It was just a question of time....

[clivem]

Its simple full size gets right of way. Weather you at a saama airfield or other.

1000000 % right !!!

full size ALWAYS have right of way - no matter the circumstance. and yes i fly models !

[Gary Lees]

The Drone pilot was out if line. He would have heard the full size Heli and should have got down out of the way. Full size gets right of way, even at a registered model airfield.
I have been flying RC for 40 years and that has always been the rule.

Any way, if that is an organised canoe event, then you flying over the canoeists is illegal. If the drone was there with special permission of the organisers, then he would also need to have CAA permission and then the full size would have been informed of its presence.

Any way you look at it, this idiot is causing trouble for us all.

[MTex]

[happyskipper]

I don't care how righteous the operator of an R/C 'plane or UAV gets - the fact remains that if he/she is found guilty of endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight they can go to jail for a loooong time.

[ehs]

IF this 'drone' was operated as a model aircraft, and there was a collision, then (as the law stands at the moment) the helicopter pilot would probably be found to be responsible, unless it could be proven that the 'drone' pilot saw the helicopter, and deliberately flew towards it.

FWIW I accept everything you said until the end. I think the law, given that that bit of airspace is a free-for-all, would look to the facts and decide who was negligent (if either party did anything wrong deliberately then there would be no discussion as the answer is self-evident) and who wasn't. It would also consider ideas such as "a reasonable person should have foreseen that as there was a legal commercial flight in operation in the area and that the toy aerie (not being commercial) could cause harm to real people and would thus refrain from taking such action as could cause such harm". The law would also probably believe that the trained individual was less likely to have been behaving in a negligent way than some other, probably clueless, individual.

It's the kind of argument I would put forward when sueing in a civil suit for damages ...

If someone died as a result of that negligence the perpetrator would also be looking at a criminal charge of culpable homicide

[heisan]

IF this 'drone' was operated as a model aircraft, and there was a collision, then (as the law stands at the moment) the helicopter pilot would probably be found to be responsible, unless it could be proven that the 'drone' pilot saw the helicopter, and deliberately flew towards it.

FWIW I accept everything you said until the end. I think the law, given that that bit of airspace is a free-for-all, would look to the facts and decide who was negligent (if either party did anything wrong deliberately then there would be no discussion as the answer is self-evident) and who wasn't. It would also consider ideas such as "a reasonable person should have foreseen that as there was a legal commercial flight in operation in the area and that the toy aerie (not being commercial) could cause harm to real people and would thus refrain from taking such action as could cause such harm". The law would also probably believe that the trained individual was less likely to have been behaving in a negligent way than some other, probably clueless, individual.

It's the kind of argument I would put forward when sueing in a civil suit for damages ...

If someone died as a result of that negligence the perpetrator would also be looking at a criminal charge of culpable homicide

I am not a lawyer, but I personally believe it would go the other way. The qualified pilot is under the legal VFR obligation to 'see and avoid', while the toy operator has no such requirement. And not many sporting events are actually filmed by helicopter, so I doubt he could have reasonably forseen that a chopper would be there.

Either way, it is the chopper pilot the ends up dead - so if you are operating at such low level, it is in your own interest to maintain an extremely vigilant look-out.

[Hexapilot]

What if the Heli was operating as a camera ship in a legal part 127 filming operation, and the "drone" was also filming the same event, but in the completely unregulated way in which they get flown, what does the law say?

The law is very odd in this regard. If the 'drone' was flown privately, for recreation, then it is classed as a 'model aircraft', and one set of rules apply. If it was flown commercially (with the intent to profit from the footage, perhaps), then it is classed as a 'UAV'.

Currently, all UAV ops are at best dodgy, or at worst completely illegal.

Model aircraft are a different story. If this was a recreational flight, then it is completely legal - as long as it was flown below 150' AGL (and did not cross a public road).

For some strange reason, SA CARS do not separate manned and unmanned heavier than air aircraft in the right of way rules, so the normal (to the right, has the right, etc) rules apply.

Typically though (although it does not seem to be a legal requirement), any reasonable model pilot will take every effort to avoid full size aircraft. It is not always that easy. Many model types are not particularly stable, so it is not really possible to scan ahead in your flight path (your eyes need to stay glued to the model), and it becomes very difficult to keep an eye out for full size aircraft.

In the end, what it comes down to, is that anything below 150' AGL is tiger country. There are many legal (and barely regulated) airspace uses below 150', like kites, balloons, model aircarft, etc, which are legally entitled to use the airspace, and be operated by completely uninformed operators. If you are forced to operate that low (like for example filming a canoe race), then you need to be extremely vigilant because in reality you are using airspace that is pretty much a free for all.

