Model /drone flight over Cork City

crosstownk

Reoil wrote: »

Is there maybe a little sense of jealousy in this thread perhaps?

Hardly :rolleyes:


Whether you drive a car, cycle a bike, fly a plane or float a boat you need to comply to the relevant regulations which are there to ensure safety for all. Simples.

Paulw

Well, I see that DJI have released a firmware update to the quad that will not allow it to be flown near airport locations - http://www.dji.com/fly-safe/category-mc

A very good safety feature. It still wouldn't stop this flight over Cork city though.

Bebop

I was walking around the grand Canal basin adjacent to the Bord Gais Theatre Dublin on Friday April 18th when I heard some seagulls squealing overhead, looking up I saw that they were reacting to a Quad rotor drone which was hovering at about 200 feet, it was very quiet and moved off after a while, As Google HQ is close by I thought maybe they were testing it

bumper234

Autorotator wrote: »

Don't be getting excited , the IAA are very slow to act on incidents involving REAL aircraft , let alone an 800g unmanned Drone!!I think People need to relax instead of pushing for legislation that wont even be enforced nor will people abide by it. These things are actually pretty safe, anyone who straps a €400 plus camera onto one isnt going to take any unnecessary risks to jeopardize its safe return ! eg. ensuring it has sufficient battery etc.

Really?

Can guarantee that this is being investigated by the IAA.

bumper234

crazygeryy wrote: »

This is just over the top altogether. The words drama and Queen come to mind. That's like saying dont fart on that sky scraper it will fall down.
If one of those drones hit a commercial airliner your saying it would bring it down or something simillar?
Would you rise out of me please.
Ridiculous.

You're right, I mean something that small couldn't possibly bring down a big auld jet right??

Oh wait

notharrypotter

Once upon a time.
A man borrows his friends model airplane.
Contacts noone and heads off to play.
PA38 active right circuits.
Man complains that PA38 passed UNDER the model aircraft.
How was his complaint treated?

Xpro

bumper234 wrote: »

Really?

Can guarantee that this is being investigated by the IAA.

Let us know when they do please.

crazygeryy

bumper234 wrote: »

You're right, I mean something that small couldn't possibly bring down a big auld jet right??

Oh wait

Ill read your post in a minute theres a concorde taking off on Patrick street that i want to watch.

bumper234

crazygeryy wrote: »

Ill read your post in a minute theres a concorde taking off on Patrick street that i want to watch.

It was in response to your previous post that stated

crazygeryy wrote: »

This is just over the top altogether. The words drama and Queen come to mind. That's like saying dont fart on that sky scraper it will fall down.
If one of those drones hit a commercial airliner your saying it would bring it down or something simillar?
Would you rise out of me please.
Ridiculous.

Are you still claiming that something of that size could not bring down a plane? Does not matter that it was over the city there are laws for a reason against this type of thing.

crazygeryy

bumper234 wrote: »

It was in response to your previous post that stated



Are you still claiming that something of that size could not bring down a plane? Does not matter that it was over the city there are laws for a reason against this type of thing.

i take it back your right, it could i guess bring it down,id love to see the odds on it but your right.
do commercial flights fly that low over cork city?
was he beside the airport?
"this type of thing":D i take it your against this type of thing so bumper eh?

bumper234

crazygeryy wrote: »

i take it back your right, it could i guess bring it down,id love to see the odds on it but your right.
do commercial flights fly that low over cork city?
was he beside the airport?
"this type of thing":D i take it your against this type of thing so bumper eh?

You mean law breaking and putting lives at risk? Yeah i tend to frown upon things like that.

crazygeryy

bumper234 wrote: »

You mean law breaking and putting lives at risk? Yeah i tend to frown upon things like that.

Lives at risk.
Right im done.

Paulw

crazygeryy wrote: »

Lives at risk.

1kg item falling from 100m-150m high? I'm sure that would do plenty of damage to a car, maybe causing an accident, or if it hit someone on the head..... :eek:

Xpro

bumper234 wrote: »

You mean law breaking and putting lives at risk? Yeah i tend to frown upon things like that.

So tell me this, Smiths toys selling RC helicopter and little drones are braking the rules and putting lives at risk? And thats kids flying. Sure one of those helis can take someones eye if it landed on your head. But what are the odds.

