|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on May 15, 2015 13:56:19 GMT 12
Those things are dirt-cheap. Click on the link to the website for Lily drones (it's in the article), then click on the Pre-Order button and enter New Zealand in the drop-down country menu, and you'll see the price (in US$) including freight to NZ. Customs will sting you for GST and a processing charge, but even allowing for that, they're still cheap-as. A GoPro with a small selection of accessories costs a similar amount, and there's heaps of teenagers around with GoPro cameras. So I wonder how long before there are hoardes of narcissistic teenagers wandering around with their pet “selfie” drone following them like an aerial dog with a video camera recording their every move? The mind boggles!
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jun 19, 2015 16:20:01 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Jun 19, 2015 16:43:14 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by Darren Masters on Jun 21, 2015 11:11:54 GMT 12
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Jul 23, 2015 12:39:44 GMT 12
Taking things to the extreme...
.....no surprises here, it's in America.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Jul 23, 2015 13:27:39 GMT 12
It would appear, (if Radio NZ's 1200 bulletin is to be believed) that (with immediate effect) drone owners are now required (by NZCAA) to get permission from the owners of all and any property they fly over, BEFORE they actually over-fly such properties. Not sure that this is going to be especially good, and I do wonder if 'someone, somewhere' will inevitably charge for the use of the airspace above their property.
Could someone therefore please clarify the position, and say exactly what is now required, especially as 'drones' are now readily available 'off-the shelf' items and can be purchased by 'Joe Public'. Also, how will this be policed? .
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by lesterpk on Jul 23, 2015 14:13:37 GMT 12
Not just 'drone' owners, all model aircraft fliers. There is no such thing as a radio controlled model aircraft as of 1 Aug, they are all remotely piloted aircraft. Most operations fall under the amended pt101 about to come into force, and if they dont then you can fly under pt102 but to do that you'll need to go thru the certification process. There is also no weight exemptions any more, so that $25 cheap heli you bought the kids for xmas if flown outdoors falls under the same rules.
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Jul 23, 2015 14:15:20 GMT 12
PDFs: Media Release: New Civil Aviation Rules for unmanned aircraft operations come into force www.caa.govt.nz/public_and_media_info/caa_releases/med-rel_Part_102_launch.pdfUnmanned Aerial Vehicles - Frequently asked questions www.caa.govt.nz/rpas/Part_102_launch_FAQs.pdfwww.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11485515A change in the rules around flying drones will come into effect next week and will prevent drones being flown in public spaces without consent and a safety plan in place. The change to Rule Part 101, which requires drone users to have consent of people and property owners before flying a drone over them, will keep people safe, General Manager of general aviation for the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Steve Moore said. The new rules come into effect on August 1. "These changes address the safety risks that modern unmanned aircraft pose to other airspace users as well as people and property on the ground," Mr Moore said. "Having a conversation with a property owner beforehand is an effective means of risk management because they are likely to have the best knowledge of the risks." People with drones who intend to fly over public spaces will also need to get permission from the land owner. For example, if an operator wants to fly over a park, they will need permission from the local council. "We are encouraging public land owners to be proactive. This could involve erecting signs indicating if unmanned aircraft flights are allowed or not at the park entrance." Anyone who flies without consent can receive a fine, a written warning or prosecution by CAA. Civil Aviation Rule Part 102 - Unmanned Aircraft Operator Certification will also come into force on August 1 and will enable people who want to operate outside the existing rules for unmanned aircraft to do so if they have in place a plan to manage the safety risks. "This new rule part gives operators greater freedom while maintaining the highest standards of aviation safety," Mr Moore said. Those who cannot get consent from a landowner or individuals can still fly a drone if they get an operating certificate from the CAA under Rule Part 102. "These changes strike a balance between safety and enabling operations," he says. The changes are part of the CAA's interim approach to regulating drones. The exact number of unmanned aircraft operations in New Zealand is unknown but CAA believe the number is small compared to conventional aircraft operations. The CAA receives up to 50 enquiries a week relating to drones. This compares to around 20-30 enquiries weekly at the beginning of 2014, and the CAA says this number is likely to increase with the growing popularity of unmanned aircraft operations. The number of aviation incidents involving unmanned aircraft has grown significantly since 2011. Unmanned aircraft incidents Year - Total • 2007 - 2 • 2008 - 1 • 2010 - 1 • 2011 - 1 • 2012 - 3 • 2013 - 9 • 2014 - 27 • 2015 (to end June) - 53
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 23, 2015 17:46:25 GMT 12
I assume police, military and government spying agency drones will be exempt from needing permissions? I do wonder if 'someone, somewhere' will inevitably charge for the use of the airspace above their property. I see a Treaty claim in the future...
|
|
|
Post by isc on Jul 23, 2015 20:26:46 GMT 12
I see that they ca fly up to the boundary of an airfield, as long as they do not fly above the height of surrounding buildings. isc
|
|
|
Post by komata on Jul 26, 2015 7:54:34 GMT 12
isc
Re: '...As long as they do not fly above the height of surrounding buildings'.
