the authorities see that there’s the possibility of a drone hitting an aircraft and decide to wait until it actually happens before introducing legislation (with potentially fatal consequences), that’s grossly irresponsible. Regulations/laws are not subject to some sort of popularity contest. They shouldn’t just be obeyed if they make sense to you or they don’t affect how you operate your drone. If regulations were only introduced because they were popular or easy to comply with, they generally wouldn’t be very effective. VLOS rules may be a little inconvenient at times but they rarely actually stop you flying your drone. On few the occasions when they do, it’s usually because there’s a real danger of doing third-party damage if something goes wrong.
I am speaking from mathematics (i.e. probability and statistics) when I say the “potential threat” is very low. After hundreds of thousands of flights, there have been no helicopter crashes caused by drones, even though most drone pilots ignore VLOS. Which makes the “potential threat” basically ZERO.
Wrong again, or possibly just wishful thinking on your part. Here’s the reality ...
I see... so your mathematics trumps my actual, real-world experience! In one case I spotted it in time and managed to manoeuvre to avoid it. The rest I didn’t see until it was too late and was lucky they missed me. You quote probability and statistics and you’re likely correct that the chances of a drone strike are low - but definitely not zero, and thats the part of creating legislation that you don’t seem to understand. You don’t need pages of statistics to make a rule valid. Aviation bodies worldwide are using the VLOS rule to prevent a problem, not to mitigate it. Clearly all of those countries don’t understand that what they’re doing (in your opinion, at least) is pointless. In your world, how many fatal accidents would you be prepared to accept before being convinced that a rule was required?
Remember that speed limits were brought in because having no rules led to many deaths (and plenty of people still think they know better in spite of the evidence to the contrary). I’m not saying that the VLOS rule will prevent many deaths, but if it prevents just one it will make it well justified. The VLOS rule is a compromise and allows for different degrees of visual acuity. If it equated to your 10 mph speed limit example, they’d give it a maximum range which represented the worst possible case and that would probably upset even more people.
I can't speak to the rules in Australia or the UK, but in really digging into the VLOS rules here in the US, I'm convinced the TRUE purpose of the rule is to simply discourage people from flying at all. Because if you follow the rule to the LETTER OF THE LAW, I submit the vast majority of people won't be able to fly anywhere except in just a small tiny window in their immediate presence. It could be extended a little further with a person helping as a visual observer. It's not about safety, it's about they don't want you flying. Period. They don't have the "juice" to get them banned all together (at least not yet) so they do the next best thing. Make the rule so stringent, so unreasonable as to discourage flights.
I know you can’t accept it because it interferes with the way you feel you should be allowed to fly your drone, but it is about safety. You’re viewing it entirely from your own perspective but you’re just a very tiny part much bigger picture. Most people can see their drone several hundred metres away. If you need to go further than you can see your drone, move your take-off point closer to your operating area. If you can’t see your drone for other reasons, move to somewhere where you can or just fly higher. That doesn’t seem unreasonable or stringent to me. I see it as a pretty good trade-off if it allows me to fly whenever I want. It’s only unreasonable if you think you have a right to fly wherever and however you want without any restrictions (you don’t). Other users of the airspace we’re sharing have far more restrictions than we do with much harsher penalties if they don’t observe them. They have to undergo lengthy training courses and sit tests to qualify to use it. We’re lucky that we can use it legally by just buying a drone and obeying a few rules. Why does that seem so difficult?
Correct. Mathematics provides us with an fact based, unbiased and unemotional view of the issue. It uses worldwide data, which includes all of your flights.
Correct. However speed limits are designed to REDUCE (not minimise) deaths.
I disagree. I will not drive at 10mph nor agree with VLOS rules.
I disagree with much of what you’ve said but there’s clearly no point discussing this when you’ve made up your mind. I’d say fly safely but thats something you don’t seem to be too worried about.
Says a man who has made up his mind.
I fly AND drive safely.
Helicopter pilots are generally risk takers at heart. An extremely dangerous job, and yet 99% of people don't understand what it really entails, and don't want to be educated about it either. Ignorance is bliss for some people I guess.
Travelling my car is far more dangerous than travelling by helicopter.
Should we also call the families of the 38,800 people who lost their lives in the U.S. in 2019 to car crashes? Or do you only care about the helicopter pilots?
Full credit for serving your country. However the safety of helicopters in war zones is way off topic.