Please have a little read at EASA legislation, Aerial Navigation Order before you all come with statements like that. This is not a forbidden sport, but
there are certain regulations, weight categories,speed restrictions,etc. And certainly not all unmanned aircraft are in the same categories.

We also don't know if the guy above had a licence?? or Aerial Work permission to fly??
So it's all speculations and what if's

The way some people go on here you'd think the guy flying that drone had a TNT bomb strapped and was going to detonate above Cork City.


Now, one for you to chew on it: Similar story,but different legalities

A guy joins a flying club, pay's his entry fee, etc and then starts flying in Phoenix Park. A very crowded area,especially on sundays and less then 4nm from Dublin Airport and City centre.

He's not flying a drone, but a 25cc Nitro Aircraft with speeds in excess of 80kt.

Now that thing would chop you in half literally if it crashed into you, or could easily divert and head for Dublin airport and crash into a plane on the approach and burst his windscreen.

But thats all ok because he joined a club and payed his fees.

But then again what are the odds of something like that happening?? Extremely improbable

If I did happen ( famous "what if"), what would you say then??? He was perfectly ok, Licensed, IAA approved and legal to fly??
So what difference would that make?


Just for size comparison :

folbotcar

Again some ridiculous comparisons. It simply doesn't work like that. Anyone who bought a large model aircraft without gaining experience would instantly crash the thing on it's first take off. Secondly the model flying community has an extremely responsible attitude to their hobby unlike this new breed of drone operators and would never tolerate one of their group over flying large towns. Also the flying area in the Phoenix park is enormous and long established.

We also don't know if the guy above had a licence?? or Aerial Work permission to fly??
So it's all speculations and what if's

He won't have a licence or aerial work permission and he would never have got permission to overfly a built up area like that.

I note that on the youtube page another UAV operator commented that it was completely illegal and would only be used to further restrict UAV activity.

Also I note that Skytec Ireland also based in Cork, who provide professional UAV services took a dim view of this video.

Unlike various people on this thread they realise the consequences of unrestricted use of these drones in built up areas will ultimately lead to accidents and injuries and will result in excessive restrictions on their use.

Clearly some of you are going to persist with the 'Ah sure it'll be fine' attitude. There's no talking to some people.

Meanwhile I'm off to the airport to borrow a plane so I can fly low over the centre of town and take photos. I know the rules forbid that but with all my training and experience and with a reliable safe aircraft. What could go wrong?

Unless I hit a drone!

MuffinsDa

folbotcar wrote: »

Also I note that Skytec Ireland also based in Cork, who provide professional UAV services took a dim view of this video.

They would, wouldn't day? Probably concerned about the masses finding how cheap and easy to get/operate are modern drones, and therefore affecting their bottom line, and using "concerns for the public" as way to restrict future competition. Oldest trick in the book, same as Teachers union's concerns for "education quality", nurse's unions concerns about "patient safety" etc...

notharrypotter

Fairy Tales are all based on an element of truth.

Aviation is safe because historically "SAFETY" was center of their creed.

Currently the bottom lone is king.

Sooner rather than later there will be an incident and then it will be too late.

Sadly the dedicated professionals will always be undermined by uninformed "EXPERTS" who have no long term stake in the outcome.

mbur

Paulw wrote: »

Well, I see that DJI have released a firmware update to the quad that will not allow it to be flown near airport locations - http://www.dji.com/fly-safe/category-mc

A very good safety feature. It still wouldn't stop this flight over Cork city though.

It is possibly only a matter of time. Safety envelopes over built up areas, built into the firmware.

folbotcar wrote: »

Clearly some of you are going to persist with the 'Ah sure it'll be fine' attitude. There's no talking to some people.

Meanwhile I'm off to the airport to borrow a plane so I can fly low over the centre of town and take photos. I know the rules forbid that but with all my training and experience and with a reliable safe aircraft. What could go wrong?

Unless I hit a drone!

Glad to see you still have your sense of humour. Again maybe only a matter of time before the firmware will include a 'known aircraft avoidance feature'. If you have your beacon turned on you will be safe from these pesky quad copters. No matter how badly you fly.

