[Sharpy01]

With all those out there pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable for this technology, the inevitable is happening;

-----------------------

CAA Gets First UK Conviction for Dangerous UAS Flying

A TV-repair shop owner who has become the first person convicted in the UK for “dangerously” flying a UAS says the fine and legal costs will bankrupt him. Robert Knowles, 46, of Barrow-in-Furness, was fined £800 and ordered to pay costs of £3,500 at the Furness and District Magistrate court on Tuesday after being prosecuted by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

He pleaded guilty to flying a small unmanned surveillance aircraft within 50 metres of a structure – the Jubilee Bridge on the Walney channel – and flying over a nuclear installation, the BAE System submarine-testing facility.

The CAA said that the case raised important safety issues concerning recreational flying of unmanned aircraft, which is legal as long as it is done away from built-up areas and structures.

“The Jubilee Bridge is used by vehicles – this could have hit a car and caused an accident,” said a CAA spokesperson. “People have to understand that they are subject to air safety rules and that there are potentially serious safety concerns.”

But Knowles told the Guardian that the conviction was “ridiculous”. He said that he had been flying his £1,000 drone in a field a mile and a half away from the base on the morning of Sunday 25 August 2013 when the 4 ft, kit-built drone – with a camera on board – suddenly lost radio contact during its seventh flight.

“The radio failed and it flew away down the Walney channel,” Knowles told the Guardian. “I couldn’t have controlled it. I don’t know why the radio failed. It landed in the sea channel, and the salt water ruined it.”

He said that he had been flying the drone recreationally, as he had done “for years”. His YouTube channel shows around 309 videos shot using a UAS.

The video shows that the UAS flew on for more than three minutes after Knowles apparently lost control.

Knowles insisted that he had not been trying to hide the UAS presence or identity. “It had my name and address on it, and was in bright colours.” Workers from the nuclear facility fished it out of the channel and passed it on to police.

“I flicked the return-to-home button but it didn’t do anything,” Knowles said. “It didn’t fly anywhere near the BAE Systems facility.” But he said that he had effectively been told by the magistrate at the first hearing on 1 March that he was guilty, and that his choices at the hearing on 2 April had been “plead guilty and get a big fine, or plead not guilty and be convicted and get a big fine, or go home and get a big fine.” He said that his TV repair business was already running at a loss and that the fine would bankrupt him.

He said that his conviction relating to the nuclear facility made little sense. “A lot of people use cameras on cars and have helmet cameras and they all go past BAE,” he said. “My plane didn’t go anywhere near it. Apparently there’s a no-fly zone which covers it, but there was nothing I could do about it.”

He added: “Where I live in Cumbria, you’re always going to be near a nuclear dump – Sellafield or the BAE Systems site.”

Knowles’s case is the first conviction involving recreational use of a drone, though a caution was recently issued against a photographer from Lancashire, for “using a unmanned aerial vehicle for commercial gain without permission”. The photographer sold footage of a fire at a school to media organisations despite not having clearance from the CAA to operate the device commercially.

Source: The Guardian
- See more at: http://www.uasvision.com/2014/04/03/...ng/#more-30724

[Sharpy01]

Australian UAS Operators Call for Stricter Regulation of Illegal Unmanned Aircraft
acuo_logo_main

The Australian Certified UAV Operators Association (ACUO) is calling for the current Federal Government Aviation Safety Regulation Review to back a harder line to combat the growing problem of illegal unmanned aircraft operations.

ACUO is today releasing its submission to the review in light of last weeks reported near-miss incident involving a Westpac rescue helicopter and an unknown unmanned aircraft operating at 1000ft.

The submission calls for new resourcing to be provided to CASA to deal specifically with illegal UAS operations. It warns that the outlook facing the Australian unmanned aircraft industry has strong parallels with the rise of commercial aviation in Australia during the 1920s and 1930s, where a high rate of incidents included loss of human life.

“Under resourcing of the regulatory and compliance management capacities of CASA is not an option as the unmanned aircraft industry continues its rapid growth in not just Australia, but internationally” says Joe Urli, ACUO President, who has worked as an air safety inspector for national aviation authorities in two different countries.

“Illegal unmanned aircraft operations are on the rise in Australia and the question of whether they will be a serious safety incident is no longer theoretical given last weeks reported near-miss incident involving a Westpac rescue helicopter flying back to its Newcastle base”.

“ACUO calls on the Aviation Safety Regulation Review to give detailed attention to the challenge posed by illegal UAS operations lest the future contain incidents of untold tragedy which can be avoided by action today. There has been a significant rise of CASA certified UAV operators in Australia over the past two years, however, the rate of illegal operations by uncertified operators is now skyrocketing. CASA itself accepts the reality of this challenge”. (See note 1).

