[Kharon]

REPEAT PAGE 1 -

In an effort to keep those interested in the Senate drone inquiry up to date with developments, while not detracting from the Senate Estimates thread we have decided to start a thread solely devoted to the subject of drones and the Senate Inquiry.

Recent 'drone' posts rehashed for reference...

   (04-10-2017, 06:10 PM)Peetwo Wrote:
   Update: Senate RRAT Estimates & Inquiry news -

   Next somewhat related to the Senate Drone inquiry, I note the following article courtesy the Canberra Times, that should give the committee more food for thought:

       Quote:
       April 8 2017


       'It has the potential to get worse': Mid-air incidents involving drones increases.


       [Image: 1472273878056.jpg]
       Andrew Brown

       According to Mark Will, there's only one guarantee when it comes to flying drones: at some point, they're going to be crashed.

       Having flown drones for almost two years, he also runs a "drone boot camp", which teaches new users how to safely fly the aircraft.
         
       [Image: 1491657950148.jpg] Mark Will said more information should be provided to drone users in order to prevent crashes or near misses with aircraft. Photo: Rohan Thomson  

       However, as the technology becomes more accessible, Mr Will said he was worried there would be an increasing number of incidents such as drones coming into close contact with planes or flying into restricted airspace.

       "My concern is that there's inexperienced hobbyists flying with no regulations," he said.
       
       [Image: 1491657950148.jpg] Mark Will runs courses on drone flying and safety.  Photo: Rohan Thomson  

       "It has the potential to get worse the more they become normal in the market."

       Mr Will's comments follow a recent report released by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau of mid-air incidents involving drones.

       Between 2012 and 2016, more than half of all drone incidents involved near misses with aircraft and more than 60 per cent of those happened in 2016.

       It's predicted there will be a 75 per cent increase in the number of drones being involved in near misses with aircrafts in 2017, with the report finding the number of incidents involving drones "increasing exponentially".

       Most of the incidents happened in capital cities, with Sydney accounting for 37 per cent of all near misses between drones and aircraft.

       The rest of the incidents involved the drones crashing into the ground, either from a loss of control, bird strikes or engine failures.

       The report did not specify how many incidents happened in Canberra, however, data from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority found two had occurred in the capital during the last year.

       One involved a complaint after a drone was seen flying over a Canberra house, while another drone user was fined $900 for crashing his drone at the Australian War Memorial.

       Drone users are not allowed to fly within 5.5 kilometres of an airport, and cannot be flown higher than 120 metres or within 30 metres of a building.

       Restrictions also apply to flying drones over crowds of people.

       Other restricted airspaces in Canberra also include the Majura Army Range as well as the Mills Cross Radio Telescope.

       Mr Will said more information should be provided to drone users in order to prevent crashes or near misses with aircraft.

       "We should consider drone ownership like dog ownership or a car licence. You as the user have to equip yourself with the knowledge and information," he said.

       "An airport is defined as an area with aircraft taking off and landing, so in theory you can't fly within 5.5 kilometres of the South Care base in Hume or Canberra Hospital."

       While no aircraft have been hit by a drone in Australia, Mr Will said the outcome could be disastrous if a plane was struck.

     
    However far more concerning for the Senators should be this dramatic headline, story and in particular photo by expert (cough - ) aviation commentator GT:

       Quote:
       Drone Targets Singapore Airlines A350



       Geoffrey Thomas - Editor-in-Chief

       06 Apr 2017
       A drone has flown close to an A350 performing an flyby in Perth, Australia
       >

       [Image: 758A9564.jpg]>
       Singapore Airlines A350 flies past a drone. Credit Daniel Kitlar of DK and CK Photos

       The future of low level plane fly-pasts in Australia is in jeopardy after a drone came within an alleged 300ft of a Singapore Airlines A350 on Wednesday afternoon in Perth.

       Singapore Airlines, celebrating its 50th year of operating to Perth launched an online photographic competition of its new A350 and had publicized the air route and altitude of the fly-past.

       The dramatic picture taken by Daniel Kitlar of DK and CK Photos was shot from the Mend Street jetty in South Perth and captures the drone approaching the A350 as it flew over Heirisson Island.