The good news is that this won't be so accurate that it might be 'hacked' to become a 'Known aircraft intercept' feature. The difference in airspeed will be a big factor in your favour as well.:)

ted1

These guys use them in Ireland http://www.hexicamaerials.com

Clever yokes with gps that return home to take off spot when the battery reaches a certain level

roundymac

kub wrote: »

Following that logic so it must be absolutely downright deadly for me to climb a ladder on a city street with a drill in my hand that could fall on someones head.

Too many what if's in this bloody country, also lets not forget the two greatest words ever, the greatest BS words which are Health & Safety.

I wait for the day when personal responsibility, accountability and culpability come into the equation. But then that is not good for the legal trade so i will not be holding my breath.

What's BS about Health and Safety. I used to work in construction, when I first started it did'nt exist, no handrails ot toe boards on scaffold, no safety certs for equiptment etc. Health and safety might be a pain in the arse but it's there for a reason; your safety and well being. The people that give out about H&S generally will be the people that say where's the H&S now if there is an accident.

kub

roundymac wrote: »

What's BS about Health and Safety. I used to work in construction, when I first started it did'nt exist, no handrails ot toe boards on scaffold, no safety certs for equiptment etc. Health and safety might be a pain in the arse but it's there for a reason; your safety and well being. The people that give out about H&S generally will be the people that say where's the H&S now if there is an accident.

My basic point is regarding personal responsibility but I think that might be a discussion for elsewhere.

notharrypotter

Clever yokes with gps that return home to take off spot when the battery reaches a certain level

Irish Army drone goes missing.

All the wonderful technology in the world .....

squonk

notharrypotter wrote: »

Irish Army drone goes missing.

All the wonderful technology in the world .....

...and the humans fúck up! . That was careless but I don't see the point?

notharrypotter

That was careless but I don't see the point?

Its exactly the point.

Failure to believe that the rules apply to "me" because I know best.

Safety needs to be assured hence the requirement to follow proper procedures.

Model Aircraft and Remotly Pilote Aircraft are in the main operated on VHF frequencies.

VHF requires line of sight with control unit at all times.

the unplanned landing in Dublin taxiway was caused by the model going out of range of the controller.

This may have been due to either physical distance or the batteries failing of either control uint (model or Ground).

Commercial aircraft operate with a minimum fuel on landing.

When a pilot feels that they are approaching that limit they will take action.

there is no equivelant requirement for model aircraft so some operators will always try and leave it to the last minute to recall their craft.

Paulw

notharrypotter wrote: »

the unplanned landing in Dublin taxiway was caused by the model going out of range of the controller.

This may have been due to either physical distance or the batteries failing of either control uint (model or Ground).

Commercial aircraft operate with a minimum fuel on landing.

When a pilot feels that they are approaching that limit they will take action.

there is no equivelant requirement for model aircraft so some operators will always try and leave it to the last minute to recall their craft.

Actually, the DJI Phantom will return to it's takeoff point when it goes out of controller range, if there are communication issues or if the battery gets low.

This is built in to the device.

http://www.dji.com/product/phantom-2/spec

Auto return to home

Growler!!!

If I remember correctly in a club environment the selection of controller frequencies are strictly regulated so there is no interference from other controllers in the area.

Is this the same with these "drones"? What happens if 2 controllers are on the same frequency and are not aware the other freelancer is around?

notharrypotter

will return to it's takeoff point

What criteria will be used to determine the route taken?

notharrypotter

Auto Return-to-Home & Landing

Per the website it states home not point of departure.

there is a big difference between the 2 concepts.

ProfessorPlum

squonk wrote: »

...and the humans fúck up! . That was careless but I don't see the point?

Yep, I think the point is that humans, being humans will **** up. Hence procedures are put in place to mitigate for that. (The 'what if I **** up' factor). I do think there is a degree of naievity on this thread around this incident.

Paulw

notharrypotter wrote: »

Auto Return-to-Home & Landing

Per the website it states home not point of departure.

there is a big difference between the 2 concepts.

From the manual -

Home Point - When the aircraft is initializing the Ready to Fly status, aircraft will record current GPS coordinates as the home point.


So, when you power it on, it takes the GPS coordinates of where it is, and uses that as it's "home". It's "home" is it's point of departure, not an actual home.

notharrypotter

This thread has become very specific to the exact Remotly Piloted Aircraft operated on the day.

This is now losing sight of the varied nature of the systems available.

I do think there is a degree of naievity on this thread around this incident.

I would have to second this comment.

