I find it interesting that the line-of-site rule dates back to 2002. Wasn't this a time when radio-controlled aircraft were flown by sight, and when, if you could no longer see your aircraft (usually fixed-wing), it was likely to crash? Modern quad-copters are rarely flown by sight. Pilots now fly by screen and have more control and positional awareness than ever. Moreover, in 2002, flying beyond vlos also risked losing signal - which would likely result in a crash. That's not the case these days. The technology has changed, and the drone 'type' has changed (quad copters are inherently less dangerous than fixed-wing aircraft), yet the regulations have stayed the same.
Yea, there's not a lot of logic to chunks of that legislation. However (back in 2016 I think) one of the many government appointed committees actually recommended banning consumer drones completely. Thankfully the recommendation wasn't accepted by the government but that was the sentiment of the time.
Andy, could not agree more as a recreational drone flyer for a number of years, both in Australia and overseas on holidays. Never even had a sniff of an idiot, maybe it’s the cost of the drones that keep the cowboy flyers away. There are more idiots on jet ski’s. Anyway keep up the good work!
Flying over construction sites or infrastructure being built is not legal, however some UAV's have 4k zoom lenses and can get good footage filming from 50-100 meters away from a construction site.
I do know a idiot that flew his drone 2km to the beach. He lost signal. Drone returned home by itself. Scared the shit out of him. Swears he won't let it out of sight again. He did the wrong thing but no one was hurt. Yep idiots are about🤪
Before I bought my first drone, I spent 6 weeks watching dozens of RUclips videos about every aspect of DJI's consumer drones and the Fly App. As much so I wouldn't damage the drone, as much as cause any interference or harm to anyone or their property. How someone thought they could fly 2km and not risk unpredictability is beyond me. Has this guy read the User Guide for his drone (available from the manufacturer's website)?
@@CaminoAir I would agree that unpredictability increases with distance, and hence, you are risking your drone flying beyond vlos. However, there's nothing inherently dangerous (to others) about flying your drone 2 km distant. It's what you're flying above that creates the danger. And even then, the risks are small compared to every-day activities such as driving a car, riding a bicycle and walking along a footpath beside a busy road.
I must admit that I THINK like a drone sheriff (rarely actually post) but your video has made me question the reality of the safety impacts from legislation. As a commercial operator i'm pretty screwed if I want to continue my livelihood, I must obey at all costs! Flying near an airport (even legally) gives me the heebees. the amount of paperwork to fly a commercial drone 1m above a runway for surface analysis would fry your brain.... but lower it 1m and put it on a dolly... problem solved!
I came very close to getting my ReOC and RePL but when I thought about it, the costs and the paperwork I didn't bother. Then they relaxed the rules regarding commercial drone use and I was glad I didn't. Had I got into the serious side - surveys etc - then I'd have still done it - but as a photographer there's no advantage to me at all. :)
The first drone (model flying) regulation was not due to the noted presence of a drone or even that they were a fair camera platform. It was due to a few surprise money making celebrity shots that had a public profile. This may well have been a matter of privacy and civil law suits but simple minded legislators could not recognise this had zero to do with civil aviation. The worlds government departments that regulate aviation could see this (been living with model aircraft for a century) but also recognised that it was a very easy buck that would have failed if they had thought it up. Drag in the "non existent" commercial drone delivery and "aviation safety" while adding some authentic but patronizing licencing to flatter those vulnerable to such seduction and the ball was rolling. Is there proof? The UK below 250 gram exemption was originally disqualified by adding a camera which may effect an operators motivation when flying but does nothing to harm safety. The current test questions are as much about what you photograph or video as flying a drone. The only real aviation matter is that previously aircraft using controlled airspace that extends up from the surface outside airfield boundaries was not normally going to be used below 500 feet so the air from your grass to the top of the trees in your garden was never considered; this is no longer the case but the logical answer is not a comfortable fit.
It's very interesting how different countries are dealing with the whole area of drones - not just hobbyists taking photographs, but things like drone deliveries. The US have a blanket-ban on drones in national parks and enforce it vigorously, but here in Oz you're supposed to get permission but nobody does and I think you'd have to do something fairly egregious to cop a fine.
@@Andyhutchinson Exactly Andy, It makes one wonder how many different drone problems each country is trying to invent. I cannot say that I trust the sources I have found regarding the number of registered drones in the USA but there is a possibility that since Jan 2021 and July 2022 the numbers have not quite halved. I would not want to speculate on my flimsy information but I do wonder what happened to the drones if this is true.
If you want to see a good description of Idiot drone pilot's go and watch, DJI Owners Australia - No Sheriffs & Drones Australia on face book. 😂😂Casa wants to make revenue! They would make a Killing with all the illegal stuff posted in there on a daily bass . Only this morning a guy posted a pic and video of a flight over western Sydney clearly over 500m. When people break the rules so often as i have being seeing lately. I'm surprised we haven't seen more accidents and herd of more fines issued.
Except that most of the illegal stuff is not actually dangerous. And where it could be dangerous (e.g. flying in a built-up area), why are the risk thresholds for drones set so much higher than they are for every-day activities that don't involve a drone?
@@gregtrainor1577 I do agree with you greg, but what I always think of is whether or not the pilot actually knows about it and makes a considered decision or just sends it... often coastlines and mountaintops for example are good VFR routes for general aviation.
I find it interesting that the line-of-site rule dates back to 2002. Wasn't this a time when radio-controlled aircraft were flown by sight, and when, if you could no longer see your aircraft (usually fixed-wing), it was likely to crash? Modern quad-copters are rarely flown by sight. Pilots now fly by screen and have more control and positional awareness than ever. Moreover, in 2002, flying beyond vlos also risked losing signal - which would likely result in a crash. That's not the case these days.
