DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Risk and Regulation

RalphG

Member
Joined
May 6, 2017
Messages
13
Reactions
3
Age
79
In general regulation is a means of eliminating or mitigating the risk of an undesirable outcome for example traffic regulations are intended to prevent death or injury from motor vehicles.

In a similar manner the CASA regulations are intended to prevent death or injury from aerial vehicles, either manned or unmanned.

All too frequently people ask why can't they fly their drone (I prefer the term quadcopter for the 4 motor versions of drone such as the Mavic Pro) over up to 90% of any given town or city.

If they were to read and understand the CASA regulations that apply to all model aircraft and recreational quadcopters you are not permitted to fly over populated areas. Most of city or town areas are defined as being populated.

The risks associated with flying model aircraft and quadcopters include:
  1. For quadcopters the failure of any single motor or it's power regulator, etc. will cause a totally uncontrollable drop from the sky. Generally only copters with at least six motors are capable of a controlled descent with a single motor failure. At least airplanes can usually be controlled during descent in the event of a motor or engine failure.
  2. Maintenance is generally only carried out on quadcopters after a failure as there are maintenance or test procedures available.
  3. Pilot competence assessment is not required for recreational quadcopter pilots. If you want to drive on the road you are required by law to have your driving competence assessed by an examiner and to hold a drivers license. You can however purchase a quadcopter and immediately start flying with neither training or assessment.
In my mind one of the problems with quadcopters such as the Mavic Pro are too easy to fly and many pilots do not have the experience or in some cases the knowledge of the risks of flying an unmanned aerial vehicle
.
Without these many of the pilots are a risk to the general population or the recreational flying as in the event of a serious injury or in the wost case a fatality.

At present CASA consider that recreational quadcopters present very low risk to the general population as reflected in their relatively benign regulations. I would prefer that this situation remain.

For those who do own a Mavic Pro but would like to improve their piloting skills I would recommend buying a cheap quadcopter, such as the $50 one available from K Mart, as they fly quite well and pilots can develop their skill and knowledge at very little cost.

Ralph
 
In general regulation is a means of eliminating or mitigating the risk of an undesirable outcome for example traffic regulations are intended to prevent death or injury from motor vehicles.

In a similar manner the CASA regulations are intended to prevent death or injury from aerial vehicles, either manned or unmanned.

All too frequently people ask why can't they fly their drone (I prefer the term quadcopter for the 4 motor versions of drone such as the Mavic Pro) over up to 90% of any given town or city.

If they were to read and understand the CASA regulations that apply to all model aircraft and recreational quadcopters you are not permitted to fly over populated areas. Most of city or town areas are defined as being populated.

The risks associated with flying model aircraft and quadcopters include:
  1. For quadcopters the failure of any single motor or it's power regulator, etc. will cause a totally uncontrollable drop from the sky. Generally only copters with at least six motors are capable of a controlled descent with a single motor failure. At least airplanes can usually be controlled during descent in the event of a motor or engine failure.
  2. Maintenance is generally only carried out on quadcopters after a failure as there are maintenance or test procedures available.
  3. Pilot competence assessment is not required for recreational quadcopter pilots. If you want to drive on the road you are required by law to have your driving competence assessed by an examiner and to hold a drivers license. You can however purchase a quadcopter and immediately start flying with neither training or assessment.
In my mind one of the problems with quadcopters such as the Mavic Pro are too easy to fly and many pilots do not have the experience or in some cases the knowledge of the risks of flying an unmanned aerial vehicle
.
Without these many of the pilots are a risk to the general population or the recreational flying as in the event of a serious injury or in the wost case a fatality.

At present CASA consider that recreational quadcopters present very low risk to the general population as reflected in their relatively benign regulations. I would prefer that this situation remain.

For those who do own a Mavic Pro but would like to improve their piloting skills I would recommend buying a cheap quadcopter, such as the $50 one available from K Mart, as they fly quite well and pilots can develop their skill and knowledge at very little cost.