Rules and regulations must cover all possible contingencies.

This is where arguing for a specifit model is dangerous.

Capabalities will vary.

People will start often with a very basic model.
Over time as they become more "confident" in their abilities they often upgrade to a bigger/more capable system.

Very ofen they keep doing what they always have done.

Now problems arise as the system is often more capable and they often initially understimate their control of the situation.

Paulw

Here's a video of a quad being hit by a bird, and then auto recovering.

The thing is, they need to be used responsibly, and flying it over a highly populated area (like a city centre) is not responsible. That is why there are regulations.

youtheman

A UAV knocked our a Marathon runner recently in Australia. Bit of a 'wake up call' on the issue of UAVs.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/casa-probe-launched-after-camera-drone-knocks-down-runner/story-fnhocxo3-1226876706898

Mitch Buchannon

"A US Airways commuter flight nearly collided with a drone in March near the airport in Tallahassee, Fla., according to a Federal Aviation Administration official."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2014/05/09/wsj-airline-flight-had-close-call-with-drone-in-march/8904829/

Jack1985

Much better detail in this report (Incident: PSA CRJ2 at Tallahassee on Mar 22nd 2014, near collision with model aircraft);

http://avherald.com/h?article=4742ac9d&opt=0

squonk

Mitch Buchannon wrote: »

"A US Airways commuter flight nearly collided with a drone in March near the airport in Tallahassee, Fla., according to a Federal Aviation Administration official."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2014/05/09/wsj-airline-flight-had-close-call-with-drone-in-march/8904829/

...and a Malaysian Airlines flight is currently missing without trace in the Indian Ocean. Another 777 crashlanded in SFO last year. Accidents happen. Even the aviation industry isn't immune. Flying a drone inside the airspace of an airport is brainless and I've no problem seeing the book thrown at that operator, but otherwise, there's still a lot of over reaction here.

tawnyowl

kub wrote: »

Following that logic so it must be absolutely downright deadly for me to climb a ladder on a city street with a drill in my hand that could fall on someones head.

In a work environment, the use of ladders is indeed regulated:
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cwu.ie%2F_uploads%2Fdocuments%2FHealth__Safety_Dosc%2FGuide_to_Health__Safety_Regulations_Working_at_Height.pdf&ei=VtN4U9PtIo2S7Aa4lIGIAw&usg=AFQjCNEfNB4ya6Qowftvs5q7Xla1vt-ZRA&sig2=rgXmUPv2kBVkIBswuVY0Jw&bvm=bv.66917471,d.ZGU

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hsa.ie%2Feng%2FPublications_and_Forms%2FPublications%2FRetail%2FGen_Apps_Work_at_Height.pdf&ei=VtN4U9PtIo2S7Aa4lIGIAw&usg=AFQjCNFNwXldjeDUfJCcS8iFcVtd6mN4hg&sig2=LR88Ev0H6Ra4hz3MGvMlpA&bvm=bv.66917471,d.ZGU

tawnyowl

One issue is the use of First Person View (see paragraph 1 of section 4.3.2 of https://www.iaa.ie/library_download.jsp?libraryID=956

I can see a problem if the person controlling the craft is using FPV - no peripheral vision. Some scenarios where this could be a problem:

• Controller flies sideways and doen't notice their craft is about to hit a building.
• Controller flies craft too high, into path of manned aircraft, but can't see this aircraft because it's not in their field of view.

Someone other than the controller of the craft wearing FPV goggles wouldn't present the same problems.

?Cee?view

I've read through the link below and I can't see how the person who flew the drone and posted the video is breaking IAA rules. EASA rules apply if the weight is 150kg or over, and if less, national rules apply. However, if:

1. He is flying the craft for recreational flying and,
2. The aircraft weighs less than 20 kg,

then I don't see that the national rules apply.

https://www.iaa.ie/library_download.jsp?libraryID=956

Am I wrong?

tawnyowl

?Cee?view wrote: »

I've read through the link below and I can't see how the person who flew the drone and posted the video is breaking IAA rules. EASA rules apply if the weight is 150kg or over, and if less, national rules apply. However, if:

1. He is flying the craft for recreational flying and,
2. The aircraft weighs less than 20 kg,

then I don't see that the national rules apply.

https://www.iaa.ie/library_download.jsp?libraryID=956

Am I wrong?

