|
18/08/2015 |
| Engineers on board the Alfred Wegener Institute’s research icebreaker Polarstern have programmed a multicopter, allowing it to navigate despite the deviations produced by the Earth’s magnetic field near the North Pole. The researchers recently celebrated the copter’s first successful autonomous flight and landing on an ice floe. |
|
According to Sascha Lehmenhecker, an engineer at the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research (AWI, Germany), experienced that flying on high latitudes, autonomous navigation is a major challenge. Navigation systems normally use magnetic sensors. Near the poles, the lines of the Earth’s magnetic field are nearly perpendicular to the ground, making precise navigation difficult. That’s why commercial multicopter control systems aren’t well suited for use in polar regions. Ice Floe and Ship in MotionTogether with the PhD candidates Michael Strohmeier and Tobias Mikschl from the University of Würzburg, Lehmenhecker refined the control systems for multicopters – roughly half-metre-long devices, powered by multiple propellers, intended to land on ice floes and fly back to their ‘mother ship’ autonomously several hours later. The task: both the ice floe and the ship are in motion. The ship has to continue on its scheduled course to conduct other research, while wind, waves and currents cause the ice floe to drift. And it’s precisely the direction and speed with which it drifts that the multicopter needs to determine.
The development team pursued two approaches to allow the multicopter’s control system to compensate for the distortions in the positioning. In the first approach, the multicopter remains in constant contact with a receiving station, using the copter’s GPS data to calculate the discrepancies. The second option is to use two onboard GPS receivers to calculate the actual change in the copter’s position. Though this is a better method, it’s also much more complex, and the researchers were starting to develop it.
The system passed its first test, conducted on an ice floe in the arctic Fram Strait (79° N parallel), with flying colours: the team and copter were left on a floe. Now clear of the magnetic interference produced by electric motors on board the Polarstern, the team manually flew the copter roughly three kilometres out, to the edge of visual range. They then activated the autonomous return programme – and the multicopter flew to the pre-set coordinates and safely landed on its own. Connection to Under-ice UseSascha Lehmenhecker and his colleagues in the AWI Deep-Sea Research Group came up with the idea for this development in connection with the use of sensitive devices under the ice. One example is the Group’s torpedo-shaped autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) Paul, which explores the ocean beneath the sea ice. Conventionally, postion information was achieved by deploying ice trackers on floes with the help of a Zodiac boat or a helicopter – a difficult and time-consuming method. Further, the researchers generally try to avoid leaving the safety of the Polarstern wherever possible as water temperatures hovering around the freezing point, jagged ice floes drifting to and fro and polar bears, represent additional risks and should be kept to a minimum.
The Deep-Sea Research Group first used a multicopter developed by the AWI during a 2012 expedition. Flying by remote control, it landed on the ice and used GPS to determine its position, then transmitted the data back to the research ship, which was monitoring Paul’s dive. In this way, the multicopter offered navigational support for the AUV. Once each dive was complete, the ship had to return fairly close to the multicopter’s position: the pilot had to remotely guide the copter back to the ship, which was only possible in visual range. Extremely pleased by the successful test, which was conducted under the auspices of the Helmholtz Alliance ‘Robotic Exploration of Extreme Environments’ (ROBEX), Sascha Lehmenhecker recaps that this new development will expand the service radius of our copters from visual range to as much as ten kilometres.
http://www.hydro-international.com/news/id7969-Position_Challenges_Flying_an_UAV_Near_North_Pole_Faced.html |
Month: August 2015
How the FAA Boss is Keeping the Skies Safe
|
By HE&IT Aug 17, 2015 – 7:17:43 AM |
|
 |
| Federal Aviation Administration Administrator Michael Huerta |
Last June Michael Huerta was named one of “8 Most Influential People in Drones” by dronedefinition.com. The group of eight included thought leaders who want to deliver packages to your door via a drone, mount cameras on unmanned aerial vehicles, and sell drones that will follow you wherever you go.
Also in the lineup was a 20-something inventor who built his first drone using parts from a Nintendo Wii and a lawyer who took on the first ever Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) case against a drone – and won. FAA Administrator Michael Huerta was recognized as “the face of the organization that will ultimately decide the fate of commercial unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in the United States.”
In a blog post on the transportation department’s website, Administrator Huerta, 57, said that the unmanned aircraft system (UAS) industry is changing faster than any segment of the aviation industry.
“So many bright minds are focused on advancing this technology. People are finding new ways to use these devices on almost a daily basis,” he wrote.
Huerta added that the FAA’s next step is to determine if and how unmanned aircraft operations in America can be safely expanded in partnership with three leading U.S. companies.