The technology has changed, and the drone 'type' has changed (quad copters are inherently less dangerous than fixed-wing aircraft), yet the regulations have stayed the same.
Yea, there's not a lot of logic to chunks of that legislation. However (back in 2016 I think) one of the many government appointed committees actually recommended banning consumer drones completely. Thankfully the recommendation wasn't accepted by the government but that was the sentiment of the time.
Andy, could not agree more as a recreational drone flyer for a number of years, both in Australia and overseas on holidays. Never even had a sniff of an idiot, maybe it’s the cost of the drones that keep the cowboy flyers away. There are more idiots on jet ski’s. Anyway keep up the good work!
Yea same here -thanks Patrick :)
Most of the time what is annoying is the actual sound a drone makes, more so than the presence of a drone
They’re getting more quiet as well. Mini 3 Pro is pretty quiet, more quiet than it’s predecessors.
Love these videos. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Cheers Nick - appreciate it :)
Flying over construction sites or infrastructure being built is not legal, however some UAV's have 4k zoom lenses and can get good footage filming from 50-100 meters away from a construction site.
This is true - the recently released Mavic 3 Pro would do a great job in that regard. :)
I do know a idiot that flew his drone 2km to the beach. He lost signal. Drone returned home by itself. Scared the shit out of him. Swears he won't let it out of sight again. He did the wrong thing but no one was hurt. Yep idiots are about🤪
Before I bought my first drone, I spent 6 weeks watching dozens of RUclips videos about every aspect of DJI's consumer drones and the Fly App. As much so I wouldn't damage the drone, as much as cause any interference or harm to anyone or their property. How someone thought they could fly 2km and not risk unpredictability is beyond me. Has this guy read the User Guide for his drone (available from the manufacturer's website)?
@@CaminoAir I would agree that unpredictability increases with distance, and hence, you are risking your drone flying beyond vlos. However, there's nothing inherently dangerous (to others) about flying your drone 2 km distant. It's what you're flying above that creates the danger. And even then, the risks are small compared to every-day activities such as driving a car, riding a bicycle and walking along a footpath beside a busy road.
I must admit that I THINK like a drone sheriff (rarely actually post) but your video has made me question the reality of the safety impacts from legislation. As a commercial operator i'm pretty screwed if I want to continue my livelihood, I must obey at all costs! Flying near an airport (even legally) gives me the heebees. the amount of paperwork to fly a commercial drone 1m above a runway for surface analysis would fry your brain.... but lower it 1m and put it on a dolly... problem solved!
I came very close to getting my ReOC and RePL but when I thought about it, the costs and the paperwork I didn't bother. Then they relaxed the rules regarding commercial drone use and I was glad I didn't. Had I got into the serious side - surveys etc - then I'd have still done it - but as a photographer there's no advantage to me at all. :)
The first drone (model flying) regulation was not due to the noted presence of a drone or even that they were a fair camera platform. It was due to a few surprise money making celebrity shots that had a public profile. This may well have been a matter of privacy and civil law suits but simple minded legislators could not recognise this had zero to do with civil aviation. The worlds government departments that regulate aviation could see this (been living with model aircraft for a century) but also recognised that it was a very easy buck that would have failed if they had thought it up. Drag in the "non existent" commercial drone delivery and "aviation safety" while adding some authentic but patronizing licencing to flatter those vulnerable to such seduction and the ball was rolling. Is there proof? The UK below 250 gram exemption was originally disqualified by adding a camera which may effect an operators motivation when flying but does nothing to harm safety. The current test questions are as much about what you photograph or video as flying a drone. The only real aviation matter is that previously aircraft using controlled airspace that extends up from the surface outside airfield boundaries was not normally going to be used below 500 feet so the air from your grass to the top of the trees in your garden was never considered; this is no longer the case but the logical answer is not a comfortable fit.
It's very interesting how different countries are dealing with the whole area of drones - not just hobbyists taking photographs, but things like drone deliveries. The US have a blanket-ban on drones in national parks and enforce it vigorously, but here in Oz you're supposed to get permission but nobody does and I think you'd have to do something fairly egregious to cop a fine.
@@Andyhutchinson Exactly Andy, It makes one wonder how many different drone problems each country is trying to invent. I cannot say that I trust the sources I have found regarding the number of registered drones in the USA but there is a possibility that since Jan 2021 and July 2022 the numbers have not quite halved. I would not want to speculate on my flimsy information but I do wonder what happened to the drones if this is true.
Yes we do live in a Nanastan
Well said. Good work Andy
Thank-you :)
If you want to see a good description of Idiot drone pilot's go and watch, DJI Owners Australia - No Sheriffs & Drones Australia on face book. 😂😂Casa wants to make revenue! They would make a Killing with all the illegal stuff posted in there on a daily bass . Only this morning a guy posted a pic and video of a flight over western Sydney clearly over 500m. When people break the rules so often as i have being seeing lately. I'm surprised we haven't seen more accidents and herd of more fines issued.
Except that most of the illegal stuff is not actually dangerous. And where it could be dangerous (e.g. flying in a built-up area), why are the risk thresholds for drones set so much higher than they are for every-day activities that don't involve a drone?
@@gregtrainor1577 I do agree with you greg, but what I always think of is whether or not the pilot actually knows about it and makes a considered decision or just sends it... often coastlines and mountaintops for example are good VFR routes for general aviation.
@@danzbjj I think that most pilots know the rules... good judgement is another matter. To be respected, rules need to make sense. Often they don't.
Well said
Thanks Wayne :)