“A brief review of You Tube will swiftly reveal evidence of illegal operations by uncertified operators in Australia. There are videos from camera equipped unmanned aircraft flying above cloud height as well as at low altitudes over people on major city beaches such as Cottesloe in Perth. CASA Part 101 clearly states that operations can only be conducted over non-populous areas.

“Likewise YouTube videos can be readily found where the unmanned aircraft is flying at low altitude over busy city motorways in peak hour, with Perth again providing examples. This type of illegal operation mirrors the Sydney Harbour bridge incident (2nd October 2013) which caused a response by counter terrorism units.”

“CASA is internationally respected for its pioneering work in facilitating the legal operation of commercial unmanned aircraft”, said Mr Urli. “However that effort is now at direct risk of being undermined if more resources are not made available to the regulator to allow for not only the continued development of a well-structured regulatory regime, but also its enforcement”.

“At present there is little consequence in Australia for flying illegally, other than basic fines if the individual is caught. We place direct obstacles before those who seek to obtain motor vehicle licences if they have a past record of illegal driving and we need to look at similar measures for UAV certification. It is not unreasonable to propose that if found guilty of flying illegally, the individual concerned be barred from obtaining a CASA UAV operators certificate for a period of time from the date of the demonstrated offence.”

ACUO’s specific recommendations to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review comprise:

1. CASA needs to rethink and rework its current enforcement procedures applying to the ‘unmanned’ sector of aviation, so that;

 They are entirely workable and cost-effective to administer and deliver across the ‘unmanned’ sector of aviation, as well as the rest of the aviation industry.

 They provide an immediate, positive and strong deterrent value to illegal UAV operations.

2. CASA Enforcement procedures for the ‘unmanned’ sector of aviation should be considered in conjunction with a nation-wide awareness campaign to inform and educate the public and industry about the do’s and don’ts of RPAS operations in Australia, and the safety/regulatory/legal basis for having regulations.

 There needs to be a re-focus of attention by CASA on the illegal UAV operators, not the certified UAV operators as is currently the case.

 There needs to be a strong focus on ‘DETERRENCE’ and getting the message across: “If you breach the aviation regulations, you will pay the penalties”.

 There also needs to be a clear distinction between military and civil RPAS experience when qualifying and operating RPAS. Military experience needs to be assessed for; Category, Technical and Operational competence and relevance. Military RPAS operations do not directly correlate with commercial RPAS operations.

3. That the penalties for illegal UAV operations should include:

 Increased fines representative of the sort of money they are earning from their illegal activities [ie thousands of dollars, not hundreds] and this should increase exponentially with subsequent prosecutions.

 Automatic confiscation of UAV equipment and if necessary, CASA sell or auction the confiscated equipment to offset the costs of enforcement.

 An automatic 12 month ban on applying for a UAV certificate or licence after a successful prosecution for illegal UAV operations.

4. That the revised UAV regulations include a provision that makes it illegal for an uncertified UAV operator to publicly advertise their services

 A similar provision is written into CAR88 regulations [CAR210] making it illegal for anyone to advertise for [conventional] Aerial Work Operations without an AOC

 The same should be true for commercial UAV Operators also.



The full ACUO submission to the review can be downloaded here.

The review is due to report to the Federal Government in May this year.

Source: Press Release

- See more at: http://www.uasvision.com/2014/04/02/...ft/#more-30709

[Sharpy01]

South African Civil Aviation Authority to Crackdown on Illegal UAS Flying
The South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) is set to clampdown on the illegal flying, in civil airspace of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) or Unmanned Aircraft Vehicles (UAV), as normally referred to. The move was prompted by recent reports that purported that there are individuals and/or organisations that are already operating or intending to operate UAS in the South African civil aviation airspace.

“It is disconcerting to hear that there are individuals or organisations that, for some reason or another, are determined to contravene applicable international and local aviation prescripts. The fact is that the SACAA has not given any concession or approval to any organisation, individual, institution or government entity to operate UAS within the civil aviation airspace. Those that are flying any type of unmanned aircraft are doing so illegally; and as the regulator we cannot condone any form of blatant disregard of applicable rules,” said the Director of Civil Aviation, Ms Poppy Khoza.

The SACAA, as the regulator in the discharge of its mandate in terms of section 72 of the Civil Aviation Act, 2009(Act No 13 of 2009), with specific reference to the control and regulation of civil aviation safety and security, needs to put regulations in place which will deal with all the regulatory facets relating to UAV’s.