“CNN, PrecisionHawk, and BNSF Railroad have committed extensive resources toward research that will help us expand the range of FAA-approved UAS operations in the next few years,” Huerta continued.
“Their work will provide significant insight into how unmanned aircraft can be used to transform the way certain industries do business – whether that means reporting on a natural disaster, checking on the health of crops, or making sure trains run on time,” he said.
In December 2013, the FAA selected six public entities to develop unmanned aircraft systems research and test sites around the country. In one interview, Huerta called the selection of the six test sites “an important step in the evolution of unmanned aircraft in the United States.”
“This is a technology that shows great promise but also brings significant challenges, so our test sites provide a structured framework where we’re able to conduct research, conduct test operations, and really understand how we can safely integrate these aircraft into the national airspace,” he said.
The FAA chose the six unmanned aircraft systems research and test site operators after a 10-month selection process involving 25 proposals from 24 states. The test sites – University of Alaska, Nevada, New York’s Griffiss International Airport, North Dakota Department of Commerce, Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech) – are designed to collect data for the FAA concerning safe integration of unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace, which is expected in 2015.
HE&IT magazine’s Career Voices department features Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi’s Lone Star Unmanned Aircraft Systems Center, one of the six test sites selected by the FAA to research drone technology.
Huerta has also addressed hot button issues about privacy concerns and the commercial use of drones.
“The thing that we care about, first and foremost, is the safety of our national airspace system. And these aircraft operate very differently, and they operate in the same airspace with a wide variety of other users,” he told NPR.
Just before the holidays last December, Huerta and representatives of the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International, the Academy of Model Aeronautics, and the Small UAV Coalition joined to launch a “Know Before You Fly” website and educational campaign. Amazon, 3D Robotics, Airware, and camera manufacturer GoPro are some of the Small UAV Coalition members.
The knowbeforeyoufly.org website summarized the rules that apply to each of three categories of users: recreational, business, and the public.
Know Before You Fly
1. Don’t fly above 400 feet.
2. Keep your unmanned aircraft within sight.
3. Don’t operate near people or crowds.
4. Do not fly an unmanned aircraft within five miles of an airport without notifying FAA Air Traffic Control or the airport operator. These conversations with Air Traffic Control are critical for safety.
5. You may only fly unmanned aircraft for hobby or recreational uses–you cannot earn money or use it for your business unless you get prior authorization from the FAA.
6. Please respect the privacy of everyone. No taking pictures of people if they are not expecting it!
7. Join a model aircraft club to help you learn how to safely operate and enjoy your aircraft.
In February, the FAA offered safety rules for small unmanned aircraft (under 55 pounds) conducting non-recreational operations. Under the proposed rules, the person flying a small unmanned aircraft would be an “operator.” An operator would have to be at least 17 years old, pass an aeronautical knowledge test, and obtain an FAA UAS operator certificate. To maintain certification, the operator would have to pass the FAA knowledge tests every 24 months.
The new rules also propose operating limitations designed to minimize risks to other aircraft and people and property on the ground:
1. The operator must discontinue the flight when continuing would pose a hazard to other aircraft, people, or property.
2. A small UAS may not fly over people, except those directly involved with the flight.
3. Flights should be limited to 500 feet altitude and no faster than 100 mph.
4. Operators must stay out of airport flight paths and restricted airspace areas and obey any FAA Temporary Flight Restrictions.
The rule maintains the existing prohibition against operating in a careless or reckless manner. It also would bar an operator from allowing any object to be dropped from the UAS.
The FAA is also asking for comment on how the agency can leverage the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) test site program and an upcoming UAS Center of Excellence to further spur innovation at “innovation zones.”
Next-Generation Technology
FAA employees work with next-generation technology at airports, regional offices and centers, and headquarters in Washington, D.C. It takes the combined efforts of air traffic control, engineering, safety and security, acquisition, contracts, or IT.
The workforce includes:
Air Traffic Controllers
Aviation Safety Inspectors
Airways Transportation Systems Specialists
Engineers
Program Managers
Technicians
Learn more about the different types of FAA occupations in the Career Fields section
http://blackengineer.com/artman2/publish/HISPANIC_ENGINEER_55/How-the-FAA-Boss-is-Keeping-the-Skies-Safe.shtml
Drone Technology Aids in Discoveries at Medieval Irish Sites
Jeanette Grider
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) have been gaining attention in the news for the last few years, but archaeologists like Saint Louis University history professor Thomas Finan, Ph.D., have always appreciated what aerial photography could accomplish.