Ralph
I agree. This has been said many many many times before. But it doesn't hurt to say it again I guess.

It's odd that recreational pilots aren't considered a risk but professionally trained licensed and insured RPAS pilots/operators are. I don't get it.
 
In general regulation is a means of eliminating or mitigating the risk of an undesirable outcome for example traffic regulations are intended to prevent death or injury from motor vehicles.
In a similar manner the CASA regulations are intended to prevent death or injury from aerial vehicles, either manned or unmanned.
All too frequently people ask why can't they fly their drone (I prefer the term quadcopter for the 4 motor versions of drone such as the Mavic Pro) over up to 90% of any given town or city.
If they were to read and understand the CASA regulations that apply to all model aircraft and recreational quadcopters you are not permitted to fly over populated areas. Most of city or town areas are defined as being populated.
The risks associated with flying model aircraft and quadcopters include:For quadcopters the failure of any single motor or it's power regulator, etc. will cause a totally uncontrollable drop from the sky. Generally only copters with at least six motors are capable of a controlled descent with a single motor failure. At least airplanes can usually be controlled during descent in the event of a motor or engine failure.
  1. Maintenance is generally only carried out on quadcopters after a failure as there are maintenance or test procedures available.
  2. Pilot competence assessment is not required for recreational quadcopter pilots. If you want to drive on the road you are required by law to have your driving competence assessed by an examiner and to hold a drivers license. You can however purchase a quadcopter and immediately start flying with neither training or assessment.
In my mind one of the problems with quadcopters such as the Mavic Pro are too easy to fly and many pilots do not have the experience or in some cases the knowledge of the risks of flying an unmanned aerial vehicle
Without these many of the pilots are a risk to the general population or the recreational flying as in the event of a serious injury or in the wost case a fatality.
At present CASA consider that recreational quadcopters present very low risk to the general population as reflected in their relatively benign regulations. I would prefer that this situation remain.
For those who do own a Mavic Pro but would like to improve their piloting skills I would recommend buying a cheap quadcopter, such as the $50 one available from K Mart, as they fly quite well and pilots can develop their skill and knowledge at very little cost.Ralph

Hi Ralph, I've had to deal with training some of the new pilots and agree with most of what you've said.
Sadly MultiRotor never caught on and I think we're stuck with "drone" for the foreseeable future.

CASA does not permit ANY craft (manned or unmanned) from flying over populous areas, as you said if a plane/helicopter were to have catastrophic failure the pilot should be able to direct the craft towards an area where there would be the least damage/casualties (generally a field or body of water). Which is why drones are permitted to fly in city limits, but why you wouldn't see a helicopter hovering over a crowded stadium and should expect the same from a drone. Basically no crowds. Currently the decision to fly over populated (but not crowded) areas is at the discretion of the pilot. Who assumes all responsibilities and liabilities.

Having flown hexacopters before I can assure you that in the event of a motor failure any semblance of control is merely an illusion. It will take (and currently exists) computer controlled redundancy to safely fly/land in the event of motor failure.
Most good drone pilots run through a check list / parts check before EVERY flight and with DJI systems at least the drone runs through a self diagnostics each startup, which will only get smarter with time. We now have dual IMUs and compass redundancies for example.
Having witnessed the level of skill driving around on the roads I absolutely disagree with your assessment that driving competence is assessed before you're allowed to drive. At least drones start off in beginner mode.

I strongly believe that as technology improves the chances of injury or unintended fatality by drone greatly decreases and while I do encourage my students to practice indoors with a tiny 100g Inductrix (being closest in performance to DJI drones) I still think that what DJI has done and where they're heading in relation to new pilots is good.
The new restrictions unless you sign-in as well as beginner mode are very safe ways to learn to fly, much safer than other brands like Parrot, Yuneec, GoPro, 3DR, Syma which have significantly poorer quality control, less/weaker GPS positioning, less redundancies and are at much higher risk of "fly aways" than DJI. The reason we hear about DJI failures is that they have 96% of the "non-toy" drone market.

