Drones and enforcing regulations

New and developing technologies create all sorts of opportunities, threats and issues. And so it is with remote-piloted aircraft, or drones as they are known.

No-one cared when a few enthusiasts buzzed around with model aeroplanes. That changed, however, when reasonable quality drones could be bought for a few hundred dollars. They could fly high, transmit photographs and video and, potentially, make a nuisance of themselves.

Primary issues include aircraft safety, privacy and general nuisance. What is safe and what is sensible? And how can, and should, rules be enforced?

This newspaper reported last weekend that pilots are calling for compulsory drone registration, particularly because the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) received 50 complaints in Otago over the past four years and only one had been acted on - a warning letter after a pilot repeatedly flew a drone in controlled airspace in Queenstown and Dunedin. There have been no CAA infringement notices or prosecutions.

Understandably, helicopter or plane pilots are anxious a drone - and they can be large - might tangle with their engines, blades or rotors, or distract them. When there is a clear case of a drone bringing down a plane somewhere around the world, that will be huge news. Many think this is a matter of when rather than if, although it would take a lot to crash a large plane. Recently, flights have been suspended at New Zealand airports because of the presence of drones.

Drones, though, are not the only flying hazard. Bird strikes are common and a danger to safety.

Different rules in different places have been developed for drones. New Zealand's, at this stage of drone use anyway, seem sensible. They are restrictive, and, if followed properly, should alleviate most concerns.

For a start, drones are not allowed near airfields. Permission is needed from people and property owners before flying over them, and approval is usually required to fly over local council or the likes of Department of Conservation land. Local authorities can also build in additional rules.

The weight of drones (25kg or less) is also limited without special application, and drones are only allowed to be flown in daylight within sight of the operator. They are not allowed more than 120m above the ground. The penalties are fines, prosecution and confiscation.

In the early days of drone use, ignorance was a reasonable excuse. Now, however, the rules have been more widely promulgated and publicity about incidents has been extensive, including the prosecution of a Chilean tourist after he interfered with helicopters fighting a fire near Wanaka. Information is available where drones are sold, although there can be an issue with drones bought direct from overseas.

Between March 2013 and March this year the CAA received 696 complaints about drones, and an Air New Zealand pilot on a flight from Tokyo last month reported encountering a drone just 5m from the aircraft.

Recreational drones can be fun and commercial drones efficient and effective. It is all too easy to add to red-tape and bureaucracy whenever issues arise. Further rules and even registration might become necessary. But that should not be the first response.

One difficulty, of course, is in catching culprits, no matter the rules. Another is the propensity for the rules to be ignored.

Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter has said she takes concerns seriously. She asked for updates on the work being carried out by police and the CAA on how they can apply various offences for both safety and privacy issues.

In the meantime, strict enforcement and action wherever possible on present regulations will be the quickest way to spread compliance. Word will certainly spread once prosecutions start.

 

Comments

Maybe a few drone flying open days will satisfy some itches to getting action with remote controls.