Does size matter?
It is a ‘nasty’ thing to have something collide with an aircraft when low and slow, particularly at night and I wouldn’t dream of discounting the potential for accident – well not too much. However, for the lighter aircraft, particularly from the ‘frontal area profile’ perspective the ‘risk’ factor is, mathematically at least, not that great. A drone through the windscreen is a possibility – and a potential killer, contact anywhere else, through distraction at a critical time, is an increase on the risk matrix. Conversely, the light aircraft are an easier target, due to the relatively low speed of the aircraft and the less monitored operational environment, an increase in the frequency of ‘attack’ would nullify the reduced percentage risk of a ‘bad’ strike.
The ‘size’ of the vulnerable area matters; the frontal area of a jet engine fitted to a passenger transport aircraft would easily match (give or take) the front profile of a ‘lighty’; two such engines (by-pass included) increase the percentage chance of a ‘bad strike’; then one must account for the area of ‘inlets’, exhausts and other items which, if damaged, have the potential to create ‘distraction’ during a critical phase of flight.
In short, almost anything airborne is presently at some increased degree of risk while ‘drones’ can be operated pretty much anywhere, anytime without control. It is of grave concern, however the risks to ‘aeroplanes’ is not the one that should be keeping the ‘powers that be’ awake at night.
Helicopters are the really vulnerable aircraft. Mostly those belonging to essential services, such as the police and ambulance services. They are a natural attraction – a crowd puller – the excitement and drama of it all. The work they do is, by definition, high risk; the services work hard, very hard, to mitigate unnecessary operational risk; they monitor it, they train for it, they test for it. Some of the operations conducted require the utmost concentration, care and skill levels. A stationary helicopter, at night, large profile from any angle; extremely vulnerable, essential moving parts, critically balanced rotor blades and tail rotor; close to building or a hospital; at exactly the time when great concentration is needed.. The potential for a catastrophic event and the percentage chance of that occurring due to drone strike, at that time are ‘scary’.
These risks exist – now – they are real. Yet the government minister and his agencies are operating at a snails pace; almost still in the denial phase. CASA places it’s faith in the ‘by-pass’ system of the modern jet aircraft; ATSB will eventually get around to reporting on the few incidents which they deign to acknowledge; the minister is doing an ostrich impersonation. The Senate committee is paying attention; trying to come to grips with the potential dangers, but then, we’ve all seen how their recommendations are treated and their comments disrespected by the ‘experts’.
We take extraordinary care of ‘safety’ in the aviation community, particularly in areas where it is our ‘responsibility’. Drones are not our responsibility; they are the governments. I say it’s time the government stopped playing at politics and get on top of the situation before there is an event which claims lives – unnecessarily – due to inaction.
Toot – tick tock – Toot.
All airways lead to PelAir (cover-up) -
Slight thread drift here but remember JT the REX HF drone?
Here is a reminder:
(07-01-2017, 11:09 AM)Peetwo Wrote: [ -> ]REX COI on UAV/RPAS -
If you ever wanted to witness a greater contrast to the excellent forthright evidence given by the representatives of AusALPA, one cannot go past the insipid (read 'soft cock') performance of the nominated REX HF Muppet Mr Tessarolo... - see HERE
The brevity of that particular session perhaps highlights the weight given by the Senators to the quality and significance of the evidence as presented by REX.
This however should not be surprising given how politically conflicted, therefore potentially regulatory captured, the REX Group and by default the RAAA currently is...
Quote:Senator O'SULLIVAN: ...The only message I have got for you is we need all of you in this space to really have a thorough review of what is going on and join us, if you are as concerned as we are with respect to the circumstances.
CHAIR: Does Rex say it is okay; you 'do not see any problems'?
Mr Tessarolo : We did not say 'we do not see any problems'.
CHAIR: Sorry, they were my words.
Mr Tessarolo : There is room for improvement.
CHAIR: You said it was 'adequate'.
Senator O'SULLIVAN: No, he said 'it may be sufficient', which was what attracted my attention. You said 'that while the current regulations may be sufficient …' I am asking you to review that language because nobody we have heard from thinks the current regulations 'may be sufficient'.
CHAIR: So you, Mr Tessarolo, are the general manager of the human factors group. What is a human factors group?
Mr Tessarolo : The human factors group of Rex comprises group safety compliance, engineering, QA, dangerous goods and the human factors training of pilots.
CHAIR: So when you were writing your submission, did you consult your pilots? Did you ask them? Or did you just have a team inside your area that wrote it?
Mr Tessarolo : We had a team inside our area. This was actually written in consultation with one of our board members, who is knowledgeable in the space of RPAS.
