[Peetwo]

AMROBA.

CASA, without consultation, repealed CAO 1080.34.

This CAO is, or was, the CAR 42V approved data supporting the radio inspections of Schedule 5.

Schedule 5 radio inspections reference the CAO.

Currently, aircraft being maintained to Schedule 5 cannot be released to service as the applicable “approved” maintenance data has been repealed by CASA.

There is a possibility of hundreds of aircraft that have been illegally released to service.

CASA’s Michael Broom is aware of the issue.


(4)               Take the following action in relation to navigation systems in aircraft equipped for I.F.R. flight:

                    (a)  check the ADF system for accuracy and correct performance in all modes of operation within the limits specified in section 108.34 of the Civil Aviation Orders;

                    (b)  check the VOR system for correct performance within the limits specified in section 108.34 of the Civil Aviation Orders;

                    ©  check the localiser system for correct performance within the limits specified in section 108.34 of the Civil Aviation Orders;

                    (d)  check the glideslope system for correct performance within the limits specified in section 108.34 of the Civil Aviation Orders;

Regards

Ken Cannane

Executive Director

AMROBA

Phone:   (02) 97592715

Fax:       (02) 97592025

Mobile:   0408029329

www.amroba.org.au

Total incompetence - yet again.   Let them explain that away to the Press, the industry, the Senate and the insurance companies and the passengers and the company's affected.  Maybe they could ask Wodger - to sort out the 'team work' and suitable "paper-work" for the prosecution.  Although who should prosecute whom is an interesting legal quandary.   
WTD are we paying for here:::  

UAV mania out of control? What do we get from CAsA - Oliver droning on..& on

Senator FAWCETT: Changing topics completely to unmanned systems, are you aware of the recent decision of the FAA to require all operators of unmanned systems to register those because of the concern that they have had that even the smaller than two kilogram type operations, which at the moment I do not believe CASA intends to be engaged with, have come so close to causing accidents that they do not believe they can prevent accidents just through education? Do you have any similar concerns here or intent to try and influence the operation of sub two kilogram systems?


Mr Skidmore : It is fair to say that the remotely piloted aircraft systems is one of my risk areas and it is certainly one that we are focused on to understand the implications of all of those systems and how best we can actually put regulations in place to mitigate the concerns that are there. We are reviewing our CASR 101 at the moment, which is our unmanned aerial vehicle regulation, to make a consideration to see how best we can actually frame it. It was established in 2001. That is certainly a long time ago and things have changed since then. There is work that we need to do. We need to understand the actual implications across all of the remotely piloted aircraft systems and how best to implement them.

In regards to what the FAA is doing, I think it is fair to say that we will look at all the regulators out there and see what everyone is doing in regards to the remotely piloted aircraft space and see how best we can implement that in Australia.

Senator FAWCETT: I may come back and ask for some specific updates in another forum on that one...

...CHAIR: He actually answered that before.


Senator DASTYARI: I am sorry, I was in another hearing.

Mr Skidmore : We have the Civil Aviation Safety Regulation 101 introduced in 2001. We are currently in the process of doing an implementation review of that regulation. We are looking at all the other regulators around the world to see what other regulators are doing regarding the drones, or remotely piloted aircraft systems, and how best to implement regulations regarding those. We continue to talk with associations as well, the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Association, to get an understanding of that and I have had recent discussions with unmanned aerial vehicle operators just to get more of a feel of some of the situations out there.

Senator DASTYARI: I will ask one more question. I was in a different hearing when you came here, so I was not aware of this. Just for the purpose of not covering old ground, I will have a look at the evidence that has already been given and then put questions on notice if I have anything further. One final question is: as part of these discussions, have you been in discussion with the other security agencies including the Attorney-General's Department? I know they are all coming tomorrow so I was going to put the same question to them, but have you actually had discussions with, I assume, the security division of the Attorney-General's Department or other agencies in developing that, or is it stand alone?

Mr Skidmore : I am not sure exactly what that is regarding. The Privacy Act is with other departments. We worry about the safety of the airspace and the aircraft and people on the ground.

Senator DASTYARI: There are probably a series of different considerations regarding drones or as you describe them with the more official title. There is a privacy concern. There is certainly a security concern and there is also the airspace and air management accident kind of concern. Obviously you manage the airspace component. Matters to do with privacy are matters for the Attorney-General's Department and matters to do with security obviously relate to others as well. I was wondering what the interaction is between you and other departments in relation to developing the review that you are undergoing.

Mr Skidmore : I have not had direct involvement with the Attorney-General's Department but we will continue to engage and consult with all agencies interested in—

Senator GALLACHER: If I send a drone up into airspace, is it an offence? Will I be convicted?

Mr Skidmore : As a private operator?

Senator GALLACHER: As a private citizen. If I buy a $1,000 drone and I send it up into the flight path, is that an offence?

Mr Skidmore : If you go above 400 feet, yes.

Senator GALLACHER: Is there an existing law that says I will be convicted?

Mr Skidmore : Yes.

Senator GALLACHER: So, you have obviously got interaction with the Attorney-General, or at least in the past.

Mr Skidmore : In regards to enforcement activities.

Senator DASTYARI: You said that you had not had a discussion recently with the Attorney-General's Department, and I appreciate that. If I was going to extend that to the security agencies, would you have the same answer?