So I do recommend DJI Phantom/Mavic for beginners but recommend they stay in beginner mode for a while. It wouldn't surprise me to see DJI adopt a restriction where it will stay in beginner mode until you've flown X hours/manouvers/away from controlled airspaces etc... (unless of course you sign in with an experienced pilot account)
 
Hi Ralph, I've had to deal with training some of the new pilots and agree with most of what you've said.
Sadly MultiRotor never caught on and I think we're stuck with "drone" for the foreseeable future.

CASA does not permit ANY craft (manned or unmanned) from flying over populous areas, as you said if a plane/helicopter were to have catastrophic failure the pilot should be able to direct the craft towards an area where there would be the least damage/casualties (generally a field or body of water). Which is why drones are permitted to fly in city limits, but why you wouldn't see a helicopter hovering over a crowded stadium and should expect the same from a drone. Basically no crowds. Currently the decision to fly over populated (but not crowded) areas is at the discretion of the pilot. Who assumes all responsibilities and liabilities.

Having flown hexacopters before I can assure you that in the event of a motor failure any semblance of control is merely an illusion. It will take (and currently exists) computer controlled redundancy to safely fly/land in the event of motor failure.
Most good drone pilots run through a check list / parts check before EVERY flight and with DJI systems at least the drone runs through a self diagnostics each startup, which will only get smarter with time. We now have dual IMUs and compass redundancies for example.
Having witnessed the level of skill driving around on the roads I absolutely disagree with your assessment that driving competence is assessed before you're allowed to drive. At least drones start off in beginner mode.

I strongly believe that as technology improves the chances of injury or unintended fatality by drone greatly decreases and while I do encourage my students to practice indoors with a tiny 100g Inductrix (being closest in performance to DJI drones) I still think that what DJI has done and where they're heading in relation to new pilots is good.
The new restrictions unless you sign-in as well as beginner mode are very safe ways to learn to fly, much safer than other brands like Parrot, Yuneec, GoPro, 3DR, Syma which have significantly poorer quality control, less/weaker GPS positioning, less redundancies and are at much higher risk of "fly aways" than DJI. The reason we hear about DJI failures is that they have 96% of the "non-toy" drone market.

So I do recommend DJI Phantom/Mavic for beginners but recommend they stay in beginner mode for a while. It wouldn't surprise me to see DJI adopt a restriction where it will stay in beginner mode until you've flown X hours/manouvers/away from controlled airspaces etc... (unless of course you sign in with an experienced pilot account)
In beginner mode no one learns how to fly properly. It's a false idea of safety. Even in beginner mode it can drop to Atti and leave the beginner to think that 'it has a mind of it own'. Point is, the Mavic is too simple to fly without any knowledge, without even downloading and reading the manual.
 
I agree. This has been said many many many times before. But it doesn't hurt to say it again I guess.

It's odd that recreational pilots aren't considered a risk but professionally trained licensed and insured RPAS pilots/operators are. I don't get it.
My best guess is that CASA consider that professionally trained and licensed pilots/operators are more likely to be operating within, or close to, populated areas.

Ralph
 
In beginner mode no one learns how to fly properly. It's a false idea of safety. Even in beginner mode it can drop to Atti and leave the beginner to think that 'it has a mind of it own'. Point is, the Mavic is too simple to fly without any knowledge, without even downloading and reading the manual.
It's still safer than any other brand in the air. For example the Parrot Bebop would regularly hurl itself in any direction before a firmware update fixed it months after launch, the GoPro Karma would fall from the sky due to a poor battery design, then once it was recalled then re-released it still exhibited poor GPS/directional issues, an issue that affected 3DR and still affects Yuneec.
 