Uh oh!! Building heights: 15-20 ft. (approx). Drones flying below building height, therefore will fly 10 ft (estimated) to comply. Human height 6ft (approx). Allowing for 'human error' this will frequently be lower - say 5-8ft. NZ ACC is going to LOVE that!!
(Imagine walking around a corner and meeting a drone coming the other way at head height; YOUR head height...)
Methinks some revision of the rules may be in order; preferably sooner rather than later!
|
|
|
Post by craig on Jul 26, 2015 8:40:57 GMT 12
Unfortunately if a land owner gives permission for another individual to operate a UAV over their property, they then assume some (if not all) of the responsibility for any negative outcomes. I suspect it will just be easier to say No.
|
|
|
Post by komata on Jul 26, 2015 9:11:38 GMT 12
Craig Methinks the lawyers are going to thoroughly enjoy this; lots of litigation...
|
|
|
Post by shorty on Jul 26, 2015 10:20:58 GMT 12
I guess we will just have to go back to flying free flight (some of us never really left it)
|
|
|
Post by isc on Jul 26, 2015 20:07:16 GMT 12
Perhaps the land owner will get out of some responsibility with the current revision of the Health and Safety rules. isc
|
|
|
Post by harrysone on Jul 26, 2015 23:42:10 GMT 12
I guess building plastic models isn't considered a hazardous activity (yet).
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Jul 27, 2015 1:12:54 GMT 12
That would depend if you use the hazardous MEK for gluing, and of course air brushing painting without proper protective clothing and ventilation. Then there's the scalpels!!
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Aug 5, 2015 14:59:46 GMT 12
from Radio NZ National's Morning Report on Wednesday morning, 05 August 2015....• Opotiki District Council wants to welcome drones into the townOpotiki is flying in the face of new civil aviation laws by allowing all drones and model aircraft to be flown in public.(click on the above link to access audio of the broadcast news item)
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Aug 5, 2015 17:00:13 GMT 12
Meanwhile, in the USA: from Mansfield News Journal....Prison drone dropped heroin, marijuana and tobaccoBy LOU WHITMIRE | 4:40PM EDT - Tuesday, August 04, 2015A drone flew over Mansfield Correctional Institution last week while inmates were in the recreation yard. It dropped a package containing drugs and tobacco.MANSFIELD, OHIO — The package dropped by a drone at Mansfield Correctional Institution last week contained 144.5 grams of tobacco, 65.4 grams of marijuana, and 6.6 grams of heroin, according to JoEllen Smith, spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
Last week, the Mansfield News Journal reported a drone flew over MANCI but few details were released as to whether any contraband was dropped or found.
The incident occurred at 2:33 p.m. on July 29th according to information the News Journal received on Monday from the spokeswoman.
A drone may be remotely controlled or can fly autonomously through software-controlled flight plans in its embedded systems working in conjunction with GPS. Drones have most often been associated with the military but they are also used for search and rescue, surveillance, traffic monitoring, weather monitoring and firefighting, among other things.
More recently, the unmanned aircraft have come into consideration for a number of commercial applications. In late 2013, Amazon announced a plan to use drones for delivery.
Last year, the Mansfield post of the Ohio Highway Patrol stepped up efforts to watch and catch criminals in the act of throwing contraband over a prison fence.
According to the ODRC, on July 27th a fight broke out on the north recreation yard, and corrections officers Jade Wojciechowski and Melinda Hane called for assistance and gave orders for the inmates to stop fighting. Other inmates on both north and south recreation began running in the general direction of the fight. The officers then used pepper spray to control the fight and ordered all inmates to get on the ground. The inmates complied and remained on the ground as other staff responded.
All inmates (approximately 75 on north recreation and 130 on south recreation) were removed from the recreation yards to the gyms, where they were strip searched, run through the cell sensor, and clinic checked. The nine fighters were placed in solitary confinement status. There were no injuries to any staff or inmates, according to a report from ODRC.
Upon reviewing the cameras, it was determined that a drone passed over the recreation yards immediately before the fight began. Further investigation revealed the drone dropped off a package intended for an inmate. The package was picked up on the north recreation yard, setting off a fight. The package was then thrown over the fence to the south recreation yard, according to ODRC.