CHAIR: With the greatest respect, I do not know who your board member is but I would much rather hear from the pilots themselves. When we have the most senior pilots in a Australia's aviation industry sitting before us, all as one saying 'we have an issue' and when we have former Qantas chief pilot, Chris Manning, now at ATSB saying very clearly 'anything in airspace—'
Senator O'SULLIVAN: And the air traffic controllers are saying it too. The only ones who might think things are okay are those who do have an interest in the unmanned aircraft space. They think everything is hunky dory in most instances. I too think you need to really go back and take a more critical look at the question with your pilots. They are the ones in the box seat.
CHAIR: I am a little bit alarmed. Anyway, you have got that message. If there is a different submission, we will take that submission late once you have spoken to your pilots. We would be happy to hear from them too should they want to appear. What system exists within your company to report drone violations? How does Rex do it?
Mr Tessarolo : Since 11 June 2016, we have had five events reported within our safety management system. The one on 11 June did not actually involve a Rex flight but involved a UAV that was spotted by an off-duty Rex pilot approximately 0.7 nautical miles from the threshold of runway 29 at Orange. The other reports actually did involve Rex aircraft. Effectively before December 2016, before CASA introduced their drone complaints form, there was no real system of identifying and reporting these to CASA. We reported these to CASA but just through our safety liaison people and then we just reported them to the ATSB.
CHAIR: That does not surprise us, particularly after CASA's very poor performance in front of Senate estimates a number of weeks ago when they referred to our concerns as: 'Why are we worried? There has not been an incident yet. It would be virtually like a bird strike.' So that does not surprise me one little bit.
This is my last one. In your submission, you talk about how you would be prepared to report the sightings of drone activity, which you have just told us. But, under the CASA and ATSB reporting regime, they are described as non-reportable events. If you have done the right thing, or your pilots have done the right thing, and reported it, do you get any feedback, or will someone just say, 'Thank you very much; check you later'? What happens?
Mr Tessarolo : From the ATSB, we have not actually received any feedback. I did receive from one CASA inspector, I believe—I am just delving into my memory with this—just a response saying that he will pass it on. From one report that we submitted using the actual complaints form, we just got a series of very generic questions about the drone event, but clearly we could not provide any answers, because it is almost impossible to provide those answers.
CHAIR: It has been proved very clearly—and ATSB have been very keen to work with us; there is no argument about that—that they have no idea who owns these things. There is no registration or number plates on them. There is no technology that says, 'This one flying by is owned by little Billy Jones down the corner there, who should be at school rather than flying his drone around the airport.' Thanks, Mr Tessarolo.
And perhaps the best dismissal line from that whole disappointing session :
CHAIR: Mr Tessarolo, thank you for your time, and we look forward to some feedback from your pilots.
Mr Tessarolo : Thank you. That is noted.
Well in a bizarre coincidence (not really -
), apparently JT will be representing Pel-Air at the upcoming
Aeromed conference.
Here is JT's BIO and a summary of his presentation on behalf of PelAir:
Quote:John Tessarolo
Pel-air Aviation Pty Limited
Biography:
Group GM Human Factors Group - John Tessarolo
John is an ATPL holder and commenced his airline flying career with Hazelton Airlines in 1999. He then went on to obtain flying positions with Rex Airlines where he later became the Sydney Flight Operations Manager and later, National Flight Operations Manager. These roles involved being the Project Lead for the Rex Group Fatigue Risk Management System and CASA regulatory matters. In May 2015, John was appointed GM Human Factors Group with oversight across Safety, Security, Compliance & Quality Assurance departments. John brings with him vast operational, regulatory and risk management experience.
This presentation is to share learnings Pel-Air Aviation (Pel-Air) has derived from implementing an airline standard Safety Management System (SMS) in its aeromedical operations. The SMS is approved by CASA to regular public transport standards, as Pel-Air is able to leverage on resources within the Rex Group of companies. The mainstay of the SMS is an electronic reporting system, a culture of reporting and commitments by management towards safety management.
The objective of the presentation is to raise industry awareness and the level of safety through shared learning. The SMS has shown benefits in identifying trends in areas of flying operations, aircraft maintenance and work, health and safety.
Below are a couple of cases where the SMS helped increase safety standards.
- Air Ambulance Victoria fixed wing aeromedical operations to aircraft landing areas (ALA). Many of these ALA are unmanned aerodromes and operate to Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF), where pilots interact with others within the vicinity to determine take-off and landing arrangements. Through reporting in the SMS, Pel-Air identified a developing risk in unmanned aerodromes whereby patients, who were conveyed by private means, encroached onto the airside while the airplane was still running. In one incident, the patient walked through the unsecured gate and onto the tarmac prior to the aircraft shutting down and the patient made it to within 2 metres of the still spinning propellers.