Unmanned aircraft systems or unmanned aerial vehicles are aircraft that can fly without a pilot on board. These aircraft come in all sorts of shapes and sizes and can be controlled remotely by an individual on the ground, in another aircraft or through an on board computer system.

“Unmanned aircraft systems are relatively a new component of the civil aviation framework, one which the SACAA, together with other regulators worldwide and under the guidance of the International Civil Aviation Organisation, are working to understand, define and ultimately integrate in to the civil aviation sector. As such, the process of developing policies, procedures, regulations and associated standards in order to certify and subsequently authorise operation of UAS is currently in progress,” Khoza explained.

South Africa as an ICAO member state is actively involved in the ICAO Unmanned Aircraft Systems Study Group to develop guidance material and standards to guide contracting states in the development of their national guidance material and regulations. In addition, the SACAA is working closely with the industry and relevant agencies to draft appropriate regulations.

There are many factors to consider in the process of developing guidelines for authorisation. “As much as we are enthusiastic about the integration of UAS into the civilian airspace, we need to be mindful of various security and safety aspects. Key among these is the need to ensure that the technology installed on UAS is able to detect and avoid incidents and accidents. We also need to develop robust standards that will ensure separation from other aircraft or objects. There is also a need to ensure that the allocated frequency spectrum is secure in order to ensure protection from unintentional or unlawful interference with the UAS,” Khoza elaborated.

In collaboration with member states, including South Africa, the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is working towards providing a regulatory framework through Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs), with supporting Procedures for Air Navigation Services (PANS) and guidance material, to underpin routine operation of UAS in a safe, harmonised and seamless manner comparable to that of manned operations.

“The SACAA acknowledges that the current civil aviation legislation does not provide for certification, registration and/or operation of UAS in the South African civil aviation airspace. We are also cognizant of the urgent need and demand for UAS usage for commercial and many other reasons. Hence, the SACAA has allocated the necessary resources to the UAS programme to ensure a speedy integration of drones into the South Africa airspace. However, until then we would like to appeal to those that are disregarding the laws to desist from such actions,” Khoza concluded.

Source: Press Release

- See more at: http://www.uasvision.com/2014/04/03/...ng/#more-30726

[cicopo]

Thank You. I think this topic is going to become a bigger part of the news as all the new RTF quad camera platform / FPV units start being sold by businesses with no idea whether the buyer has a clue on how to fly them nor realizes the risks because it's going to such fun. On line videos of flying in public places & residential areas is more common than some might think & it's going to create problems which unfortunately will affect those who do it legally & use the necessary cautions etc.

[davidmc36]

Originally Posted by cicopo

....On line videos of flying in public places & residential areas is more common than some might think & it's going to create problems which unfortunately will affect those who do it legally & use the necessary cautions etc.

Ain't that the truth!!!!

[astrofler]

Drone incident in Australia yesterday.

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/...407-zqruh.html

[bcsaltchucker]

Originally Posted by cicopo

Thank You. I think this topic is going to become a bigger part of the news as all the new RTF quad camera platform / FPV units start being sold by businesses with no idea whether the buyer has a clue on how to fly them nor realizes the risks because it's going to such fun. On line videos of flying in public places & residential areas is more common than some might think & it's going to create problems which unfortunately will affect those who do it legally & use the necessary cautions etc.

I agree to a certain extent. was asked to fly a drone over a crowd at a motorsports event. The event is run by the policemans association no less, the cops were asking for someone to make videos. I replied this is not safe (and I am not interested in doing any commercial video making) or at least it is something I am not comfortable doing given my amateur equipment. I am not into doing commercial flying at all.

But you know there are professional quality systems out there doing this today, shooting television and movie scenes every day without incident. They have replaced helicopters and cranes for many shots, and can also get shots that no other device can achieve ... and you know what? people have been killed in helicopters making movies, but unlikely with a multicopter.

And I do not quite understand your objection to flying in 'public space.' Public space is largely the safest place to fly because nobody is there. Look at the map of Canada, is it 95% public space with nobody around for many miles. Ocean is public space too.

[cicopo]

Commercial duty is a whole diferent thing than what my comments relate to & by public places I mean places with the public in attendance. Not long ago the local news covered a minor Ski event & I saw a quad over the crowd in one segment of the coverage. May have been a high end unit but who knows.

[ronnieo]

The sky is falling in Korea...LOL...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...on-camera.html

[bcsaltchucker]

Your post grossly misrepresents the facts, Sharpy. No doubt because the media has sensationalized it, and use political code wording 'UAS' and 'drone'

The fly away that got him into trouble was a line-of-sight flown airplane flown near an RC club - this could have happened to a club pilot just as easily as him. This was just as much a 'UAS or Drone' as your 3D club plane is a UAS or drone.