Finan says UAV technology, along with high speed computer applications and mapping software, and sensors that can collect multi-spectral image are changing archaeology, adding that unmanned aerial survey is the next great jump in archaeological technology.
For nearly 20 years, Finan has spent summer breaks on archaeological digs, often taking SLU students to areas such as North Roscommon in Ireland in search of ancient sites, relics and a deeper glimpse of history.
Finan has now partnered with Paul Naessens, director of Western Aerial Survey, and a field archaeologist he has worked with for two years in North Roscommon, to further their exploration through the use of UAVs.
“Paul is not only a great archaeologist,” said Finan. “He is fully licensed by the Irish Aviation Authority to carry out these surveys and broaden our knowledge of the area.”
Finan has been working in north County Roscommon for the last two decades, conducting archaeological explorations at a number of sites, including the ecclesiastical complex at Kilteasheen, the Rock of Lough Key, the MacDermot moated site stronghold near the Rock, six ringforts (smaller agricultural settlements) and the Kilbrian ecclesiastical site. He says the landscape is breathtaking, but the archaeology is even more incredible.
“In 2013-14, we identified what we believe to be a major medieval Gaelic settlement in proximity to the Rock of Lough Key, a stunning island fortification,” Finan said. “This year, we focused our attention on some lesser known sites in the area, including a ringfort that shows great promise for medieval settlement and what appears to be a major settlement in association with the parish church at Kilbrian.”
The survey, conducted as part of an ongoing field survey of north Roscommon, brings together the latest in archaeological technology to enhance the understanding of sites that had been identified before.
“Most of these sites are found in the inventory of the National Monuments Service, but are often given cursory classification distinctions,” Finan added. “My interest is piecing together various medieval settlements (high status lordly sites, ecclesiastical sites, lower status agricultural sites) to explain social dynamics and the events of the thirteenth century in particular.”
Finan’s team uses traditional tools such as gradiometry, electrical resistivity and topographical surveys to identify features in the landscape. The aerial survey adds a completely new element to the study.
“We have collected an unprecedented amount of digital data,” Finan said. “The 3D landscape data allows us to see minute changes in the topography that can be defined as structures and human occupation. The digital data collected with the geophysics is then wrapped around that 3D data to give us an amazing understanding of what is there without sinking a spade.”
Finan says managing this data has been a challenge. The amount of data collected in aerial survey fills hard drives quickly, and dealing with archiving and storage is a major pre-occupation for the team.
“We build a great deal of redundancy into the project, but in reality the management of the data revolves around developing tools that can both archive and present the data in new ways. This is really where the cutting edge of digital archaeology is right now. We have tons of digital data, but what do we do with it? From our perspective, we have chosen to make the data freely available to anyone who wants to use it for scholarly purposes with proper attribution using an open-data policy. Our next step is to integrate that database with other archaeological information that has been collected over the years from excavations, archives and even aerial photos from a hundred years ago.”
While the project is ongoing, Finan is content with saying that the process of data collection is reaching a significant milestone after only three years.
“When combined with the rich collection of historical sources that we have for north Roscommon in the thirteenth century, this research has huge potential to change the way we understand that century. But what is more important to me is that the local population in north Roscommon appreciates this research and has been so helpful to us all these years. Farmers have told us about sites not recorded, have given us access to their lands, and have been thrilled to see students from America working in their area. It continues to be a great experience for all involved.”
For additional information, contact Dr. Finan at finantj@slu.edu
Drone operators blast ‘irresponsible and selfish’ flight that grounded firefighters
by Press
CBC News
Drone experts are fuming about the stray drone that grounded eight helicopters and five skimmers — that were fighting a wildfire in British Columbia’s southern Interior — for up to five hours on Sunday.
Whoever flew the unmanned aircraft over the Testalinden Creek fire is “irresponsible and selfish in my mind,” said drone operator and instructor Sterling Cripps.
“You have to be trained … Someone flying in a forest fire is far from that.”
The Testalinden Creek fire, near Oliver, B.C., has quickly grown to over 1,500 hectares, or more than 10 times the size of Vancouver’s Stanley Park.
RCMP officers are still looking for the drone operator.
Drone guidelines in place
Currently, operating a drone that weighs under 35 kilograms requires neither a licence nor a special permit, though operators must follow a list of Transport Canada safety guidelines, which include keeping away from forest fires and anywhere the small aircraft might interfere with first responders.
Cripps explained that drones keep crews grounded because they can cause serious damage to other, larger aircraft.
“You can imagine the consequence of ingesting a drone into an aircraft engine or into the windscreen of an aircraft,” said Cripps. ”It’s not a bird, it’s got more solid parts on it.”
