Press release: Industry body pushes back against drone scaremongering

Issued 23 June, for immediate release

While UAVNZ denounces illegal drone operations, we are increasingly concerned about the poor public understanding of the regulations surrounding drones and the rhetoric that is being used in relation to drone operations in the media. UAVNZ Chair Dr Isaac Henderson highlights “Our organisation is regularly being asked by our members to highlight to the public that their organisations can legitimately perform operations that are being claimed to be illegal in the media.”

Most recently it has been reported that a drone was shot down near Lincoln in Canterbury by a concerned property owner. Allegedly, it was found hovering 12m over a property and the owner was concerned that it was being used for nefarious purposes. Of course, the news story in question was only a second-hand account and may well be hearsay, but it was used to perpetuate a number of inaccuracies related to drone use.

UAVNZ would like to clarify the rules that apply to drone operations. An individual can comply fully with the general operating rules under Part 101 of the Civil Aviation Rules (which include requirements like obtaining permission from property owner/occupiers and people to be overflown, and only flying in shielded areas at night). If an organisation needs to go beyond these general operating rules, then they can make a safety case to vary these rules as part of an application to become certificated under Part 102 of the Civil Aviation Rules. This may allow privileges such as flying over people and property without consent, and unshielded night operations, among other approvals. To make the safety case, the organisation will need to address topics such as pilot training and competence, operating procedures, airworthiness and aircraft maintenance, and safety management processes.

?Many UAVNZ members are organisations certificated under Part 102 of the Civil Aviation Rules and have been successful in making their safety case to the Civil Aviation Authority. However, threats of physical violence against these operators and/or their aircraft have been increasing. UAVNZ would like to remind people that it is illegal to shoot down a drone, and also to highlight the risks of firing live rounds into the air.

We wanted to share some of our member’s stories to help the general public see the benefits brought by drone technology and to bring some balance to the negativity around drone use.

UAVNZ Executive Committee Member, Colin Aitchison, has been flying drones for more than a decade. He has received a number of threats from members of the public while carrying out his ordinary work duties in full compliance with the Civil Aviation Rules. This led his company to completely stop doing residential real estate work and focus more on broad-scale surveying and mapping in less populous areas. Mr Aitchison has highlighted the paradox between public perceptions and what they expect in times of emergency, having assisted the response to last year’s Marlborough floods by using his drone capabilities. “The public acceptance of drones varies wildly. In times of need, no one worries about drones flying nearby. Yet, when I’m out there doing my job, you get people coming up to you and claiming they’ve read something in the newspaper or seen something on TV about all the bad things drones are doing, and they are not willing to listen to reason when you explain what you’re actually doing.”

Mr Aitchison also appreciated that it can be difficult for members of the public to differentiate a legitimate operation. He suggests “It would be good if the public viewed commercial drone operations in a similar way to helicopters. There seems to always be an assumption that a drone is there for the wrong reasons.” He says that people put up with helicopters doing things over their houses because they know that they do a lot of good. “Unfortunately, as a society we’re not there with drones yet and we’re not being exposed to the positive things that drones do in the media.”

UAVNZ Executive Officer, Richard Milner, is a commercial drone operator and helicopter pilot of over 10 years. He can recall two instances where he was threatened by a person with a firearm, and other multiple threats while he was performing his ordinary work duties legally under Part 102 of the Civil Aviation Rules. Mr Milner says, “It’s become a sad reality that my team and I have felt unsafe to go to work because of the public’s inaccurate perception of the drone rules and their belief it is ok to threaten a certificated drone operator with a firearm.” As a result of one of these two occurrences Mr Milner’s company invested in body cameras for use when in public facing operations.

UAVNZ members have approached the Civil Aviation Authority to ask for assistance in creating educational information around Part 102. As UAVNZ sees it, the Civil Aviation Authority, as the aviation safety regulator, has a role to play in creating educative resources to improve public awareness and acceptance of the valuable roles that UAVs can, and will increasingly, play in New Zealand.?Improving public knowledge of what can and can't be done (including why some operators may have additional privileges), as we see it, should help demystify this exciting technology and speed its development and use around New Zealand.

Mr Milner highlights that the public may not be aware of how he might use his drones, such as unshielded night operations, which are often assumed to be nefarious by media accounts. “My business would often operate over property at night conducting leak detection surveys (inspecting water pipes for cracking), which can only be done at night for technical reasons and are an important part of maintaining adequate water infrastructure.”

Similarly, Mr Milner’s business has conducted extensive overhead powerline surveys and has often worked over properties while exercising the privileges of the organisation’s Part 102 certificate and often under other Acts allowing easement access that is not well understood by the public. “All these operations have been conducted legally and one of the largest risks to my personnel is being threatened by a member of the public that does not understand the rules beyond what the media has portrayed to them. This is accentuated by the fact that these operations must take place at very low altitudes”.

UAVNZ emphasises that many of its members feel that they are not treated any differently by the public despite having obtained the approvals to operate differently than the average individual under Part 101. UAVNZ Chair, Dr Henderson, highlights that this undermines the value to organisations in becoming certificated. “Our members are subject to a compliance burden on the understanding that in mitigating risks as far as reasonably practicable, they are then going to be afforded extra privileges under the Civil Aviation Rules. While this happens from a legal point of view, the Civil Aviation Authority’s unwillingness to stand up for certificated operators in a public forum means that the public is unaware of these approvals and what they mean. Many operators are thus weighing up whether it is worth spending tens of thousands of dollars in training and certification costs given that the value of these is being diminished by poor public perception.”

?

About UAVNZ

UAVNZ is an industry and professional body representing the commercial UAV sector in New Zealand. Members must sign a code of conduct and pay a subscription to join. UAVNZ is a division of Aviation New Zealand, which represents the wider aviation industry.

Photos

We have provided photos of a drone flying at night, and a drone conducting powerline inspections that can be used in this story provided appropriate credit is given (which we outline below the photos). We have also provided photos of the three members of our Executive Committee that have commented as part of this piece.

?

Mr Colin Aitchison

Mr Richard Milner