Hi Ralph, I've had to deal with training some of the new pilots and agree with most of what you've said.
Sadly MultiRotor never caught on and I think we're stuck with "drone" for the foreseeable future.

CASA does not permit ANY craft (manned or unmanned) from flying over populous areas, as you said if a plane/helicopter were to have catastrophic failure the pilot should be able to direct the craft towards an area where there would be the least damage/casualties (generally a field or body of water). Which is why drones are permitted to fly in city limits, but why you wouldn't see a helicopter hovering over a crowded stadium and should expect the same from a drone. Basically no crowds. Currently the decision to fly over populated (but not crowded) areas is at the discretion of the pilot. Who assumes all responsibilities and liabilities.

Having flown hexacopters before I can assure you that in the event of a motor failure any semblance of control is merely an illusion. It will take (and currently exists) computer controlled redundancy to safely fly/land in the event of motor failure.
Most good drone pilots run through a check list / parts check before EVERY flight and with DJI systems at least the drone runs through a self diagnostics each startup, which will only get smarter with time. We now have dual IMUs and compass redundancies for example.
Having witnessed the level of skill driving around on the roads I absolutely disagree with your assessment that driving competence is assessed before you're allowed to drive. At least drones start off in beginner mode.

I strongly believe that as technology improves the chances of injury or unintended fatality by drone greatly decreases and while I do encourage my students to practice indoors with a tiny 100g Inductrix (being closest in performance to DJI drones) I still think that what DJI has done and where they're heading in relation to new pilots is good.
The new restrictions unless you sign-in as well as beginner mode are very safe ways to learn to fly, much safer than other brands like Parrot, Yuneec, GoPro, 3DR, Syma which have significantly poorer quality control, less/weaker GPS positioning, less redundancies and are at much higher risk of "fly aways" than DJI. The reason we hear about DJI failures is that they have 96% of the "non-toy" drone market.

So I do recommend DJI Phantom/Mavic for beginners but recommend they stay in beginner mode for a while. It wouldn't surprise me to see DJI adopt a restriction where it will stay in beginner mode until you've flown X hours/manouvers/away from controlled airspaces etc... (unless of course you sign in with an experienced pilot account)

Hi Drone Runner,
Thanks for your reply. Like you said, I agree with much that you said, but:

At least there is a training and licensing regime for motor vehicle drivers and even a surveillance regime but at the moment there is nothing for quadcopter pilots.

My first quadcopter was a Walker Scout X4 followed by a Walkers Talis H pentacopter. I didn't want a DJI product at the time due to what I considered to be excessive ease of flying them. In fact it is only the compact size and image/video quality of the Mavic Pro the caused me to buy one.

I have not tried the beginner mode of the Mavic Pro but very much doubt that it would replicate the challenges of take-off, landing or flight without GPS assistance that a relatively cheap toy quadcopter would provide.

Obviously CASA do permit licensed aircraft and pilots to fly over populated areas such as all the flight paths around Sydney Kingsford Smith airport and Bankstown airport. Although most take-offs from Sydney airport are over Botany Bay. But even in Brisbane take-offs and landings at Archerfield airport are over populated areas.

I guess that my main concerns are the numerous videos showing flights over populated areas and the non dissemination of CASA regulations as mandatory point of sale documentation.

Other concerns include the assumption that privately flown multicopters could assist in emergencies such as bush fires. In NSW the Rural Fire Service have stated that they will cease helicopter fire fighting operations if there any evidence of a multicopter in the area.

I would also be concerned if I as an experienced multicopter pilot was restricted to beginner mode with my first purchase of a DJI product.

Please don't think that I don't appreciate DJIs actions to make flying their products as safe as possible.

Ralph
 
It's still safer than any other brand in the air. For example the Parrot Bebop would regularly hurl itself in any direction before a firmware update fixed it months after launch, the GoPro Karma would fall from the sky due to a poor battery design, then once it was recalled then re-released it still exhibited poor GPS/directional issues, an issue that affected 3DR and still affects Yuneec.