People have been taking to the skies in increasing numbers now that recreational drones are more affordable than ever.
But that upswing in popularity, a lack of public-awareness campaigns and skimpy enforcement efforts have put the unmanned aircraft on a collision course with their manned counterparts.
A rise in incidents involving recreational drones interfering with planes and helicopters has some calling for Transport Canada to crack down on unlawful recreational drone users.
“Public awareness and enforcement is lacking,” said Ernie Zeisman, president of a drone training outfit in the British Columbia Interior. “They need to begin clamping down.”
Crews trying to contain Oliver fire
The Testalinden Creek fire has been burning since Thursday evening and has caused the evacuation of about 100 homes in the area. Officials said Monday it is 40 per cent controlled.
The incident on Sunday was significant enough for Premier Christy Clark to speak out about it while visiting evacuees in the area.
“I want to ask anybody who has a drone keep it grounded, because we can’t fight fires when you’re up there,” said Clark.
It’s not the first time a drone has halted firefighters’ efforts. In August several drones kept crews from containing a wildfire near Kelowna that had 70 properties on evacuation alert.
Capt. ‘Sully’ on drone rules: ‘We have a responsibility to do this right’
Take it from a guy who knows a thing or two about mid-air collisions, drones are a growing threat to civil aviation.
The use of drones—both recreationally and commercially—is on the rise, offering a boost to a booming drone industry expected to create billions of dollars worth of economic activity in the U.S. over the next decade. But significant uptick in close encounters between drones and manned aircraft—a quadrupling, in fact—is pushing many to call for increased regulation and better enforcement of the regulations that are in place.
One of the more prominent voices bringing attention to the heightened risk of a drone-on-aircraft collision is Capt. Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger. Sullenberger, most readers will recall, is the now-retired US Airways pilot that in 2009 managed to safely land his Airbus A320 passenger jet in the Hudson River, saving all 155 persons aboard.
On a recent appearance on Face the Nation, Sullenberger—now an aviation safety expert—told host John Dickerson in no uncertain terms just how bad a collision between a passenger aircraft and a drone could get. “We have seen what a six-pound or an eight- pound bird can do to bring down an airplane,” Sullenberger said. “Imagine what a device containing hard parts like batteries and motors can do that might weigh 25 or possibly up to 55 pounds to bring down an airplane. It is not a matter of if it will happen. It is a matter of when it will happen.”
Data on drone sightings by pilots released this week by the FAA would seem to support that assessment. In all of 2014 the FAA logged 238 drone sightings by manned aircraft. As of last week the FAA had tallied 650 drone sightings reported in 2015. That puts 2015 on pace to quadruple the number of drones spotted by pilots last year—an alarming trend given the potentially catastrophic consequences.
In a conversation with Fortune, Sullenberger emphasizes that he’s not making an alarmist prediction, nor does he want to see regulation stifle innovation in the emerging unmanned aircraft industry. What he does want to see is better risk management, better regulation of the recreational drone industry, and more enforcement of those regulations when drone operators do what he describes as “stupid, reckless, dangerous things.”
“It’s important to address this inherent tension between getting it fast and getting it right,” Sullenberger says. “How do we balance between undue delay and forcing people who fly to accept risk that they really shouldn’t have to accept? We do need to have a way for people to address business opportunities. We do need a way for people to use emerging technologies. But it should not be and need not be at the expense of having people who fly accept a level or risk that they should not have to accept. It is much more important to get it right than to get it fast.”
The ongoing debate over how exactly how to strike a balance between public safety and freedom to innovate escalated in June when Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) put forth a piece of draft legislation known as the Consumer Drone Safety Act. The proposed legislation would dictate when, where, and how recreational drones could be operated and require makers of drones to pre-install certain tamper-proof safety failsafes on recreational drones. “If we don’t act now, it’s only a matter of time before we have a tragedy on our hands,” Senator Feinstein said in a statement, echoing a growing refrain among advocates of increased drone regulation.
Some in the drone industry called the act legislative overkill, arguing that innovation in the industry comes from the kind of freedom to tinker that the Consumer Drone Safety Act would restrict. But Sullenberger says he supports the kinds of measures outlined in the proposed bill. “The version I saw when it was introduced, I support,” he says of the bill. “I think it goes a long way toward codifying certain requirements that could mitigate at least the risks that are known, the ones that we’ve identified. It goes a long way toward protecting the traveling public from the downside of this new technology as it’s being used currently.”