       Mr Kitlar, an experienced drone operator, said he was stunned when he reviewed his photos later to see the drone.

       “In my experience, that drone would have to been at 1200ft and the A350 was flying at 1500ft," said Mr Kitlar.

       And the angle that the photo was taken related to the flightpath confirms that height assessment.

       Drone enthusiasts reported that two people were illegally operating a DJI Phantom 4 drone with a camera attached from Langley Park adjacent to the flightpath of the A350.
       When challenged that they were operating outside regulations for height they hurled abuse.

       Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said that the perpetrators could face a fine of AUD$9000 for operating the drone above 400ft in controlled airspace.

       “There are clear safety rules covering the operation of drones and stiff penalties for breaking these rules.”

       “Drones must never be flown in a way that causes a hazard to an aircraft and must not be flown over populous areas in a way that could pose a risk to people and property,” Mr Gibson said.

       The reckless incident is expected to curtail or even end fly pasts by commercial and even military aircraft officials within CASA and the Australian crash investigator say.

       In fact, air traffic control congestion limited what the pilots could do and the planned fly-past of Langley Park, Elizabeth Quay and over Kings Park was curtailed.

       Instead, the A350 flew down the Swan River over Maylands, Heirisson Island and South Perth.

       Last month the Australian Transport Safety Bureau warned that the number of close encounters between drones and planes is forecast to jump by 75 per cent this year.
       
       A report by the ATSB on the safety of drones found there had been 180 safety incidents involving drones between 2012 and 2016, including crashes.

       High capacity air transport accounted for 45 per cent of the reports.

       Source : http://www.airlineratings.com/news.php?id=1151

   
   Hmm...TICK..TICK..TICK..TICK...
   [Image: untitled.png]
   Of course according to the Act, when a collision inevitably happens CASA won't be responsible...


   (04-19-2017, 09:33 AM)Peetwo Wrote:
   Barry O continues pressure on drones -

   Via North QLD register:

       Quote:
       Animal activist drone use exposed in Senate inquiry
       [Image: w100_h100_fcrop.jpg]
       Colin Bettles @ColinJBettles

       19 Apr 2017, 6 a.m.



       Queensland Nationals Senator Barry O’Sullivan.

       CONCERNS have been raised about unregulated access to drones that can carry high powered surveillance equipment and be used by animal rights activists.

       CONCERNS have been raised about unregulated access to drones that can carry high powered surveillance equipment and be used by animal rights activists to expose loopholes in farmers’ private property rights.

       Several farm-based submissions to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee’s inquiry into regulatory requirements underpinning drones - or remotely piloted or unmanned aircraft systems - have called for more support to protect farmers including from extreme political attacks, by animal liberationists.

       Committee Deputy Chair and Queensland Nationals Senator Barry O’Sullivan has also called on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to immediately enforce training and licensing requirements for all recreational and small commercial drone operators while the ongoing Senate inquiry completes its list of recommendations.

       Senator O’Sullivan said if CASA failed to act on introducing training and licensing requirements it may be necessary to temporarily remove all recreational drones from sale across Australian retail outlets.

       He said he was concerned that animal rights extremists could exploit loopholes in the current drone use regulatory regime, pointing out the potential dangers to livestock farmers in politically-motivated attacks.

       “We know that animal activist groups are able to purchase a recreational drone off the shelf at an electronics shop and put it into the air to hover around a farmer’s property to spy on any landholder,” he said.

       “Not only is this a blatant invasion of the privacy of landholders across the nation, but it is also a form of vigilantism that should not be tolerated in a civil society.

       “This basically treats landholders as criminals who cannot be trusted to run their operations in an ethical manner.”

       Senator O’Sullivan said he was uncomfortable with the idea of thousands of so-called recreational drones flying around the nation’s airspace without appropriate training, licensing and registration with CASA, “especially when we know some of these drones are being used to harass farmers and push an extreme political agenda”.

       Senator O’Sullivan said drones had the potential to be a serious “game changer” in rural industries - but the right balance needed to the sought.