Smith could not confirm the incident was gang related.
The Mansfield patrol on Monday received a report of a drone flying in the vicinity of MANCI and Ohio 13 North by Cyclops Field. A dispatcher said the report could not be confirmed.Related news story:
• Drone flies over MANCI rec yard with inmates outside (Thursday, July 30, 2015)www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com/story/news/local/2015/08/03/manci-drone-followup/31078367
from The Telegraph....Drone drops drugs into Ohio prison yardFight breaks out among prisoners over heroin, marijuana and tobacco delivery.12:10AM BST - Wednesday, 05 August 2015A Drone dropped package at Mansfield Correctional Institution on July 27th. — Photo: FOX28.A DRONE dropped a package of drugs into a US prison yard while inmates were outside, sparking a fight, prison officials said.
The package was dropped on July 27th at the Mansfield Correctional Institution in Ohio, creating a new front in the war on drugs in prison.
It contained almost a quarter of an ounce (7 grams) of heroin, over 2 ounces (57 grams) of marijuana and more than 5 ounces (140 grams) of tobacco, JoEllen Smith, a spokeman for the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, told the Mansfield News Journal.
Ms Smith said there have been other instances of drones breaching security and the agency is taking steps to increase awareness and improve drone detection.A Drone dropped package at Mansfield Correctional Institution on July 27th. — Photo: FOX28.According to the department, video footage showed the drone over recreation yards immediately before a fight began. An investigation determined the drone dropped a package intended for an inmate on the north recreation yard, and it was thrown over a fence to the south recreation yard.
Two corrections officers called for assistance and ordered the inmates to stop fighting, according to the department. They used pepper spray to control the fight.
About 75 inmates in the north recreation yard and 130 on the south recreation yard were strip-searched, run through a cell sensor and checked by a clinic.
The nine people involved in the fight were placed in solitary confinement. No staff members or inmates were injured, the department said.
Last year, the Mansfield post of the Ohio Highway Patrol increased efforts to watch and catch criminals who throw contraband over prison fences.www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11784042/Drone-drops-drugs-into-Ohio-prison-yard.html
|
|
|
Post by kiwithrottlejockey on Aug 11, 2015 14:38:45 GMT 12
from The Washington Post....Rogue drones a growing nuisance across the U.S.By CRAIG WHITLOCK | 7:21PM EDT - Monday, August 10, 2015This public service announcement provided by the U.S. Forest Service shows a poster warning people not to fly drones near wildfires. — Illustration: Associated Press.ROGUE drone operators are rapidly becoming a national nuisance, invading sensitive airspace and private property — with the regulators of the nation’s skies largely powerless to stop them.
In recent days, drones have smuggled drugs into an Ohio prison, smashed against a Cincinnati skyscraper, impeded efforts to fight wildfires in California and nearly collided with three airliners over New York City.
Earlier this summer, a runaway two-pound drone struck a woman at a gay pride parade in Seattle, knocking her unconscious. In Albuquerque, a drone buzzed into a crowd at an outdoor festival, injuring a bystander. In Tampa, a drone reportedly stalked a woman outside a downtown bar before crashing into her car.
The altercations are the byproduct of the latest consumer craze: cheap, easy-to-fly, remotely piloted aircraft. Even basic models can soar thousands of feet high and come equipped with powerful video cameras — capabilities that would have been hard to foresee just a few years ago.
Reports began surfacing last year of runaway drones interfering with air traffic and crashing into buildings. But the problem has grown worse as drone sales have surged.
“I'm definitely getting much more concerned about it,” Michael P. Huerta, the head of the Federal Aviation Administration, said in a phone interview Monday. He said the FAA was particularly worried about a surge in reports of drones flying dangerously close to airports. The latest incident came on Sunday, when four airline crews reported a brush with a drone on a flight path into Newark International Airport.
Huerta added that the recent interference by drones with California firefighters was “really a wake-up call for a lot of people. This kind of thing has got to stop.”
Most new drone models are aimed at novice fliers who are often “blissfully unaware” of aviation safety practices, said Michael Braasch, an electrical engineering professor and drone expert at Ohio University. “Unfortunately, there's also going to be a small percentage of users who are just going to behave badly.”
The Consumer Electronics Association, an industry group, estimates that hobbyists will buy 700,000 of the remote-controlled aircraft in the United States this year, a 63 percent increase from 2014.
Although the vast majority of drone enthusiasts fly solely for recreation, authorities worry about the potential for a new airborne menace.