Currently, the technology is mostly being used recreationally in the United States. The FAA only recently handed out its 1,000th permit for commercial drone operation. Meanwhile, the Consumer Electronics Association estimates that 700,000 hobbyists will purchase drones this year, up 63% from 2014. These recreational users are largely unregulated and difficult to identify and prosecute when they do break the limited regulations that exist. That makes for an environment in which dangerous behavior can flourish, Sullenberger says.
In response to the uptick in drone sightings, two leading drone groups—the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International and the Academy of Model Aeronautics—issued statements last week urging the FAA to step up enforcement of recreational drone rules. They also urged the agency to quickly finalize a set of small unmanned aircraft systems regulations that have been in the works for years.
The finalizing of those rules—which would largely apply to commercial drone operators—will likely bring even more drones into the sky, but Sullenberger says he worries somewhat less about commercial operators. “In many cases you have licensed pilots who have the knowledge—they understand airspace requirements and the rules of flying,” he says. “I think that’s much less of a concern than the recreational side.”
Even so, he says, if we’re truly going to integrate drones—both commercial and recreational—into the national airspace alongside manned aircraft, even small drones are going to have to meet some of the same requirements as manned aircraft. Those include a means to electronically identify themselves to air traffic controllers and other aircraft and some way to see and avoid other objects in the sky. That’s going to require some leaps forward in technology and it’s going to take some time.
“Making safety a core business function is really what we’re working toward in aviation, and it’s an approach that’s paid dividends,” he says. “That’s the approach we must take with this issue as well. We have a responsibility to do this right.”
http://fortune.com/2015/08/17/captain-sully-drones/
Are Canada’s drone regulations too permissive?
by Press
Geordon Omand, The Canadian Press
VANCOUVER — Experts say Canada’s permissive approach to regulating commercial drones has made it a world leader in the burgeoning field, while others warn that inadequate enforcement of the soaring number of amateur flyers is putting the public at risk.
People have been increasingly taking to the skies now that recreational drones are more affordable than ever.
That upswing in popularity, the lack of public-awareness campaigns and skimpy enforcement efforts have put the unmanned aircraft on a collision course with their manned counterparts.
A rise in incidents involving recreational drones interfering with planes and helicopters has some calling for Transport Canada to sanction unlawful recreational drone users.
“Public awareness and enforcement is lacking,” said Ernie Zeisman, president of a drone training outfit in the British Columbia Interior. “They need to begin clamping down.”
Currently, a recreational pilot operating a drone weighing under 35 kilograms doesn’t require either a licence or a special permit to fly but must follow a list of Transport Canada safety guidelines. These include stipulations such as staying nine kilometres from an airport, flying under 90 metres and always keeping their craft within eyesight.
Zeisman said a shortage of resources are mostly to blame for the lack of enforcement.
Commercial drones — officially referred to as unmanned air vehicles, or UAVs — are a different matter, he said.
“Commercial operators very much stick to the regulations and want to be responsible,” said Zeisman. “They don’t want to lose their licence.”
Drones used for research or commercial work must have a Special Flight Operating Permit, unless they’re able to satisfy stringent exemption requirements, such as operating in extremely remote locations.
New regulations are currently working their way through the system and are in part designed to incorporate recreational drone use into the regulatory fold. They would also loosen permitting requirements for smaller-scale commercial operations, freeing up Transport Canada resources.
For commercial drones, Canada’s regulatory framework is emerging as a world leader.
Jeremy Laliberte, a professor at the University of Carleton, says Canada has long been “ahead of the game,” in part thanks to the country’s decade-long history of regulating drone use. It’s only been in recent years that the United States has made forays into the regulatory field.
“There’s far more happening here than down there, to say the least,” said Laliberte, a professor at Carleton University.
“But they’re catching up,” he added.
The United States has imposed a universal ban on all commercial drone operations, with some exemptions. So far, the Federal Aviation Administration has issued only 1,000 such allowances.
In contrast, Transport Canada granted 1,672 permits last year, 945 in 2013 and 345 the year before. Between Jan. 1 and April 30 of this year 330 permits were issued.
The head start has given the country a comparative advantage in the drone sector, said Robert Kendall, executive director of Unmanned Systems Canada.
Unmanned systems groups from Brazil and South Africa have come to Canada in recent years to learn about setting up their own regulatory frameworks, said Kendall.
Canada succeeded in drawing Amazon to British Columbia, where the online retail giant is testing a drone delivery service.
However, some industry representatives argued that Canadian regulations aren’t going far enough or fast enough, and Canada risks losing its competitive advantage.
Jeremy Byatt, chief operating officer at ING Robotic Aviation, called for more government action in allowing drones equipped with collision-avoiding transponders to fly beyond visual sight of the operator.