Mr Skidmore : I have not had individual discussions with them. I am not sure whether anyone in my authority has so far.

Senator DASTYARI: Was that a no?

Dr Aleck : I personally have not.

Senator DASTYARI: If you can take that on notice. If the answer is no, if someone at mid-level comes to us in the next day and says, 'Actually, we have,' then I will understand that.

Mr Skidmore : We will take it on notice and then we will refer back any conversation.
Dr Aleck : I might say that we have participated in various hearings and House of Representative hearings in which representatives of those agencies were present. We all gave evidence, and, in the process, views were exchanged. It may well have been that, at the margins of those hearings, discussions were held, but to the best of my knowledge there was no formal discussion involving negotiations or discussions with those agencies.

Senator DASTYARI: I will put the rest on notice because you may have already answered them...

Ok with the above in mind - & given the 20+ year & 300+ million$ spent on the worst regs in the world - I found the following headline & article very amusing..

Courtesy the AFR:

The government moves too slowly for tech start-ups: Uber Australia



  Uber Australia chief executive David Rohrsheim. Louise Kennerley


by Jessica Sier
Uber's local managing director says governments need to engage earlier with disruptive tech players to avoid a repeat of the acrimonious protests and ongoing legal uncertainty that has clouded the ride-sharing app's early years. 

Platforms such as Airbnb and Uber have caused significant global controversy because their unanticipated technologies mean their activities have often been unregulated and even occasionally illegal.

Uber Australia's chief executive David Rohrsheim has experienced this firsthand and been forced to publicly grapple with regulators over the Uber platform, which offers an alternative to registered taxis.

"If you've got a new idea and it doesn't fit within the existing laws, which is often the case with a new piece of technology, how do you get a meeting with the government?" Rohrsheim asks.

"If you're a start-up and it takes you a year to get that meeting or approval, you're out of money and you've moved on to something else. That's a serious risk for Australian start-ups."

Uber launched in Australia in 2012, but it was only last month that the ACT became the first state to legalise the ride-sharing platform and reduce high taxi license fees. Other states around the country are currently reviewing Uber's service and until legislation is amended, the most popular offering, ride-sharing UberX, remains illegal and can attract high fines.  

"It was tough to get those meetings with government. It took a very long time," Rohrsheim says. "Uber is fortunate to have some capital behind the company now so we can continue to operate but the average start-up can't. They can't wait until they've got enormous public support before a minister is ready to talk about their new idea."

Airspace
Slow moving regulation is also hampering the drone industry, which is still awaiting its promised reform of current airspace regulations by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which oversees Australian airspace. 

"Australia did have an edge in 2002 when the first drone regulations were instated," says Frank Vierboom of Propeller Aerobotics, a start-up using drones to develop 3D maps for mining and construction companies.

"But when they realised those regulations weren't best suited to the realities of the drone industry, CASA said it would re-draft the aviation regulations to cover drones."

Currently, CASA must issue an operating certificate and remote pilot certificate to those wishing to operate a drone. But understanding how infant seatbelts are fitted into light planes have no bearing on drone operators, and CASA has since acknowledged these requirements are out of date. However the fledgling industry is still awaiting the reforms which were promised at the end of 2014.

"People have been told to expect this reform but it's stalled for a long time," Vierboom says. "There are lots of opportunities to use drone technology but we're all waiting around for this announcement.

"The voices calling for this have been fairly loud and it's important governments and regulators engage with new industries."

Rohrsheim agrees governments need to get on the front foot and engage small companies with new ideas. 

"Where you can say, here's my thing, I would like you to be aware of what's going on," he says. "Maybe establish a trial with some parameters around it, that would be a good opportunity to try this out. Start-ups need to be able to have those meetings."

Read more: http://www.afr.com/technology/the-government-moves-too-slowly-for-tech-startups-uber-australia-20151016-gkapav#ixzz3p9XJ642s

Follow us: @FinancialReview on Twitter | financialreview on Facebook

 
And from itnews - US government to introduce drone registry

..The FAA was originally barred from regulating recreational drone flights and their operators by the US Congress in 2012.
 

However, the sharp rise in the number of UAVs in recent years has prompted the government to take urgent action to limit potential safety and security risks.
 
The agency has also introduced a "no drone zone" program for areas where drone flights are deemed risky, and a smartphone app to help guide operators assess where they're allowed to fly. 

Drone flights and operation in Australia are regulated by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

Commercial drone operators in Australia must apply for a certificate from CASA, which the agency said in September could take up six months due to a large increase in use resulting in a backlog of applications. Recreational drone users can fly their craft without a licence. 

In June this year, CASA said it intended to relax drone flight regulations for commercial operators, removing the need to apply for a licence under some conditions. 

The relaxed rules would apply for drones that weigh less than two kilograms and are flown well outside controlled airspace and restricted areas. 

Operators will also need to maintain a direct line of sight with the craft, fly during daylight hours only, stay away from populated areas, keep a distance of 30 metres away from people, and not exceed 400 feet height above the ground.

CASA expects its new rules to be implemented next year... 

Hmm...wonder what totally unworkable reg amendments Doc Hoodoo Voodoo will come up with this time..

MTF..you bet! P2