Glen W Thomas
On April 3, the Cape Times’s sister newspaper in Durban, The Mercury, reported that “Civil aviation authorities are scrambling to regulate the use of drones or unmanned aircraft that are taking to the skies in a ‘tsunami’, putting commercial airlines and the safety and privacy of the public at risk”.
Yesterday, in the Cape Times story, “Drones pose terror, safety, crime risks in SA – minister,” Transport Minister Dipuo Peters perpetuated that myth.
Aviation authorities around the world have collectively thrown their toys out the cot over unregulated “drone” usage. But 298 lives were lost on flight MH-17, to name but one recent incident, because the aviation industry has focused its attention on imaginary threats and not the modern threats facing commercial aviation today.
One has to be clear on the definition of a drone because in their haste to control the perceived “threat” they have damaged the livelihood of thousands of professional film-makers around the world earning a living with their “flying cameras” which have been lumped with the title “drones”. More specifically we are talking about multirotors with which developments in technology have made this an invaluable tool for film-making.
Poppy Khoza, director of the SA Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) says: “Those who are flying any type of unmanned aircraft are doing so illegally.”
This would negate the entire community of radio-controlled flyers in South Africa and render many people unemployed and destroy an industry.
Being involved with commercial aviation, I am aware of commercial pilots’ concern with bird strikes and not these so called civilian “drones” so one has to make a very clear distinction: what constitutes a drone – a kite, a balloon and what is a “drone”? Any unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) above 50kg, I think, falls into this category and anything below this falls into a unique category of its own.
Radio-controlled flying clubs in South Africa have members with scale aircraft which have wingspans in excess of 8m which can easily fly to a height of 1 000m and there has been no concern expressed in this regard, so again, why now this concern?
The aircraft in question that the CAA is alluding to as a “tsunami” is in fact a toy no bigger than 400mm in diameter and is flown within a 30m radius of the flyer. If the aircraft was to get further than 100m from the operator they would not be able to see it, and these toys are not exactly cheap. So why would the CAA want to regulate toys?
The CAA can’t even keep their own house in order, now they want to take on a toy industry.
In the first three months of this year we saw 14 aviation deaths, some of them top South African pilots, under the watch of the CAA. They need to get their house in order first.
No multirotor to date has been responsible for a single death, but conventional helicopters used in the film industry have, and hanging a large helicopter above a city is far more dangerous then a large multirotor.
We are aware that the US would like to control international airspace regarding militarised drones, but again this does not concern film-makers, aerial photographers and hobbyists.
Large commercial multirotors are flown by skilled operators and represent no risk to commercial aircraft as they are usually flown no higher than 50m (half the length of a rugby field) and for a short period of time in a very specific location.
So in fact using a multirotor or “drone” to film with really has nothing to do with civil aviation and more to do with the industry in question, as they pose no threat to commercial aviation and do not operate in the same airspace.
The question of flying near airports also comes up: just having to travel near a South African airport is a hazardous venture in itself, so no person in their right mind with expensive equipment would want to go near an airport. The second argument used against “drones” is privacy. Well if privacy is a concern then one would have to regulate the use of cellphones worldwide.
The example of film-makers attempting to acquire unique footage while Nelson Mandela was in hospital was singled out above all other press present just because the operator had a camera that could fly, a case of someone pioneering new technology and the authorities acting illegally as there is no law against using an “aerial camera”.
I am not against regulation, but do not see the point of regulating against the majority of civilian drones or multirotors which pose little or no threat.
Power tools which are sold without any regulation pose a far greater risk, yet there is no regulation regarding their use. Aviation authorities should stick to aviation and stay away from activities that do not concern them and which they know nothing about, and rather concentrate on the real issues facing commercial aviation.
l Thomas is senior administrator of FPV-SA (First Person View SA).