“If Canada were the first country to properly integrate beyond-visual-line-of-sight flights outside combat zones for commercial purposes, this would help create an industry and keep us ahead of the U.S.,” he said.
The United States is testing beyond-line-of-sight drone flights, which other countries have been reluctant to allow.
“We’re falling behind the world,” said Byatt. “The U.S. will pass us and what was a huge economic advantage will disappear.”
Several uses would apply, from counting wildlife to surveilling natural disasters to keeping an eye on remote pipelines, he said.
“We’re sending people out on quad bikes in January in the middle of the wilderness (to monitor pipelines),” he said. “How dangerous is that?”
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/are-canada-s-drone-regulations-too-permissive-1.2519071
More enforcement coming for careless drone operators, trainer says
After a rogue drone grounded firefighting helicopters near Oliver for nearly five hours, the devices are again in the spotlight.
David Carlos owns Victoria Aerial Photos and Survey, a school that trains UAV pilots. He says commercial operators currently need licenses – but so far consumers don’t.
“But it’s coming. I really believe it’s going to come soon. Based on what we’re seeing happen. And, I think everybody … it should be like boating, recreational boating licenses. Even recreational people have to have a basic idea of what they’re doing.”
He says contrary to what some seem to think – the rules around flying them are very clear.
“And it says right there on the ‘don’t fly’ – it says ‘within restrcited airspace, including near or over military bases, prisons, and forest fires. Anywhere there’s a forest fire is restricted airspace, automatically.”
Carlos say Transport Canada does have clear rules about what’s allowed – but catching troublemakers can be tough.
He says incidents like today’s will likely lead to better enforcement.
http://www.cknw.com/2015/08/16/drone-school-owner-says-enforcement-coming-for-bad-operators/
DJI’s Phantom 3 has it’s biggest rival in YUNEEC’s 4K Typhoon Q500
by James Trew
We’d understand if you’re not familiar with Yuneec; we’ve only written about its products twice. However, it’s fairly well-known in the quadcopter world, and best described as a direct rival to DJI. When I reviewed DJI’s 4K Phantom 3 Professional drone ($1,259), a reader asked if we could compare it to Yuneec’s rival Typhoon Q500 model (around $1,100, but with a lower-res 1080p camera). Days later, Yuneec announced an updated Typhoon with 4K shooting for $1,299, making the comparison much easier. It only seemed fair to grant our reader’s wish, and check out what the new Typhoon had to offer.
The similarities between DJI’s and Yuneec’s consumer quadcopters are many. Both have 4K cameras with stabilizing gimbals. Both are “ready to fly,” which mostly means there’s no assembly required; just charge and go. Both are easy for beginners to control, and both offer first-person view (aka FPV), or the ability to see what the camera is seeing in the air in real time, usually via the transmitter/controller. There are other products that offer a similar feature set, but DJI and Yuneec have done a good job packaging them in ways that appeal to new flyers and hobbyists alike.
There are also some significant differences and on paper, at least, many of them are in Yuneec’s favor. Despite being slightly more expensive, the Typhoon offers better value. The $1,299 4K version is available with a carry case (you’ll need to buy one for your Phantom). It also comes with two batteries versus one on the Phantom. Then there’s the transmitter, which has a built-in touchscreen display. This is how you view what the Typhoon’s camera sees (you can also use it to access settings). In contrast, DJI users need a phone to do this, this approach works well, but is one more thing to bring along/charge. The last, and perhaps coolest extra with the Typhoon, is the Steadygrip, a hand-held mount for the 4K camera. Detach it from the drone, clip it to the accessory and you can film smooth video on the ground, too. DJI’s working on a similar product, but it’s not available yet, and won’t ever be in the box of the Phantom 3 (the camera is non-removable).
You’re also getting more flight features with the Typhoon. The ground station has GPS in it (actually, most quadcopters do, but not always the transmitter). This means the Typhoon has options like “follow me” and “watch me,” which Phantom 3 doesn’t have right now (but some features are coming eventually). So, the Yuneec is the one to get, right? Maybe. The real test is taking it up in the air and shooting some video. Which is, of course, what I did.
I’ll preface my impressions by stating that I learned to fly on a Phantom, and have flown one for many hours, so this is what I am used to. Yuneec made the Typhoon pretty easy to fly. I had a few minor wobbles the first time, but this might be because of my prior Phantom experience. One example is that, by default, the Typhoon won’t fly within 26 feet of you (or, really, the transmitter).
