Regulation of UAVs

[Bob Hart]

This level of investigation and reporting hints that manufacturers of small UAVs, who aspire to their product being used for commercial air operations, may yet have to step up and meet some basic airworthiness requirements lest they in the future become subject to airworthiness directives and grounding of types as with GA aircraft. A time before failure of 10.1 hours of operation for a major structural component is not a good look for a reputable manufacturer.

Within the web page, click on the "Read report" tab for the complete analysis.

Investigation: AO-2015-112 - In-flight break-up involving a DJI S900 remotely piloted aircraft, at Toowoomba, Qld on 19 September 2015

[Bob Hart]

Investigation: AO-2015-035 - Loss of operator control involving an Aeronavics SkyJib 8 remotely piloted aircraft near the Melbourne Cricket Ground, Melbourne, VIC on 29 March 2015

[Mark Dobson]

Thanks for posting that report Bob.

So despite the operator checking everything, installing a parachute system, and operating in a safe manner he experienced a total breakdown of his DJI S900.

Fortunately no one was injured. But that was surely down to luck.

I feel a slight nervousness everytime I launch my DJI Inspire 1 and that is despite performing rigorous pre-flight tests and operating strictly within the regulations of my CAA Certification. There are just so many small things that could turn the UAV into a falling brick.

I wonder whether DJI will implement any changes into their manufacturing processes as a result of this?

[Bob Hart]

Many are bemoaning regulation of the industry curtailing their freedoms.

Safety aside, one upside for the end-user just may be a little more judicious quality control by any manufacturers to create hardware that actually lasts rather than living with a percentage survival rate bolstered by a replacement scheme.

It is one thing to keep a disgruntled consumer quiet either by generous refund/replacement deals or threat of burial by litigation of those who get stroppy. It is another when there is a strong enough umpire overseeing the game.

Scrupulous examination of incidents and accidents has been demonstrated as even-handed by these two investigations and I think that should be acknowledged.

[Bob Hart]

Originally Posted by Mark Dobson

Thanks for posting that report Bob.

So despite the operator checking everything, installing a parachute system, and operating in a safe manner he experienced a total breakdown of his DJI S900.

Fortunately no one was injured. But that was surely down to luck.

I feel a slight nervousness everytime I launch my DJI Inspire 1 and that is despite performing rigorous pre-flight tests and operating strictly within the regulations of my CAA Certification. There are just so many small things that could turn the UAV into a falling brick.

I wonder whether DJI will implement any changes into their manufacturing processes as a result of this?

From the report, it seems that the investigation may have mined only so far as the Australian reseller. If for no other reason than the reseller telling DJI, "the investigators came knocking at my door I think you need to know this", DJI would be wise to invest some effort into failure modes and solutions.

An example. A simple fine-gauge tension lanyard threaded around the circumference of the structure and secured to the outer ends of all support pillars would have stopped that failure in its tracks. It is not a new idea. The principle was used dynamically in early four-blade aurogyro aircraft rotors.

[Bob Hart]

Here is a bit of new information.

CASA set to cut red tape for drone operators

[Chris Harding]

Wow that sounds like good news Bob ... My mate completed a drone training course in Jandakot just last month at a cost of $4000.00 and now as long as you stick to the requirements you don't need the licence any more as long as the UAV is under the 2kg weight limit. A bit of a bummer for those wanting to fly a standard DJI and have paid all that money out for CASA certified training