       “One of my primary reasons for establishing this inquiry was to allow us to conduct a serious examination that strikes the right balance between ensuring people with questionable motivations for operating these drones are made aware of their responsibilities and are appropriately registered with CASA while also ensuring this technology continues to assist our rural industry,” he said.

       The Senate inquiry is due to report in December 2017 and its terms of reference include examining state and local government regulations and the overseas experience of drone use.

       It’s also looking at issues with public safety and privacy and the potential recreational and commercial uses of drones, including in agriculture with submissions raising issues around the technology’s potential use in farm chemical applications.

       Senator O’Sullivan said while the Senate inquiry continued, all recreational and small commercial operators employing drones under 2 kilograms should be immediately required to complete the same training and licensing arrangements as bigger commercial operators or those over 2kgs.

       He said there was a strong need for all regulations and requirements placed on recreational and small commercial drone operators to be given careful consideration.

       “I must stress this is a personal view and I do not want to anticipate the final recommendations of the senate inquiry,” he said.

       “However, you can currently purchase these machines in an electronics shop for a few hundred dollars and we have a regulatory environment in place where drone operators who claim to be using these machines for recreational purposes are not regulated by CASA.

       “I have serious concerns about the impacts to public safety from having potentially thousands of unregulated and unlicensed drone operators in our air space.

       “While it is correct that there are specific rules that prevent these drone operators from flying at night or flying any higher than 120 metres in the air in built up areas, there is currently no requirement placed on these smaller operators to become schooled in the relevant rules.

       “Each of these drones are generally equipped with video cameras and some are capable of carrying payloads of equipment through the skies, yet we don’t know how many are in our skies or who is operating them.

       “They threaten secure airspace, public safety and privacy - that should be a concern for every Australian.”

       The National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) and other groups like Australian Pork Limited (APL) have also made inquiry submissions calling for regulatory action regarding drone use over farms; including by animal rights activists.

       APL Policy General Manager Deb Kerr said Australia’s $2.8 billion pork industry had about 1500 producers producing around five million pigs for slaughter annually and needed protection from “perverse privacy invasion” by Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs).

       Ms Kerr said UAVs were becoming increasingly applied to agricultural operations - but there was an interest and increasing use of the technology by animal activists for surveillance of animal agriculture.

       She said the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs 2014 report, “Eyes in the Sky”, identified a number of gaps in current surveillance laws and made recommendations to modernise and harmonise this legislation in Australia.

       But unfortunately, many of these recommendations are yet to be actioned and this posed a great risk to Australian animal agriculture industries, she said.

       APL suggested CASA work with the Australian Privacy Commissioner to review current legislation to ensure there was adequate protection against emerging technologies, such as UAVs, which could be used for perverse privacy invasion.

       “Additionally, APL would suggest surveillance laws contain technology neutral definitions given the range of surveillance devices and emergence of new devices, such as UAVs fitted with listening devices or advanced optical surveillance devices and may not be covered in current definitions for surveillance devices,” Ms Kerr said.

       In his group’s submission to the Senate inquiry, NFF Rural Affairs Manager Mark Harvey-Sutton said a system for drone use that allowed farmers to increase productivity on farm while maximising safety was strongly supported.

       He said transformative technologies like drones had the capacity to change the way food and fibre was produced and can provide farmers with valuable data to better monitor conditions on farm.

       “These sophisticated tools will enable farmers to manage ever larger areas of land and assist them with decision-making,” he said.

       “It is to be expected that digital technologies can improve risk management approaches on farm, predicting weather and yields with greater accuracy.

       “Drones could, potentially, be used to assist farmers in monitoring fencing or to spray plants. In turn, farmers will spend less time driving through paddocks as they will be able to manage larger areas of land by analysing data.”

       But Mr Harvey-Sutton said the NFF was concerned about the use of drones by trespassers, flying over rural properties without the permission of farmers.

       “The NFF suggests to design a safe and efficient system to monitor drone movements and to ensure the privacy and safety of rural landholders,” he said.

       “It is vital that drones are appropriately controlled and that farmers do not need to fear the entry of unwanted drones on their property.

       “Technological solutions such as geo-fencing could prevent trespassing on farm, protecting people, stock and wildlife on properties.