Section 4.5 may apply, specifically:

(c) the aircraft shall not be operated over or within the confines of a congested area except with the written permission of the Authority

where "congested area" is defined in 3 TERMINOLOGY:

"congested area" means a densely populated area which is substantially used for residential, commercial or recreational purposes and is without adequate safe landing areas

Also under 4.2.3 National Legislation

The underlying policy is that a RPAS may not be flown in Ireland without the operator obtaining a specific Permission from the Authority

Seeing as St. Fin barres cathedral is mentioned in the newspaper coverage, a check of the map puts it about 5km from Cork Airport - to quote section 4.5 again:

(e) the aircraft shall not be operated within an aerodrome traffic zone or closer than 8 kilometres (5 nautical miles) from an aerodrome boundard, whichever is the greatest distance, except with the written permission of the Controlling Authority;

Growler!!!

In April 2014 Raymond Fogarty put a video of Cork City from a UAV that received publicity.[214][215][216] He was criticised for flying the UAV without a licence by Steve Slade of SkyTec Ireland and by Paudie Barry of Baseline Surveys Ireland.[217] Mr. Barry described Mr. Fogartys' actions as “recklessly and irresponsibly”.[217] Mr Fogarty said he hadn't been contacted by the Irish Aviation Authority, but acknowledged that he had been naive in not looking up the laws and that he had contacted the IAA to get a licence.[217] The IAA declined to comment on the case but stated that licences were required to operate UAVs.[217]

Legal status

In May 2012 the Irish Aviation Authority published a document setting out safety requirements for any unmanned aerial system, regardless of mass.[218] An appendix contained an application form to apply to operate a UAS.[219] The only previous legislation had been the "Irish Aviation Authority (Rockets and Small Aircraft) Order, 2000".[218][220]

The IAA policy is that unmanned aerial systems may not be flown without the operator receiving a specific permission from the IAA.[218] Where such a craft is to be used for commercial work, the operator must apply for an aerial work permission from the IAA.[218] Flying UAS outside the direct, unaided line of sight of the operator is not allowed for safety reasons.[218] It is not permitted to use vision-enhancing systems, such as first-person view.[218]


Just found the above on wiki. Not sure if it's relevant in support of one side of the argument or the other.

?Cee?view

Growler!!! wrote: »

In April 2014 Raymond Fogarty put a video of Cork City from a UAV that received publicity.[214][215][216] He was criticised for flying the UAV without a licence by Steve Slade of SkyTec Ireland and by Paudie Barry of Baseline Surveys Ireland.[217] Mr. Barry described Mr. Fogartys' actions as “recklessly and irresponsibly”.[217] Mr Fogarty said he hadn't been contacted by the Irish Aviation Authority, but acknowledged that he had been naive in not looking up the laws and that he had contacted the IAA to get a licence.[217] The IAA declined to comment on the case but stated that licences were required to operate UAVs.[217]

Legal status

In May 2012 the Irish Aviation Authority published a document setting out safety requirements for any unmanned aerial system, regardless of mass.[218] An appendix contained an application form to apply to operate a UAS.[219] The only previous legislation had been the "Irish Aviation Authority (Rockets and Small Aircraft) Order, 2000".[218][220]

The IAA policy is that unmanned aerial systems may not be flown without the operator receiving a specific permission from the IAA.[218] Where such a craft is to be used for commercial work, the operator must apply for an aerial work permission from the IAA.[218] Flying UAS outside the direct, unaided line of sight of the operator is not allowed for safety reasons.[218] It is not permitted to use vision-enhancing systems, such as first-person view.[218]


Just found the above on wiki. Not sure if it's relevant in support of one side of the argument or the other.

The issue is that the May 2012 IAA document excludes "Small Aircraft" from the definition of RPAS. It goes on to set out requirements from RPAS but excludes Small Aircraft which are Model Aircraft from those requirements by definition. A Small Aircraft is defined in the document as

"any unmanned model aircraft, other than a balloon or kite,
weighing not more than 20 kilograms, excluding fuel, but including any articles or
equipment installed or attached to the aircraft at the commencement of a flight"

model aircraft is defined as:

“any small aircraft which is being used for the sole purpose of
recreational flying. "

So if the guy at issue here was flying his less than 20kg craft for recreational purposes than he is not subject to what appear to be current IAA rules.