Agreed, however with several hundred flights with my Walkers Scout X4 and Talis H the only issues that I have experience are occasional ugly landings when I don't shut down the motors quickly enough.

Ralph
 
I believe that there is a need for discussion regarding the existing regulations in respect of operating sophisticated multicopters such as the Mavic Pro. The inherent safety features that are automatically monitored by the multiple microprocessors and associated software reduce the potential for component failure to what I believe to be an acceptable level, so the biggest variable is operators knowledge and skill level.

However the cost of gaining acceptable qualifications to advance from a recreation flyer/operator are far too expensive for anyone who doesn't intend commercial use of their multicopter.

I would like to see an intermediate license which would permit operation of a multicopter:
  1. fitted with rotor guards within 2 metres of persons attending as social event such as a birthday or wedding whilst directly observed by the operator.
  2. over populated scenic areas such as beaches at an altitude no greater than 30 metres when directly observed by the operator
  3. when using flight programs such as Hangar 360 over populated areas when directly observed by the operator
  4. out of direct visual observation of the operator when over totally unpopulated areas or over privately owned land where permitted by the lend owner.
I would envisage that the holder of the proposed intermediate license would have to satisfy a an appraisal of operating/flying skill and knowledge before gaining the intermediate license which only qualify the license holder for endorsed multicopters.
 
I can see, with possible new regs coming in re licences etc, that there will be a sudden increase in "professional " courses being created.
I give as an example from my Nursing with the need for 20 hrs per year of continuing education. This has led to a great deal of so called experts making up many courses. The cost to Nurses rises each year.
Also recently read about University of Adelaide if I recall correctly, putting out a UAV licence course starting with Uni students but looking at opening it up. Costs starting at $3500 which is 500 more than the regular courses.
Not saying there should not be proper regulation but there is a danger of making whatever licence required into something so expensive many will not bother to buy drones and others will disregard and fly illegally.
 
I can see, with possible new regs coming in re licences etc, that there will be a sudden increase in "professional " courses being created.
I give as an example from my Nursing with the need for 20 hrs per year of continuing education. This has led to a great deal of so called experts making up many courses. The cost to Nurses rises each year.
Also recently read about University of Adelaide if I recall correctly, putting out a UAV licence course starting with Uni students but looking at opening it up. Costs starting at $3500 which is 500 more than the regular courses.
Not saying there should not be proper regulation but there is a danger of making whatever licence required into something so expensive many will not bother to buy drones and others will disregard and fly illegally.

I agree, but what I am proposing is an intermediate license, with required multicopter endorsement , which could be offered at considerably less cost through organisation such as Aeromodelers associations etc.

I anticipate the cost to be in the order of $100 to $200 with an annual fee or additional multi copter endorsement in the order of $25 to $50.

Ralph
 
As long as the licence then gives legitimacy to operators and clear areas where we can and cannot fly.
We are fortunate in Australia at the moment regarding NFZs if you look at USA problems.
 
Yes the intent is to provide legitimacy for licensed person to fly their endorsed multicopters with less restrictions than those currently imposed on recreational flyers by CASA regulations.

The purpose of having endorsed multicopters, in a not totally different manner to pilots aircraft endorsements, is to limit the application of the license to multicopters that have adequate self monitoring such as DJI Phantom 3 and up and Mavic Pro.

For example my Walkera Scout X4 would not qualify for the loosened restrictions from the current requirements for recreational flyers.

I believe that the Mavic Pro if flown responsible imposes very little risk to the community and that we should act now to take advantage of this whilst the regulations are still within a formative stage.

If we don't act soon we have the probability that we will locked into the current regulations which apply to the least safe multicopter/operator combination. I have yet to see overwhelming evidence that any multicopters flown at or below 100 feet above ground level represent a significant hazard except when flown by idiots.

Ralph
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
130,585
Messages
1,554,103
Members
159,586
Latest member
DoubleBarS