       “The NFF recommends that a communication campaign be developed to inform the agricultural sector of safety considerations, public liability concerns and insurance requirements relating to drone use for primary production activities.”

       The Victorian Farmers Federation’s inquiry submission said further consideration should be given to the regulatory mechanisms necessary for ensuring the establishment of regulatory controls around drone use, to maintain farm security, protect privacy and prevent unauthorised surveillance, within an agricultural context.

       VFF said the Victorian Surveillance Devices Act failed to adequately protect agricultural business from unauthorised surveillance as regulatory stipulations only prohibits the use of drones and associated systems in recording private conversations or activities within the confines of a private residence.

       However, taking video footage, without recording audio, within an open space on private property, such as a backyard or farm property, does not contravene the Act, the submission said.

       “The lack of clear regulatory guidelines is a significant risk to agricultural businesses, specifically leaving small agricultural businesses open to unauthorised surveillance without the support of regulatory mechanisms,” it said.

       NSWFarmers said farm innovation aside, the question its members constantly raised about the use of drones was that of privacy and security as they can be used for criminal activity and surveillance.

       “Our members are constantly asking us what they can do when an unwanted (drone) enters their property or attempts to surveil their business,” the submission said.

       “Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to police such activity.

       “If this Senate inquiry achieves anything, it should address the difficulty of regulating such ‘disruptive’ technology to protect the public in their homes and on their farms.”

       Senator O’Sullivan said the Senate Committee had heard from witnesses ranging from universities to pizza delivery companies and all had strong views that the nation’s skies will one day look like a scene from “The Jetsons” cartoon.

       “It’s important we build a regulatory environment that acknowledges the serious technological changes taking place and the likely congestion, and potential public safety hazard, it is going to cause in the air space above us,” he said.

       The story Animal activist drone use exposed in Senate inquiry first appeared on Farm Online.

   
   Meanwhile in the virtual world of miniscule_NFI_6D... :

       Quote:
       The 2 'box sets' which made this morning's #roadtrip possible @rharris334 @lyndalcurtis @ColinJBettles @davidlipson
       [Image: C9psZArVYAADccE.jpg]


   The minister is obviously stuck in an 80's time warp - "Nothing to see here move along..." FDS!


And last week off the Oz:

   Quote:
   Flying a drone not all fun
   [Image: 9c71852457b2748138be0f4740400e80]12:00amGavin Simms
   Drone training involves an intensive seven-day practical and theoretical course.


Finally in recent days there has been much coverage and subsequent comment on the following article off conversation.com...

   Quote:
   Backyard skinny-dippers lack effective laws to keep peeping drones at bay
   April 26, 2017 11.59am AEST

   [Image: 8472462-3x2-940x627.jpg]

    Brendan Gogarty

   Disclosure statement

   Brendan Gogarty does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

   New technologies make it easier than ever for peeping Toms – and the law isn’t much help to stop them.


   Recent advances in technology mean we can no longer rely on fences or barriers around our homes to protect our privacy. This was certainly the case for Darwin resident Karli Hyatt, who on Tuesday explained to the ABC’s Law Report how a drone invaded the security and privacy of her suburban backyard.

   Hyatt had returned home last week from an evening gym session, undressed and jumped into her secluded backyard pool. She thought she was “skinny-dipping” in private. Within minutes, though, a small camera-mounted quadcopter drone was hovering close overhead. Hyatt is certain it was watching her, although there was no operator to be seen.

   She describes the experience as initially shocking and has ongoing concerns about who might have been flying the drone and why. The result is an erosion of trust and cohesion in her neighbourhood and a feeling of insecurity in her own home. You can listen to the ABC interview here.

   What laws might apply to this case?

   [Image: file-20170425-13411-1u4p9dz.jpg]

   A camera-mounted drone quadcopter can now be bought and flown without a licence in Australia.

   The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) relaxed rules on privately operated drones last year, although some restrictions remain. However, flying a drone over private property isn’t illegal under CASA rules, nor is filming someone from it. Aircraft are generally permitted overflight of properties; otherwise they could fly only over public land.

   In fact, most Australian states have barred home owners from suing aircraft operators for causing “nuisance” by overflight.

