It was just a question of time....

[Mauler]

What does the law say about minimum height restrictions for man carrying aircraft in uncontrolled areas? I am sure I read somewhere something like 500” or 700” and 2000” over built-up areas.

91.06.32

(1) Except when necessary for taking off, or landing, or except with prior written
approval of the Director, no aircraft –

(a) shall be flown over congested areas or over an open-air assembly of persons at a
height less than 1 000 feet above the highest obstacle, within a radius of 2 000 feet from
the aircraft;

(b) when flown elsewhere than specified in paragraph (a), shall be flown at a height less
than 500 feet above the ground or water, unless the flight can be made without hazard
or nuisance to persons or property on the ground or water and the PIC operates at a
height and in a manner that allows safe operation in the event of an engine failure; and

(c) shall circle over or do repeated overflights over an open-air assembly of persons at a
height less than 3 000 feet above the surface.



(2) A helicopter shall be permitted to be flown at heights less than those prescribed in subregulation

(1)(a), provided that–

(a) the operation is conducted without hazard to persons and property on the ground or
water; and

(b) the PIC operates at a height and in a manner that allows safe operation in the event of
an engine failure.

Everybody, model, UAV, fixed-wing and even helicopter pilots are breaking the law in this case. These rules, particularly the "open-air assembly of persons" aspect are specifically to prevent congested low-level air traffic over sporting events, whether they be canoeing, rugby, motor racing or pro tiddlywinks.

These rules were brought in as a direct result of the very hazardous swarms of aircraft that were prevalent especially around the 1970s at sports events. If I remember correctly, the final straw was the chaos in the air over racing events at Kyalami.

So the both the helo and R/C pilots deserve a little time for reflection and recreation in the Hotel Greybar, where they can debate who has right of way to the latrines.

Note that there is an option for written approval for special needs of the press or whoever to cover the event, but it is definitely not everybody's right to go fly around over such an event below 3000ft.

[happyskipper]

Common sense needs to prevail - but the problem is that common sense does not appear to be that common any more......

[Mauler]

This has nothing to do with common sense. Fatboy asked right at the start what the law is again. If neither the helo pilot nor the r/c pilot had written permission, it is illegal. And the law was written with the specific purpose of avoiding these incidents.

But of course, our fearless CAA inspectors are out there investigating absolute crap again this week! I have lots of stories to tell about the nonsense they keep themselves busy with.

[ehs]

Everybody, model, UAV, fixed-wing and even helicopter pilots are breaking the law in this case. Note that there is an option for written approval for special needs of the press or whoever to cover the event, but it is definitely not everybody's right to go fly around over such an event below 3000ft.

Do you know for a fact that the photoshoot helo did not have written approval from the CAA? I would have presumed that it was ops normal to get permission?

[happyskipper]

So, Mauler, Common Sense has no place in aviation?

I did not say that common sense should have prevailed in this case...... I said "Common Sense needs to prevail" ie, stop bickering about who is right/wrong or legal/illegal, and start worrying about killing people because the situation is SNAFU'd.......

OUT

[danie.e]

I have posted a lot about these things in the model aircraft section. Regardless of what current legislation exists, the "drone" UAS or UAV facet of RC seems to draw the biggest number of IDIOTS into their fold. As a SAMAA member and member of a SAMAA registered club, I do not condone the use of these things in the absence of proper legislation and or regulation. All SAMAA members are well aware of the rule that model aircraft should always give way to LS aircraft.

It is my honest opinion that in light of the recent "drone" ban imposed, the operator of that unit should not have been there in the first place.
If the operator of that unit had written permission from the correct authorities, then the organisers of the event are to blame as the onus would be on them to ensure the safe operation of these units. They should also have put out notices to LS aviation that such unit or units would be operating along the route of the event.

If there was no permission from authorities or the event organizers, then the "drone" operator should be prosecuted. The permissions of the full scale helicopter should also be checked to ensure that he had permission to fly so low over spectators and competitors as well and if he did not have permission then he should be whacked as well.

[Hexapilot]

So when does it become a "drone"?
Is it the propcount?
The fact that a camera is strapped on?
That it is flown for commercial gain, or not?
That it is flown via video-link (FPV)?
That it is flying an autonomous flight path that is pre-programmed, and the pilot is not controlling it, bit the drone is relying on a computer and GPS to fly?

It seems to me, that as soon as anyone with a quad copter flies it even in manual mode, and had a camera on it, it all of a sudden becomes a drone.
I do not think so.

I still think that a huge storm in a teacup is being made of this fickle incedent and that full scale pilotos are out on a witch hunt, because we stant to take a lot of money from them with out cheaper, and safer way to film from the sky.

Yes. Argue that point, name ONE death caused by a "drone" (no, the idiot who killed himself with his own RC heli does not count...)
I can certainly google up a number io deaths caused by full size aircraft...

[ehs]

AIUI there is no such thing legally as a "drone". It's either a model (as defined) or if used commercially a UAV.

[Swampdonkey]

This has nothing to do with common sense. Fatboy asked right at the start what the law is again. If neither the helo pilot nor the r/c pilot had written permission, it is illegal. And the law was written with the specific purpose of avoiding these incidents.

But of course, our fearless CAA inspectors are out there investigating absolute crap again this week! I have lots of stories to tell about the nonsense they keep themselves busy with.

Thanks Mauler for pulling this back on track! (ps. the CAA inspectors are very interested in this occurrence and I'm sure there will be some action taken, (or so the birdie whispered))

[richard C]

sounds like you have a regular aviary there, Fatboy !

[Swampdonkey]

sounds like you have a regular aviary there, Fatboy !

Yep they whisper and chirp all the time, you'll be surprised at what our highly esteemed compatriot aviators get up to almost on a daily basis, the Darwin Club pales into insignificance!

[Hexapilot]

I am battling to see how the CAA is going to police this.
Then there is offcourse the complete overreaction from fullsize pilots and flocks of birds...
I am still waiting for answers on how many deaths civillian drones have caused.
So far fullscale is the winner in the deadlyness department.

[cage]

I am battling to see how the CAA is going to police this.
Then there is offcourse the complete overreaction from fullsize pilots and flocks of birds...
I am still waiting for answers on how many deaths civillian drones have caused.
So far fullscale is the winner in the deadlyness department.

The potential for problems (not just conflict with aircraft traffic) is big. Regulation doesn't wait to work out what the death rate is before creating rules.
The risk to public saftey and privacy is significant - laws are already being passed to address some of these issues. The paparazzi have been the first to jump on the UAS bandwagon.
Last night there was nearly a riot at a UEFA football match as someone flew a drone with a controversial flag attached to it onto the pitch.

The cost and ease of use means that tight regulation and penalties need to be put in place so people, privacy and not just aviation traffic is protected.
When anything becomes targeted at consumers the few perpetrators will always cause inconvenient regulation for the many compliant users of model aircraft.

You need to realise that you have zero right to use any airspace - it is a privilege and must be treated with respect. This applies to everyone not just people with a cool gadget.

[ehs]

Then there is offcourse the complete overreaction from fullsize pilots and flocks of birds...

he he - how to win friends and influence people - must be a Dale Carnegie graduate

[cage]

he he - how to win friends and influence people - must be a Dale Carnegie graduate

And, for what is largely a pilot's forum, expecting huge amounts of empathy with what seems a sense of entitlement is none too clever either