A short, engaging video from the UK CAA for drone pilots.
This morning, one of my Twitter pilot friends in the UK shared a one-minute video from the UK CAA that quickly and effectively told drone pilots to be look and listen for helicopters that might be flying at their altitude. Remember drone pilots are supposed to stay under 400 feet altitude (in both the UK and the US) and helicopters have no minimum altitude (at least not in the US). That means we share that space. Of course, if drones illegally (or with a waiver) fly higher, that’s even more space that we share.
I watched the video. It was excellent. A link in the tweet pointed to the “full version” and I clicked it. It’s only 3 minutes long and has the same basic message but includes some interesting B-roll footage of an EMS helicopter and operations. Something to keep watchers engaged while the message is shared. Here it is:
Again, I know this is a UK CAA production, but it applies in the US, too. And likely many other countries that have drone/UAV regulations.
When I retweeted this with a mention the FAA’s Twitter account, the FAA — to my surprise — immediately responded to a link to their YouTube playlist:
.@mlanger we love your enthusiasm around #drone safety! We have a series of drone webinars and live Q&As that help to educate drone operators on the rules and how to fly safely at https://t.co/KAeFZwAGC6.
— The FAA (@FAANews) September 12, 2019
I took a look. What I found didn’t surprise me at all. It was the same dull FAA content I’ve been looking at for the past 20 years. Short slideshows that look like they were produced with PowerPoint 95, narrated with a boring authoritative voice. Screen captures of 30+ minute long webinars featuring a tiny talking head and the same dull slide shows. This is the FAA’s idea of continuing education: producing content that no one wants to watch.
See for yourself. Watch the video I embedded above. Then try to watch a few that the FAA linked to. Do you see the difference? I do.
When I critiqued the FAA on Twitter, they responded with this:
Like some of these: https://t.co/db5g2KfhsF
Are you a #FAASTeam Rep? If not, we would love for you to volunteer and then create some some safety videos with us. https://t.co/MxO8TbDwg7
— FAA Safety Briefing (@FAASafetyBrief) September 12, 2019
I looked at a few of these videos. Some of them are indeed better. One or two are actually pretty good.
Of course, leave it to the FAA to try to enlist me as a volunteer to help them. They have a lot of nerve. Their often absurd rules cost me money that lines the pockets of other businesses without increasing safety. The requirement for VFR-only aircraft to spend $10K to $20K to install a completely useless radar altimeter is one example. The requirement to have a mechanic remove and reinstall my doors when I need them off is another. But now I’m getting way off topic. And angry.
My point is, the UK CAA put together a short, interesting, and informative video (embedded above). We need more of that and we need the FAA — with or without industry partners — to step up to the plate and provide it.
Discover more from An Eclectic Mind
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good video from CAA UK. Well done. Best shot was the presenter showing how small a drone appears to a pilot (effectively invisible) when only a second from impact.
Agreed.
I agree that the CAA video is helpful as it stresses the importance of the drone user realising how small a drone will appear to the pilot of a helicopter at, say, 100 knots.
The UK is going through a major shift on policy towards drones after the chaos caused at Gatwick (a major UK hub airport) recently when a drone or drones were flown deliberately into the take off path of airliners at max power and weight. The airport was closed for days, subsequent
cancellations and disruption wasted £ millions. Drones and their owners suddenly shifted in the public consciousness from ‘cool dudes with skill’ to ‘selfish psychonerds who need locking up’.
Like you, I fly both drones and aircraft (ppl, fixed wing, in my case) and I enjoy both activities but I fully sympathise with the CAA who carry the responsibility for making flying safe.
They want a register of drone owners and users (as well as aero-modellers more generally) and they want to test users for competency and mental health.
Personally, I have no problem with this, my life has been peppered with tests and exams and I no longer fear them.
The aero-modelling community is most resistant, however. They are probably highly skilled pilots but they worry about their ‘harmless little hobby’ becoming full of form-filling and bureaucracy.
The BMFA (drones and models) and the CAA sat down for talks last week and I hear that the atmosphere was good and positive and all are hoping for a form of ‘light regulation’ which will allow both parties to shake hands.
In the US, we have testing and certification requirements for commercial drone operators — those who fly for pay (usually photo flights). All drones were required to be registered as well — mine is — but I think the Trump administration may have rolled back that policy for hobbyists in its never-ending quest to undo everything the Obama administration did. (I’m not sure on that so don’t quote me.)
The problem, however is not the responsible pilots who follow the rules. It’s the rule breakers and the government’s lack of ability or desire to prosecute those who break the rules.
What I liked about this video is its use of common sense and logic to appeal to all drone owners about the danger their operations can impose on legally operating manned aircraft. The message is simple: if you see or hear a helicopter, land the drone until it’s gone because there’s no way a helicopter can see and avoid a drone.
Maria, I asked about your door dilemma when I recently attended the Robinson factory maintenance training. The instructor referenced the R44 POH section 8, page 8-6 that reads, “All four cabin doors may be removed and installed by maintenance personal or pilots.” There is also a brief description of how to remove and install the door here.
The R44 maintenance manual (downloadable from the Robinson website for free) has the procedure for door removal and installation in chapter 4, page 4.5, paragraph 4.130.
Mike
Yeah, Mike, but the FAA has “interpreted” door removal as a “maintenance item” that must be done by a mechanic for helicopters on a Part 135 certificate. I recently emailed with Pat Cox at Robinson, who is working on this interpretation issue, and he confirms that the FAA has not yet budged on this issue. Pat and I have been working on this for over a year.
Please believe me when I tell you that I am on this since it so negatively impacts my ability do do photo flights affordably for my clients.
And yes, I have a copy of the maintenance manual and, of course, the POH, both of which state it can be done by the pilot. The FAA simply does not care what the manufacturer says.