This caught me off guard when I first tried to land, as I’m used to bringing the Phantom in real close, and sometimes “catch landing” (getting it low enough to hold the landing gear, and make it think it’s on the ground). I had the Typhoon above water, and it wouldn’t come nearer. I had to walk backward far enough to be able to land it on solid ground, and not in an ideal spot (see the photo at the top of this article). The same problem can catch you out mid-flight, too. It’ll suddenly stop moving as it hits the exclusion zone around you. I get it; it’s a safety feature (and one you can turn off).
The Typhoon’s biggest problem in the air, I found, was that it’s not as responsive as the Phantom. DJI’s consumer product is quite a bit smaller, and responds quickly to any touch on the controls. You can throw it left to right quite sharply, and it’ll visibly pitch (but hold its position), and it manages to do so while keeping the camera steady — though if you really throw it, the landing gear/propellers can get in the shot. The Typhoon felt more sedate. Not sluggish, but less immediate. You can control its speed, but that doesn’t change the general responsiveness. Some might say this is a benefit, since I only once got propellers in the shot. But I do prefer the tighter feel of DJI’s setup.
What the Typhoon does have going for it is excellent battery life, so you get more time in the air. On average I got 20 minutes before it would start warning me to bring it home. The Phantom 3 starts complaining between 15 and 17 minutes, I’ve found. It might not seem like a big difference, but those extra few minutes feel like hours when you’re behind the sticks. One minor thing: I’ve never been a fan of how the Phantom 3 looks, but I like the Typhoon even less. As one colleague put it, it looks like it should fire Nerf bullets. It’s a little… on the boyish side. The Phantom 3 isn’t handsome, but smaller and more unthreatening.
Most important for many people will be the quality of the camera. The quadcopter is going to be secondary for customers that are interested in the aerial video first. Here, I think DJI wins. The camera on the Typhoon is pretty decent, but it reacts to different light conditions with mixed success. In the sample video, you can see the difference with the direct sun in the opening clip (the second clip is just moments later, without the sun in shot), or spot the color/temperature of the ground change as I adjust the camera pitch between the 1:50 and 1:56 minute mark. On a positive note, there’s very little fish-eye curving going on, and the results are generally pleasing. But, between the two, the Phantom 3 Professional appears to have the edge.
With more time, I might get to love the Typhoon a bit more, who knows. Right now, though, I’m still leaning toward the Phantom 3. The Typhoon definitely offers more value, and the extra flight features will appeal to some people. But, if your priority is video and photos, or ease of flying, or both, the Phantom 3 steals it.
http://www.engadget.com/2015/08/16/yuneec-4k-typhoon-drone//
Regulation of UAV in Australia – a balancing act
Earlier this month, Australian start-up Flirtey was involved in the first successful drone delivery to be legally conducted in the United States. This is the first step in what could be a revolution in the way medical and other supplies are provided in remote areas.
One of the key impediments to the use of drones in the United States has been its restrictive aviation laws (the recent successful trial in the United Stated required Federal Aviation Authority approval).
By comparison to the United States, Australia has less restrictive laws in relation to the flying of drones. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) is in the process of reviewing and modernising the regulation of drones and expects to complete this by 2016. While the United States is looking to decrease the regulation of drones in order to stimulate technology development, there is speculation that Australia will introduce more stringent regulations in relation to drones.
Any new regulations will need to strike a balance between protecting the safety and privacy of individuals, without overly restricting the ability of Australian organisations to exploit this evolving technology and the commercial opportunities that go alongside it.
CURRENT REGULATIONS: Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998
CASA is the body responsible for regulating Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) in Australia. UAV are colloquially referred to as “drones”. Most UAVs are piloted by remote control and often mounted with cameras.
Under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, UAV (weighing more than 100g and less than 100kg) cannot generally be flown:
- higher than 400 feet;
- within 10m horizontally and 30 feet vertically of a person (although there are exceptions to this prohibition for those involved in operating the UAV and others standing behind the UAV on take off);
- over a large group of people at a height from which, if any of its components fail, it would not be able to clear the area;
- over or near prohibited or restricted areas (such as an aerodromes or restricted military areas);
- in conditions other than Visual Meteorological Conditions (i.e. bad weather);
- in or into a cloud; or
- at night.
It may be possible to use a UAV outside some of the above restrictions:
- with the approval of CASA or another relevant authority (such as air traffic control); or
- if the UAV is being operated within the sight of the UAV pilot.
There is also a general prohibition on flying a UAV in a manner which is hazardous to property, a person or another aircraft. The maximum penalty for contravening this provision is 50 penalty units (which currently amounts to $8,500).
Dropping off parcels or other items via a UAV is not prohibited, provided that nothing is dropped or discharged from a UAV in a way that creates a hazard to another aircraft, person or property.
