Issue 343: Rise Of The Drones

A new breed

The commonly used term drone is actually an acronym for ‘Dynamic Remotely Operated Navigation Equipment’. The nomenclature unmanned aerial vehicle, or UAV, has more recently entered the aviation lexicon, but with the introduction of new legislation in Australia, the official terminology for these craft is remotely-piloted aircraft, or RPA.

Whichever name is used, there is no doubting that the rapid rise of RPAs is one of the most significant game-changers that aviation has seen in over a century of flight.

Large military UAVs initially captured the world’s attention with their incredible surveillance capability – an eye in the sky that could hold station for hours and transmit real time imagery to the other side of the world. Then the headlines began to appear mentioning a ‘drone strike’ that had been used to destroy a terrorist cell in some remote corner of Afghanistan or Yemen. The technology was incredible, but still seemed to be at arm’s length to the average citizen.

But that is no longer the case.

Commercial operators of RPAs below 2kg are not required to pass a knowledge test.

The growth of RPAs seems exponential, but no-one, including Australia’s aviation agencies such as Airservices and CASA, truly knows the full extent of the number of drones in civil hands.

CASA can track 750 current holders of an RPA operator’s certificate (ReOC) and has a further 300 applications in line for approval. However, how many drones are in circulation for recreational and unlicensed commercial purposes is another matter entirely.

A simple search on eBay Australia listed over 7,000 drones currently for sale and with the ability to enter anyone’s untrained hands. And at the top end, these weren’t children’s toys, but substantial devices priced at over $10,000 and weighing more than 3kg with a further payload potential of more than 5kg.

Equally, the roles of modern RPAs are diverse. From real estate photography and shark spotting through to security surveillance and bridge inspections, the commercial applications are seemingly only limited by the imagination – Domino’s Pizza boss Don Meij recently approached the Prime Minister seeking his assistance in freeing up regulations to launch a drone pizza delivery service.

Clearly drone use is booming.

But whereas other advances in aviation have grown from the generation before beneath the umbrella of due process, civilian RPA use has been born of the YouTube generation. It is not a new branch growing from the established trunk of the aviation tree, it is an entirely new species. In a positive sense, this has introduced a mass of newcomers into the world of flight, however, the pace at which this has occurred is unprecedented in the industry.

Previously, pilots, engineers and regulators have evolved their aircraft, rules and systems over time within a pre-existing framework and built upon what has gone before – but RPAs are a whole new ball game. And because of this, many new RPA operators just don’t understand the implications of their activities as they relate to the greater aviation spectrum. Sharing the sky is not without responsibilities and consequences.

A new rule book

In September, CASA introduced a new rule set for the commercial operation of RPAs below 2kg, while RPAs flown recreationally or commercially of more than 2kg continued under the existing rule set.

For recreational users, the rules call for flight in visual line-of-sight, by day and in visual meteorological conditions (VMC). Consequently flying must be conducted by day, clear of cloud and fog and with the RPA in sight of the operator at all times by the naked eye, not by binoculars or an onboard camera relaying imagery back to the user.

Additionally, flight is not permitted over populous areas such as beaches, heavily populated parks, or sports ovals while they are in use, or closer than 30 metres to vehicles, boats, buildings or people. Flying cannot be conducted at heights above 400ft above ground level and should not be closer than 5. 5km (3nm) to aerodromes, airfields or helicopter landing sites, and flights must not create a hazard to other aircraft at any time.

For commercial operators under the 2kg threshold, the intent of CASA’s new rules was to cut the cost and red tape of operating small commercial drones while protecting public safety. This meant that those wishing to fly commercial drones with a maximum takeoff weight of less than 2kg no longer need to apply for a certificate and licence from CASA, avoiding the requirement to pay about $1,400 in regulatory fees, as well as the need to develop manuals and other documentation.

Before commencing commercial operations below the 2kg threshold, operators require an Aviation Reference Number (ARN) and need to notify CASA five business days before flying and can do so via an online notification form. In addition to the recreational RPA pilots’ height and distance limitations, commercial operators below 2kg must not fly an RPA over any area where, in the event of a loss of control or failure, you create an unreasonable hazard to the safety of people and property on the ground. Furthermore, they must not fly over or near an area affecting public safety or where emergency operations are underway – without prior approval. They are also limited to flying one RPA at a time.

For operations beyond these standard operating conditions, further authorisation is required. This authorisation comes in the form of a remote pilot licence (RePL), allowing individuals to fly for operators, who in turn need to hold an RPA operator’s certificate (ReOC). To gain an RePL, there are two methods. If you have no prior aviation knowledge, you will need to complete a course with an RPA training provider. However, if you have passed an aeronautical knowledge exam for a flightcrew licence, you can complete operation (practical type) training with an RPA training provider to get type rated.

Holding an RPA operator’s certificate (ReOC) permits commercial operations above the 2kg threshold and offers permission to operate closer than 30 metres, but no less than 15 metres, from a person, to fly at night with approval and apply for a range of further exemptions and approvals. For such additional flight authorisations a safety case and a comprehensive risk assessment is required to support any submission. Additionally, approvals are required to operate within 5. 5km of an aerodrome controlled by an air traffic service, within the movement area or runway of an aerodrome, or any approach or departure path. For these approvals the service provider, Defence or Airservices Australia, is also consulted.

In this process, Mark Rossiter, senior advisor for safety programs at Airservices, emphasises that his organisation is fundamentally a service provider to the aviation industry, not a regulator. However, it does serve a vital role in issuing additional approvals to facilitate RPA operations around existing airspace users if possible, in that it will review applications and liaise with local air traffic services to assess whether the requested operation is safely achievable at the particular time.

