JULY 2018 99
(5.5km) of a controlled aerodrome.
For non-controlled aerodromes,
including aircraft landing areas, CASA
excludes drone operations from on or
above runways or taxiways or in the
approach and departure paths of the
aerodrome.
Most small drones do not have the
payload capability to carry avionics
that would allow them to operate in
controlled airspace and interact with
the broader air traffic management
system. At the moment they’re allowed
to operate in only a small volume of
airspace just above the ground (and
not near controlled airports as above).
It seems reasonable to expect to be
able to identify and control a drone
in the same way as other controlled
airspace users, so the development
of a drone traffic management
system (commonly called UTM, or
UAS traffic management system)
that interacts with the national air
traffic management system will be an
important medium-term objective to
enable a greater scope of operations
for these drones in more congested
airspace.
Larger drones carrying heavier
payloads beyond visual line of sight
for extended missions is the next
significant frontier for commercial and
emergency services drone operators.
With all the known limitations of
the see-and-avoid principle that has
long been the foundation of collision
avoidance for visual flight rules
operations, there is an understandable
reluctance by regulators to allow
unfettered beyond visual line of sight
operations.
Part of the problem is that we need
to know where the drone is in three
dimensions and where it is going
so that its path can be deconflicted
with other airspace users and vertical
obstructions. That means the drone
needs to know its geographical
location and elevation and be able
to transmit this information to the
operator, via a communications
network.
And we all know that our
telecommunications networks
(think mobile phone or VHF) do not
provide 100 per cent coverage. So
wherever extended beyond visual line
of sight operations are planned, a
comprehensive network of receivers/
transmitters are required to connect
the operator to the drone in real time.
For most of us, the thought of using
a drone for evil purposes is abhorrent.
But in places of conflict and civil
unrest, drones are being used to gather
intelligence and deliver weapons. Due
to their size and ease of deployment,
drones are a simple but effective tool
for people seeking to cause harm to
others. And that means we need to
have the ability to detect and disable
drones if they operate where and in
ways that they shouldn’t. There are
various counter-drone technologies
available today, and development
continues, much in the same way as
counter-air operations developed
alongside the introduction of new
aircraft capabilities.
Some counter-drone capabilities
rely on interrupting electronic signals
being received by the drone. This
disruption of the electromagnetic
spectrum needs to be carefully
considered, coordinated and
controlled to avoid unforeseen
consequences, particularly in highly
populated areas.
Drones are now becoming widely
used in urban areas for recreational
and commercial activities and are
set to become part of an increasing
problem for urban planners dealing
with volumetric spatial requirements.
In terms of urban planning,
integrating the use of drones for
business and recreation while
maintaining aviation safety is
becoming an important consideration
for future planning and design as well
as economic development outcomes.
The increasing use of drones, with
their expanding scope of operations
and increased range and payload, will
need to be considered in all relevant
legislation and regulations, including
urban strategies and planning
provisions.
Drone operations facilities
(variously called ‘droneports’, ‘drone
zones’ or other such names), like
airports and helicopter landing
sites, will also need restrictions on
the height, form and extent of thebuilt environment to protect flight
paths and prevent building-induced
turbulence. They will also need to
be designed to prevent potential
impacts to wildlife and not adversely
affect neighbours with noise, light or
other amenity impacts.
The simplest way to achieve this is
to incorporate them into the National
Airports Safeguarding Framework.
They should be protected from
incompatible development in the
same way that heliports, particularly
those on hospitals or other
emergency services facilities are
protected.
A highly accurate, three-
dimensional digital elevation
database will be required to ensure
that drones can operate without
colliding with permanent or
temporary vertical obstructions such
as buildings, towers, cranes or other
structures.
Finally, from a safety oversight
perspective, we know that regulations
are constantly being devised and
updated as new technologies enable
different uses and applications for
drones. Finding the right level of
regulator involvement will always be
a topic of robust conversation.
The Civil Aviation Safety
Authority has worked hard to ensure
that people can operate drones in
the greatest practical range of uses
while achieving appropriate safety
outcomes, and industry should
expect this to continue. A positive
and constructive relationship
between industry and the regulator
will serve to advance the interests
of all stakeholders as technology
develops in ways we could never have
imagined.
Keith Tonkin is managing
director and principal consultant
of Aviation Projects‘Drones are
set to become
part of an
increasing
problem
for urban
planners.’
Integrating drones
Droneports will need to be
designed to not adversely affect
neighbours with noise, light or
other amenity impacts.AURORA
FLIGHT SCIENCES