In addition, companies that use UAVs must obtain an operator’s certificate from CASA and any individual that flies a UAV for commercial gain must have a controller’s certificate. There are currently 257 certified UAV operators in Australia, and with UAVs available for sale in Australian retail stores, this number is expected to increase exponentially over the coming years.
Can I fly over private land?
As UAVs are new technology, there is some uncertainty as to when the flying of a UAV over private property without permission will amount to a trespass to land.
A trespass to land is an interference with land owners’ rights. Land owners’ rights extend to the airspace over their land to a reasonable height.
There is no clear guidance on the height a UAV needs to be flown to avoid trespassing on private land. Based on past cases that have dealt with aerial photography from planes, scenic helicopter rides, and the height that bullets can be shot across land – as long as the UAVs are flown over land quickly and at a height that does not detract from the land owner’s use and enjoyment of their property, there is no trespass to land.
Will the Privacy Act apply to video footage taken by a drone?
The Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) only applies to Commonwealth agencies and organisations with an annual turnover of more than $3 million (with certain exceptions). Private UAV pilots and small companies (such as technology start-ups) would generally not be subject to the Privacy Act.
If an organisation is caught by the Privacy Act and it uses UAVs:
- The video footage taken by the UAVs they use or control could potentially be considered “personal information” if someone can be identified, or reasonably identified, in the video footage.
- Whether someone can be reasonably identified will depend on the circumstances. For example, footage taken by a UAV of a well known celebrity, or an individual that is well known to the organisation, would likely amount to the collection of personal information. The organisation would need to comply with the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) in the Privacy Act regarding the collection and use of such personal information. Under APP 5, an organisation must take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to provide a privacy collection notice (this can be at the time of collection or, if that is not practicable, as soon as practicable after the collection). While there is a strong argument that it would not be reasonable or practicable to provide such collection notices in many instances where UAV video footage is taken of identified individuals, whether a collection notice needs to be issued will ultimately depend on the particular circumstances of each case.
CONCERNS WITH THE EXISTING LAW – A QUESTION OF PERSPECTIVE
An individual’s perspective
Currently in Australia, UAVs are primarily regulated from a safety perspective. There are no specific regulations which protect the privacy of individuals in connection with the use of UAVs other than those in the Privacy Act (which, as shown above, do not apply to individual private operators).
Unfortunately, except in exceptional circumstances, there is little that you can do to prevent a nosey neighbour from taking video footage of your backyard using a UAV. As a result, the government is under increasing pressure to enact legislation that prevents UAVs filming individuals on private property without their consent.
In the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report ‘Serious Invasions of Privacy in the Digital Era’ tabled in September 2014, it recommended the enactment of a new statutory cause of action for serious invasions of privacy. Such a new action could potentially apply to private UAV pilots if they recorded an individual in circumstances where the individual would have a reasonable expectation of privacy. This may assist individuals to take action against neighbours and unscrupulous operators who use UAVs in a manner that invades their privacy.
The commercial perspective
While introducing a new statutory cause of action would offer more protection to individuals, it would likely increase the administrative burden of operators in the emerging UAV industry. For example, real estate photography organisations may be required to obtain consent from numerous homeowners before they take sweeping footage of a property’s surrounds from a UAV which would be impractical.
As we have seen, the existing laws already create a number of issues for operators of UAVs:
- there is no clear guidance on the height a UAV needs to be flown in order to avoid trespassing on private property; and
- if an operator is subject to the Privacy Act, it is not always clear if and when such an organisation needs to provide a privacy collection statement to “identifiable” individuals, and otherwise comply with the privacy laws, regarding any video footage taken by a UAV.
To facilitate the use and investment in UAVs and new innovative delivery services, any new regulations should clarify the height at which UAVs can fly without risk of liability for trespass to private property and clarify that an organisation is not required to comply with the Privacy Act in relation to footage taken by UAVs. In addition, any new statutory cause of action for invasions of privacy should be carefully drafted to ensure it does not extend to incidental and non-intrusive drone video footage.
WHERE TO FROM HERE
While CASA is in the process of amending the regulation of UAVs and expects to complete this by 2016, it has indicated that the privacy issues associated with UAVs are beyond its remit. The new regulations will need to carefully balance the interests of ensuring its citizens are appropriately protected whist minimising “red tape” in order to encourage growth and investment in this emerging sector.
This article was provided courtesy of By Matthew Craven (Special Counsel) & Claire Harris (Graduate Lawyer), of Corrs Chambers Westgarth lawyers.
http://www.spatialsource.com.au/2015/08/17/regulation-of-uav-in-australia-a-balancing-act/