DW1: Estimates latest -
Via Buzzfeed today:
Taking up the "K" OBS and the P7 follow up:
From the ENR AIP here is the visual circling approach criteria:
With that in mind I decided to visit the 'CASA' approved 'Can I fly there?' app:
What I discovered is that in almost all cases, where an airport has recognised visual circling approach procedures as an extension/addition to a published IAP, there has been no consideration for the circling approach criteria i.e. radii off the runway thresholds. In other words the 5.5km rule is solely based on the airport; or HLS reference point - UDB!
MTF...P2
Via Buzzfeed today:
Quote:A One Nation Staffer Was Let Off With A Warning For Flying A Drone Over Parliament
A man who flew a drone to Bunnings for a sausage sizzle got a $900 fine.
Posted on October 30, 2017, at 2:11 p.m.
Josh Taylor
BuzzFeed News Editor, Australia
One Nation staffer James Ashby was let off with a "counselling letter" from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for flying his drone over Parliament House and over politicians involved in a rugby league event in June.
Facebook: video.php
The video posted on Pauline Hanson's Facebook page included footage shot high above the rugby league field where Hanson and several other politicians including Michelle Landry and Graham Perrett were participating in an NRL event early one morning before State of Origin. SBS recorded footage of Ashby flying the drone.
Parliament House is partly in a restricted area for flying drones, according to CASA's Can I Fly There? app.
In August, Labor senator Glenn Sterle lodged a formal complaint with CASA about the incident, and in a Senate Estimates hearing on Friday, CASA's head of legal affairs, Dr Jonathan Aleck said that the case had been closed with a counselling letter sent to Ashby as punishment.
A counselling letter is a formal record that a breach of the law has occurred, and advises that if it happens again the recipient of the letter may face "enforcement action" which can include fines of up to $9,000.
Aleck said that during the investigation, CASA couldn't gather enough evidence to show breaches of the law, such as flying too close to people or directly over them.
"Convenient as it would be to rely on video footage on Facebook, forensically that is problematic," he said.
Without sufficient evidence, Aleck said, it would be difficult to prove the case if Ashby had challenged the fine in court.
CASA had interviewed Ashby as part of the process, and LNP MP Michelle Landry.
"Our efforts to interview Ms Landry were unsuccessful at this point," Aleck said. LNP Senator Barry O'Sullivan, an ex-police detective, said it wouldn't be hard to identify other people in the video.
"I bet you a carton of XXXX beer that I can come back with a dozen names," he said.
Sterle said it was obvious the video was shot on a drone.
"I can tell you right now, the camera wasn't in the back of a magpie's bum." -
In notes read out during the hearing from CASA investigators, Aleck said that when investigators had asked Ashby what permission he sought to fly the drone, Ashby indicated he had inquired with the Australian Federal Police and they had no issue with flying the drone. When CASA asked the AFP if they had spoken to Ashby about it, they said he had not sought permission.
"We inquired of the AFP and the organiser of the event and no permission was sought," Aleck said.
Both Labor and Liberal senators suggested that Ashby was treated differently to the general public in the investigation because he was a political staffer. Aleck said that was not the case.
"The political affiliations of the individual did not come into this," he said.
Last year, a man who recorded a video of his drone flying to hardware store Bunnings Warehouse to pick up a sausage sandwich was warned he would face a fine of up to $9,000 for the video. CASA said in the committee hearing on Friday that the man was ultimately fined $900.
Aleck defended charging the Bunnings man and not Ashby, stating that in the Bunnings video the drone was visibly flying over a crowded parking lot, and a road, which he said was not present in the Ashby video.
O'Sullivan indicated that Ashby might be called before the committee to give evidence about the incident.
BuzzFeed News has sought comment from Ashby.
6 Answers to written questions taken on notice by the AFP on 19 September 2017. Received on 17 October 2017.
7 Answers to written questions taken on notice by the Department of Parliamentary Services on 17 October 2017. Received on 26 October 2017.
Taking up the "K" OBS and the P7 follow up:
Quote:P9: "..Could someone please explain why, for ducks sake, CASA have allowed drone operations within the ‘circling area’ of aerodromes? At 5.5 kms (3 nautical miles) at 400 feet in piss poor visibility a small, basically white ‘drone’ cannot be seen. Yet they are legally sanctioned to be there – WTD. Aside – ‘Class B (chartered) aircraft may be as low as 300’ and at 2.6 nms (5 Kms) and operate with one, busy pilot. For this aircraft the ‘drone’ is a very high risk collision element. It’s even worse for the bigger aircraft..."
P7:"..The ‘visual circling approach’ is not, these days at least, a common practice. It however a legal, legitimate procedure available, at discretion to a pilot..
..At 4.2 nms from the strip at 400 hundred feet, in very ordinary weather – you need to be paying attention. What you must not do is ‘de-stabilise the approach’ this is no place for avoiding anything, no time, no space and bugger all wriggle room...
...CASA have authorised ‘drone’ operations within the most critical part of an instrument approach sequence; close to the deck, in poor visibility, slow and configured for landing..."
From the ENR AIP here is the visual circling approach criteria:
Quote:Note 2. The pilot should maintain the maximum practical
obstacle clearance. The minimum obstacle clearance
requirements are:
Categories A and B - 300FT;
Categories C and D - 400FT; and
Category E - 500FT.
Note 3. The circling area is determined by drawing an arc centred
on the threshold of each usable runway and joining these arcs by
tangents. The radii are1.68NM for Category A, 2.66NM for
Category B, 4.20NM for Category C, 5.28NM for Category D and
6.94NM for Category E. Runways less than 1,000M long are not
considered usable for Categories C, D and E.
1.68NM = 3,111M
2.66NM = 4,926M
4.20NM = 7,778M
5.28NM = 9,779M
6.94NM = 12,853M.
With that in mind I decided to visit the 'CASA' approved 'Can I fly there?' app:
Quote:Can I fly there? - Drone safety app
Not sure about where you can fly your drone?
We’ve teamed up with Drone Complier to produce an easy-to-use smartphone app illustrating where you’re not allowed to fly.
These areas include within 5.5km of controlled aerodromes, in approach and departure paths of non-controlled aerodromes and helicopter landing sites, as well as in restricted or military airspace. The app also highlights ‘caution’ areas around unregistered aerodromes where aircraft could be flying.
The ‘Can I fly there?’ drone safety app reflects the standard operating conditions for those flying their drone commercially (under the excluded category of commercial operations) and is a valuable educational and situational awareness tool for both commercial and recreational drone flyers.
Download
The app is available on Android and iOS devices, with a web-based HTML5 version also accessible.
Android
iOS
webapp
What I discovered is that in almost all cases, where an airport has recognised visual circling approach procedures as an extension/addition to a published IAP, there has been no consideration for the circling approach criteria i.e. radii off the runway thresholds. In other words the 5.5km rule is solely based on the airport; or HLS reference point - UDB!
MTF...P2