   Although the Northern Territory is one of the few exceptions, the courts are still resistant to claims of nuisance against aircraft without proof of persistent and continuing interference with the property. One or two overflights (even on the same day) are unlikely to be enough to establish this.

   Unlike its common-law cousins, Australia lacks a tort of privacy. This is based on the conventional view that it would effectively prohibit people looking over each other’s fences. If you don’t like that happening – the old reasoning goes – you should build a higher fence.

   Although most common-law countries have moved past this view, Australia hasn’t. This means Karli Hyatt couldn’t sue the drone operator (if she could find them) for a breach of privacy.

   What all Australian jurisdictions have criminalised is harassment and stalking, however conducted. But these laws generally require a “pattern of behaviour”.

   In the NT, for instance, it would have to be proved that the activity involved intentionally watching Hyatt “on at least two separate occasions” with the “intention of causing harm” to her or causing her to “fear harm”. Given she doesn’t know who was flying the drone or why, this will be hard to prove.

   That said, this case does appear to involve a breach of the relaxed CASA flight rules; the drone was being flown at night, within 30 metres of her and out of sight of the operator. But because she doesn’t know who was flying the drone she can’t identify someone to report to CASA.

   If it happens again she can’t prove it is the same drone – as would be needed to apply nuisance, harassment and stalking laws – nor the intentions of the operator.

   One of the reasons drone rules were relaxed is that CASA simply cannot monitor every privately operated drone. CASA also insists it cannot be responsible for policing privacy breaches by drones. But there isn’t another agency that can effectively do this.

   With no regulatory agency, no tort of privacy, (nearly) no nuisance and inapplicable harassment and stalking laws, there isn’t much law when it comes to peeping Toms using drones around our homes and private spaces.

   Technology has left law behind

   Critics of increased protections against “privacy-invasive technologies” such as drones argue that we are already subject to surveillance by CCTV and satellites. They also point out that neighbouring properties often overlook modern dwellings.

   In those situations, however, the person being observed is put on reasonable notice or can easily identify the observer. We can build a higher fence, plant a hedge, or install a blind. If someone has filmed us from a neighbouring apartment, the footage will likely reveal who was doing it or from where. If we are accidentally recorded on Google Earth, there is a single company to negotiate with or put pressure on.

   However, technologies like drones really do seem to change the privacy landscape. The sheer number of them, their mobile nature and the inability to identify who is operating them limit our ability to protect ourselves from prying eyes.





   Off-the-shelf drones allow users to fly around neighbourhoods filming in high resolution.

   As Karli Hyatt’s case shows, simply expecting home owners to build higher fences is no longer really applicable, so it might be time for the law to step in.

   What can be done to protect privacy?

   In 2014, a Commonwealth parliamentary committee delivered a report, Eyes in the Sky. It recommended reforming laws on harassment and stalking and introducing a tort of privacy for unreasonable interference into private spaces – as did the Australian Law Reform Commission the same year. Yet such rules depend on proving who was operating the drone in the first place.

   Commercial operators must notify CASA of their intention to fly a drone. Untrained non-commercial operators do not, which means there is no record of who is flying drones and where.

   Almost all off-the-shelf drones contain GPS and flight recorders. One technical/legal solution might be to require that they also be fitted with a mobile SIM card (just as your tablet can have a cloned SIM card from your mobile). Flight data would then be automatically uploaded to the cloud-based government database whenever the drone was within reach of a mobile network.

   Tampering with the recorder would be illegal. This would allow CASA, the police or private citizens to establish who was flying a drone.

   While there might be some technical or logistical obstacles, and some infrastructure costs for government, this proposal would not overwhelm CASA with the burden of directly regulating the increasing number of drones.





   Drones have many positive uses, such as firefighting. (Note: this video is from before the relaxing of drone rules.)

   Most drone owners act in good faith and respect others, but a few rogue ones misusing the technology may turn the public tide. Drones have many socially positive uses, but spying on people in their own homes is not one of them. The law needs to help residents protect themselves against such invasions.



MTF...P2

RECOVERY PROCESS SLOW - We may not get it all back..