IF this 'drone' was operated as a model aircraft, and there was a collision, then (as the law stands at the moment) the helicopter pilot would probably be found to be responsible, unless it could be proven that the 'drone' pilot saw the helicopter, and deliberately flew towards it.

This is exactly what i was getting at. With some wooden spoom provocation and enemy producing comments offcourse...

I do not think that the heli pilot had the right to complain and I also do not think that the drone pilot was in the wrong. I did not say that it was safe practise by either party...
The air is free in uncontrolled airspace.

Deal with it and keep your eyes open.
Pimple faced teenagers will make life interesting for you.
Live and let live.

And yes, do not take me seriously, but do use common sense. No rule or ban is going to save your arse as a pilot flying low, from a drone flown by someone with no idea that he is doing something dangerous.

REMEMBER!!!!

Anyone can buy any drone, anywhere, anytime, and fly it everywhere.

But then again, birds have been flying with complete disregard for airspace rules for millions of years, AND have been the cause of many crashes and fatalities. No one has called for a blame of them flying.
Name one crash where a drone has caused a fullsize aircraft to crash.

Just one.

Again.

Storm.
Teacup.

[happyskipper]

The VFR see and avoid applies to other aircraft, structures and the ground - a person operating a R/C Model or UAV must have the brains to understand that he has the power to kill people through his actions..... If not, then the person should not be allowed out in public, never mind exercise his "right" to operate his UAV or whatever. The roads are controlled, and any person who takes a radio-controlled car onto a freeway can expect to be challenged by the law, as well as several angry road users. The same consideration applies to the air.......

[cage]

It's not that simple. We are trained to avoid birds and birdstrikes happen. At low level and reasonable speed it isn't alwsys possible to avoid an object that shouldn't be there, especially while looking out for wires and other fixed objects.
Bottom line is the pilot needs approval and is required to know the law.
An ignorant person with a toy designed for anyone without skill is not absolved of responsibility.

Any flying device poses public safety risks and the only way to avoid this is through training and licensing.

I have flown over RC fields, generally labelled as FAD - I behave accordingly. I don't see why drones should be treated any differently to any other flying object.

[happyskipper]

[cage]

@happyskipper - not picking on the RC flying community, that takes skill and training. Droning doesn't.

[heisan]

The VFR see and avoid applies to other aircraft, structures and the ground - a person operating a R/C Model or UAV must have the brains to understand that he has the power to kill people through his actions..... If not, then the person should not be allowed out in public, never mind exercise his "right" to operate his UAV or whatever. The roads are controlled, and any person who takes a radio-controlled car onto a freeway can expect to be challenged by the law, as well as several angry road users. The same consideration applies to the air.......

The difference is, when you fly below 150', you are driving on the sidewalk, not the freeway, and need to keep an eye out for pedestrians and bicycles.

Lets take a slightly different example. Lets say a 6 year old kid is flying his kite (handled very similarly in the CARs to a model aircraft) in the park. A low flying chopper manages to snag the line, foul the tail rotor and crash. Is the child responsible? Should flying kites be banned completely, or perhaps only with adult supervision (because the 6 year old can't himself comprehend that flying a kite may endanger a passing chopper)?

[Steve]

Lets take a slightly different example. Lets say a 6 year old kid is flying his kite (handled very similarly in the CARs to a model aircraft) in the park. A low flying chopper manages to snag the line, foul the tail rotor and crash. Is the child responsible? Should flying kites be banned completely, or perhaps only with adult supervision (because the 6 year old can't himself comprehend that flying a kite may endanger a passing chopper)?

So the same parent buys their 6 year old a laser pointer and he starts to point at aircraft in the sky at night...... what now?

[cage]

We don't know the heights involved.
The reality is that many consumer drones are capable of hitting heights well above their rating.

I would agree that if you are skimming trees then there is a burden of care on the pilot, however at public sports event should/are "recreational" drones permitted? was the operator being paid?

in the US they have just started licensing commercial operators, several are heli-ops companies evolving their business.
This required certification and compliance to make the FAA happy..

While there is doubt and risk there should be an outright ban enforced until the boundaries and requirements are properly defined.

[heisan]

Lets take a slightly different example. Lets say a 6 year old kid is flying his kite (handled very similarly in the CARs to a model aircraft) in the park. A low flying chopper manages to snag the line, foul the tail rotor and crash. Is the child responsible? Should flying kites be banned completely, or perhaps only with adult supervision (because the 6 year old can't himself comprehend that flying a kite may endanger a passing chopper)?

So the same parent buys their 6 year old a laser pointer and he starts to point at aircraft in the sky at night...... what now?

The difference is that a class 2 laser product is not a child's toy, while a kite is - you cannot possibly compare the two.