Moral of the story is ... you can't rely on amateur level autopilot GPS, and you must take responsibility where your plane flies and consequences it causes.

http://fpvlab.com/forums/showthread....l=1#post475796

I made this for another forum, might as well post it here to clarify things.

A few notes worthy of mention

- The flying spot was over 2km from the BAE docks (easily identified in the video as you can see the distinctive triangular runway arrangement at Walney in the beginning of the video.
- There is an official model flying club at Walney Island Airfield (Personally I probably wouldn't have been flying that close to the airfield unless part of the official club, but its not illegal).
- The bridge he was accused of flying dangerously over was 2km away from where he was (A590)
- He did not even have any video transmission equipment on board, let alone actively flying FPV.


Fact is, this was a LoS RC plane with a go pro recording that flew away. He could have equally been standing across the river flying at the official club and had the same thing happen.

Where he went wrong was in his handling of the case. His statement absolutely did not help him, he seemed to assume that ignorance would be seen as a defence or a mitigating circumstance which it is not in the eyes of the law. He lacked the funds for defence and so was required to try to use legal aid and ended up with a lawyer that didn't really understand the details of the case (and I suspect probably had a hard time working for him anyway due to his earlier blunders). He was advised previously by the same judge that he was guilty, so when his court day came he left his lawyer to deal with it on his behalf... I don't really understand why, but that's the decision he made and it is his right to do so.

Originally Posted by Sharpy01

With all those out there pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable for this technology, the inevitable is happening;

-----------------------

CAA Gets First UK Conviction for Dangerous UAS Flying

A TV-repair shop owner who has become the first person convicted in the UK for “dangerously” flying a UAS says the fine and legal costs will bankrupt him. Robert Knowles, 46, of Barrow-in-Furness, was fined £800 and ordered to pay costs of £3,500 at the Furness and District Magistrate court on Tuesday after being prosecuted by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

He pleaded guilty to flying a small unmanned surveillance aircraft within 50 metres of a structure – the Jubilee Bridge on the Walney channel – and flying over a nuclear installation, the BAE System submarine-testing facility.

The CAA said that the case raised important safety issues concerning recreational flying of unmanned aircraft, which is legal as long as it is done away from built-up areas and structures.

“The Jubilee Bridge is used by vehicles – this could have hit a car and caused an accident,” said a CAA spokesperson. “People have to understand that they are subject to air safety rules and that there are potentially serious safety concerns.”

But Knowles told the Guardian that the conviction was “ridiculous”. He said that he had been flying his £1,000 drone in a field a mile and a half away from the base on the morning of Sunday 25 August 2013 when the 4 ft, kit-built drone – with a camera on board – suddenly lost radio contact during its seventh flight.

“The radio failed and it flew away down the Walney channel,” Knowles told the Guardian. “I couldn’t have controlled it. I don’t know why the radio failed. It landed in the sea channel, and the salt water ruined it.”

He said that he had been flying the drone recreationally, as he had done “for years”. His YouTube channel shows around 309 videos shot using a UAS.

The video shows that the UAS flew on for more than three minutes after Knowles apparently lost control.

Knowles insisted that he had not been trying to hide the UAS presence or identity. “It had my name and address on it, and was in bright colours.” Workers from the nuclear facility fished it out of the channel and passed it on to police.

“I flicked the return-to-home button but it didn’t do anything,” Knowles said. “It didn’t fly anywhere near the BAE Systems facility.” But he said that he had effectively been told by the magistrate at the first hearing on 1 March that he was guilty, and that his choices at the hearing on 2 April had been “plead guilty and get a big fine, or plead not guilty and be convicted and get a big fine, or go home and get a big fine.” He said that his TV repair business was already running at a loss and that the fine would bankrupt him.

He said that his conviction relating to the nuclear facility made little sense. “A lot of people use cameras on cars and have helmet cameras and they all go past BAE,” he said. “My plane didn’t go anywhere near it. Apparently there’s a no-fly zone which covers it, but there was nothing I could do about it.”

He added: “Where I live in Cumbria, you’re always going to be near a nuclear dump – Sellafield or the BAE Systems site.”

Knowles’s case is the first conviction involving recreational use of a drone, though a caution was recently issued against a photographer from Lancashire, for “using a unmanned aerial vehicle for commercial gain without permission”. The photographer sold footage of a fire at a school to media organisations despite not having clearance from the CAA to operate the device commercially.

Source: The Guardian
- See more at: http://www.uasvision.com/2014/04/03/...ng/#more-30724