In a July 31st intelligence bulletin, the Department of Homeland Security said it had recorded more than 500 incidents since 2012 in which rogue drones hovered over “sensitive sites and critical installations”, such as military bases and nuclear plants. In one well-publicized case in January, a drone crashed onto the White House grounds.
Another unnerving scenario emerged last month when a Connecticut man posted an Internet video of a drone he had armed with a handgun, firing shots by remote control as it hovered in the air. Local police and the Federal Aviation Administration determined that no laws had been broken.
In general, drone misadventures are happening in a regulatory vacuum. The FAA has banned most commercial drone flights until it can finalize new safety rules — a step that will take at least another year.
But people who fly drones for fun aren't regulated at all. Under a law passed in 2012 that was designed in part to protect model-airplane enthusiasts, the FAA cannot impose new restrictions on recreational drone owners. As a result, they are not required to obtain licenses, register their aircraft or undergo training.
To protect regular air traffic, the FAA has issued guidelines requiring that consumer drones stay at least five miles away from airports and below an altitude of 400 feet.
Those standards are widely flouted, however; in the past month alone, airline pilots have reported close calls with drones near airports in New York, Charlotte, Minneapolis and Phoenix.
In neighborhoods nationwide, the buzz of drones is becoming a common sound, as well as a source of conflict. Police blotters contain an increasing number of reports from residents complaining about uninvited drones hovering over their back yards.
For the most part, such flights are legal — a fact that is prompting a backlash from anti-drone vigilantes.
In Hillview, Kentucky, a shotgun-wielding homeowner blasted a drone out of the sky last month, saying he was trying to protect his daughters from being spied on. He was charged with criminal mischief; police did not take action against the drone owner.
Similarly, in May, a judge ordered a man from Modesto, California, to pay a neighbor $850 for peppering his drone with buckshot. In September, a man from Cape May, New Jersey, was charged with shooting down a neighbor's drone as it filmed houses along Seashore Road.
In other cases, however, authorities have been more sympathetic toward drone haters. In June, for example, prosecutors did not take action against a crew of firefighters in Orange County, New York, who used their water hoses to knock down a drone that had been filming them as they battled a house blaze.
In California, state legislators introduced a bill last month that would grant immunity to emergency responders who damage a drone that gets in their way. The measure was prompted by several incidents in which amateur paparazzi drones swarmed around wildfires, crowding the skies and forcing firefighters to ground their tanker aircraft to avoid a midair collision.
“Cars were torched on the freeways because drones made aerial firefighting efforts impossible,” state Senator Ted Gaines (Republican-El Dorado), a sponsor of the measure, said in a statement. “This is maddening and I can't believe that hobby drones are risking people's lives to get videos on YouTube.”
Although the FAA lacks the authority to license recreational drones, it does have the power to impose civil fines on anyone who recklessly interferes with air traffic or endangers people on the ground. Yet the agency has levied fines in only a handful of cases, saying it does not have the staff to investigate most complaints.
Huerta, the FAA chief, said Monday that the recent spate of risky incidents prompted the agency to revisit its approach and that it will adopt “more stringent enforcement” measures in cooperation with state and local officials.
For months, FAA officials had focused almost exclusively on trying to educate drone operators.
The agency has partnered with the drone industry and others on a public awareness campaign aimed at hobbyists called Know Before You Fly. The FAA has also co-sponsored public service announcements to discourage drone use at special events and locations, such as the Super Bowl, the California wildfires and a no-fly zone that covers much of the Washington region.
FAA officials said they are encouraging major retailers to provide drone-safety information to holiday shoppers this year. The agency also is testing a software application for Apple devices that would inform drone users whether it is safe or legal to fly at a specified location.
Drone manufacturers have made it easy for consumers to fly the robotic aircraft right out of the box. But companies need to take more responsibility for educating their customers by adding warning labels, devising software fixes to limit where drones can fly and taking other steps, said James H. Williams, a former manager of the FAA's drone integration office.
“In a lot of ways, it's up to the manufacturers to warn people about flying too high, flying too close to airports, flying too close to airplanes,” said Williams, now an aviation consultant for Dentons, a major law firm. “It's important that they step up and do more than they are.”
Brian Wynne, the president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, an industry group, said that “there's always room” for drone companies to expand education efforts. But he said there is only so much the industry can do to prevent reckless behavior.
“I frankly just don't think there’s any excuse for anyone flying a [drone] anywhere near an airport or near a runway,” he said. “We have got to enforce our laws.”• Craig Whitlock covers the Pentagon and national security. He has reported for The Washington Post since 1998.www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/how-rogue-drones-are-rapidly-becoming-a-national-nuisance/2015/08/10/9c05d63c-3f61-11e5-8d45-d815146f81fa_story.html
|
|