Airservices is also seeking to refine air traffic control processes and systems to allow this branch of aviation to grow by contributing to regulatory and policy change and enhancing RPA education. Furthermore, should an RPA event occur, Airservices has operational procedures in place to be actioned immediately and an enhanced safety reporting system to gather information and analyse for future reference.

And it is these events that are now generating concern across the board.

A cause for concern?

Near misses, falling drones and disturbing YouTube videos are beginning to cause waves in the media and well beyond the confines of the aviation industry. Within those bounds, pilots are also expressing an increased level of concern as first hand encounters and reports of rogue drones near airports continue to rise. And for all the sightings that are reported, there is the possibility that given their low profile and size, a good number of events pass by aircraft unseen.

Over the past 12 months, 151 RPA-related occurrences have been reported to the ATSB. Of these, 118 involved manned aircraft crews reporting sightings or encounters with RPAs, with the majority of incidents relating to unknown RPAs where the operator could not be identified or determined. It is often the case that pilots sight an RPA for only a few seconds before it disappears from sight. It is considered likely that the majority of these RPAs were recreationally operated. The remaining 33 occurrences relate to RPA-specific accidents and incidents. These almost exclusively relate to CASA-approved commercial RPA operators self-reporting incidents involving their own RPAs. The fact that commercial operators are self-reporting displays a high level of maturity in their safety culture for such a burgeoning branch of the industry, but it is not generally the commercial operators that are the concern.

CASA is endeavouring to head off events from private, recreational operators through education. It is placing leaflets in the packaging of new units at the point of manufacture of major brands and the point of sale for others. It is publishing information in drone magazines and targeting the younger demographic through social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter. It is also developing an app that highlights the operator’s location relative to the airspace around them. Still, there are so many units being bought online that it is difficult to cast an all-encompassing net and the behaviour of numerous RPA flyers is evidence that the message is not getting through or being totally ignored.

Even when footage of unsafe acts appear on YouTube, CASA finds it difficult to prove who was actually flying the RPA at the time. Furthermore, the legitimate, licensed operators who can be tracked are not the offenders, it is the anonymous majority of RPA users. Consequently, while a good many warnings were issued, only 15 infringement notices were executed last year with zero prosecutions.

Curiously, within the framework there are anomalies. For instance, it is only advisory for recreational RPAs that they should not be flown closer than 5. 5km (3nm) to aerodromes, airfields or helicopter landing sites, while commercial operations must observe this restriction unless a further approval is obtained. Although they shouldn’t, theoretically a recreational user may be closer than 5. 5km, which is the very place where an aircraft can be below 900ft and descending on the approach to land.

Additionally, further than 5. 5km from an aerodrome can still place RPA operations within controlled airspace where the control zone boundary exceeds 5. 5km, as long as operations are not above 400ft above ground level.

There is also concern regarding the 2kg threshold. A CASA study in conjunction with Monash University in 2013 regarding potential impacts found that a “mid-air collision between a commercial airliner and a UAV is most likely to result in the ingestion of the UAV into one of the engines (three out of four events)”, and “a mid-air collision at impact velocities above 200kt is predicted to result in airframe skin penetration, independent of the UAV size. ” It also found that “During the landing approach, a collision with a large UAV is likely to lead to skin and windshield penetration of a commercial airliner. ” Regarding windscreens, the report states that, “The likelihood of penetration from the impact of a big UAV remains unclear. ” In the United States, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is currently conducting various studies to assess the severity of collision between an RPA and aircraft. These studies are also targeting windshields and flight surfaces before moving onto engine ingestion, hurling RPAs at the aircraft in the same way that chickens have been used in the past to test for birdstrikes. In RPAs, the battery, motor and camera tend to be the heaviest components.

There are also tests being conducted to assess the potential for detect-and-avoid software.

Still, these studies are in their infancy and to date there is no equivalent threshold to the Australian 2kg defining line – in the US all commercial RPAs over 250g must conform.

Furthermore, the FAA requires all commercial operators to undergo a Part 107 ‘Knowledge Test’, regardless of the size of the RPA. The test encompasses a broad range of topics including the governing rules, preflight inspections and maintenance, aviation weather, emergency procedures and, critically, airport operations.

But in Australia, commercial operators of RPAs below 2kg are not required to pass any such knowledge test. Consequently, they do not have to display any level of proficiency in interpreting aviation charts or identifying the airspace and airports from which they are required to remain clear.

Additionally, in the US all RPAs over 250 grams must be registered regardless of whether they are for commercial or recreational purposes. This process can be done online and allows RPAs to be identified.

Rise of the drones

The incredible growth of RPAs is more a revolution than a case of evolution. They have simply arrived and arrived in numbers.

Every stakeholder from operators to regulators is trying to adapt on the move in an industry where the pace of development and growth far outstrips the accepted timeframe for regulatory development. In the meantime, frustration simmers to the surface. Commercial operators are frustrated by the time it takes for approvals to be processed while rogue operators undercut them for lucrative work. Pilots are frustrated by the growing number of RPAs in airspace where they should not be and dread the consequences of a collision.

RPAs are not going away, in fact in the future they will most likely co-exist in the same airspace as manned flight and even usurp some roles. A good deal of technological development and regulatory process will need to evolve before it becomes reality, but undoubtedly in time it will happen.

What we are witnessing now is the birth of a new era of flight – an era that will potentially deliver pizzas and save lives in remote areas with the same level of ease. For now, the rise of the drones continues unabated.

Reports of rogue drones near airports continue to rise.