Examining New Zealand Unmanned Aircraft Users’ Measures for Mitigating Operational Risks

Abstract

While the potential risks of unmanned aircraft have received significant attention, there is little in the academic literature that examines how operational risks are mitigated by users. This study examines the prevalence of key operational risk mitigations amongst a sample of 812 unmanned aircraft users in New Zealand, their confidence levels in identifying and complying with airspace requirements, and their ability to read visual navigation charts (VNCs) and use AirShare (a local tool that shows airspace requirements). Significant differences exist between the number and type of mitigations applied, users’ confidence levels in identifying and complying with airspace requirements, and users’ ability to read VNCs and use AirShare based upon user characteristics. Education, practical assessment, membership of a professional body, professional/semi-professional use, and operating for a certificated organisation all improve risk mitigation (greater number and variety of risk mitigations applied). The only risk mitigation employed by almost all users was conducting a pre-flight check of their aircraft, identifying the need for users to view risk mitigation more holistically. The findings support policy directions related to educational requirements, the ability for member-based organisations and professional bodies to self-regulate, and the fitness of the current regulatory system in New Zealand.

BVLOS Unmanned Aircraft Operations in Forest Environments

“…However, to operate above 400 ft, in most jurisdictions, requires regulatory approvals, such as licensing or certification. For this reason, it is critical that operators check aeronautical information as part of mitigating airborne risk and maintaining situational awareness [21]. Listening to air band radio, after receiving appropriate training to understand standard aviation phraseologies, is also strongly advised to enhance situational awareness.…”

“…In this sense, unmanned aircraft operators are expected to maintain VLOS with their aircraft and surrounding airspace or to use EVLOS and achieve the same standard with the assistance of visual observers. They should also listen to the local air band radio frequency to assist with situational awareness when operating outside of shielded areas: areas that are shielded by obstacles such that no manned aircraft could reasonably enter them [21]. To achieve BVLOS operations that are compliant with the requirements of Class G airspace, the unmanned aircraft will need to have the technological capability of fulfilling the 'see, detect, and avoid' principle, which is commonly referred to as Detect And Avoid (DAA) systems.…”

“…The advantage of restricted airspace is that the operator only needs to be able to ensure that ground risks are managed and that the aircraft will not leave the boundary (in terms of area and altitude) of the restricted airspace. This avoids the need for complex DAA systems because there is no potential for collision with manned aircraft, but it does not remove the need to mitigate other risks [21]. Some countries, such as Australia, also treat remote airspace in a similar manner to restricted airspace and allow for BVLOS operations without DAA systems.…”

“…Nonetheless, there may be exceptions that require specific mitigations to reduce ground risks (people, property, and terrain). As highlighted in extant literature, these mitigations sometimes overlap with reducing airborne risk, while others are specific to only ground risks [21,36]. Many of these issues will be covered in Section 5.3, which details other considerations such as training and maintenance, which are organisation-specific due to differences in the nature of operations and types of aircraft being operated.…”

“…Many of these issues will be covered in Section 5.3, which details other considerations such as training and maintenance, which are organisation-specific due to differences in the nature of operations and types of aircraft being operated. Parachute systems, combined with minimum safe altitudes, the wearing of personal protective equipment, and ensuring staff are trained on first aid and emergency responses, are effective ways of mitigating ground risks [21] and are suitable for the forestry environment. One that is particularly relevant is considering how any fire risk might be managed, which is particularly important when using a petrol-powered unmanned aircraft.…”