- Fatigue monitoring of flight crew. Pel-Air operates to a CASA-approved Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS). Through the SMS and the regular Safety Management Group meetings, statistics on fatigue, pilot reports and audit reports are quickly raised to stakeholder and management attention for decision-making.
We find that a systematic approach towards investigating and analysing safety events can improve safety aspects of the operations.
Hmm...for reasons of anonymity we can't show you John's face...
"Hi I'm John and I'm a CAsA-sexual" -
MTF...P2
Ps Thread drift over -
As a follow up to my earlier post on Parafield..
Quote:Bat, not drone, blamed for light plane collision during landing at Parafield Airport
Earlier this month, a pilot reported hitting what he thought was a drone when landing at the airport in Adelaide's northern suburbs.
"After landing, the instructor conducted an inspection of the aircraft and found minor damage to the right wing," the ATSB said in a statement on its website.
"As there were no visible signs of biological matter, he contacted the control tower and reported the incident as a possible drone strike."
Investigators from the ATSB searched the area the morning after the incident, but could not find the reported object.
Today it announced it was calling off the investigation, after swabs from the plane were sent to the Australian Museum for DNA testing.
That testing revealed the object hit was most likely a grey-headed flying-fox, from the bat family.
The ATSB said "there [was] little potential for the enhancement of transport safety through further investigation" of the incident.
It said it had now discontinued the investigation.
"grey-headed flying-fox"
Darn it Cap'n the missus was a fox, still is to me, but now they call her the "Old Bat", then again she has been variously known amongst other names as "The Witch". You sure there was no broomstick bristles mixed up in the DNA?
Na. couldn't be her, she was know as a Macho woman, Rolled her own Tampons and Kick started her broomstick, these days needs a good down hill run to get it to fire.
6D & Comardy Capers living in ignorant bliss -
Reference via Budget Estimates...
Quote:CHAIR: I tell you what, Mr Carmody, I hope the day never comes. But if it does—it will be the longest day out you and some others have had if we have a catastrophic accident with a drone. You know my history. I had 20 years investigating catastrophic accidents of international flights all over the world. I have seen accidents happen because an individual left a screwdriver in a turbine when they went in to do some repairs. You can do all the regulations you like, but it is not going to prevent an event if we get sufficient density up in the air. I asked one of the other witnesses this morning, one of the other officers, about the chicken and the egg. Don't you think it would be better if we stopped this proliferation until your organisation, and indeed our committee and industry, has a chance to collaborate and get a set of circumstances in place that we think can absolutely minimise the potential impact of this?
Mr Carmody : I think, through our regulatory framework that we have in place now, we are endeavouring to do just that. The industry wants the decisions of the regulator to be consistent. It wants them to be evidence based.
CHAIR: Sure.
Mr Carmody : It wants them to be predictable.
CHAIR: We want that too.
Mr Carmody : The evidence that I have over the last two years is, for example, 1,800 bird strikes in 2016, 1,700 bird strikes in 2015 and no reports of a drone striking an aircraft. But birds and other animals are striking aircraft. If I may, that is evidence. I have no evidence at the moment that the regulatory framework that we have in place—
CHAIR: Is that what you need, Mr Carmody? You need evidence? You want a drone to strike an aeroplane before you take some measures here?
Mr Carmody : You need to be able to make evidence based decision rather than hypothetical decisions. The evidence that I have from the United States is very clear. I have evidence from the United States about the effect of what is happening with drones in the United States.
CHAIR: No, you have evidence from the United States of a lack of events where there has been a catastrophic collision.
Mr Carmody : Where there has been a collision, if I may, and they have a much denser air environment than we have in Australia. I am looking at what other regulators are doing. I share your concern. I understand where you are coming from—I really do.
CHAIR: What harm is there in us going steady, with respect to the proliferation, before you finish your important work, Mr Carmody? No, look, that is a valid question. Do you take into account the retail sector as you make decisions about whether we should leave these things out of the air for the moment until your work is done?
Mr Carmody : No, I do not take into account the retail sector, but the statement of expectations from my minister is very clear:
… focus on aviation safety as the highest priority …
… … …
… consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community in the development and finalisation of new—
regulations and regulatory changes.
CHAIR: Yes.
Mr Carmody : And take 'a pragmatic, practical and proportionate approach to regulation as it applies' to different industry sectors. I am fulfilling that mandate.
CHAIR: All right.
Or at 05:10 here:
And today via ASN:
Quote:U.K. Government releases results of drone / aircraft mid air collision damage study
23 July 2017
The U.K. Government released the results of a drone / aircraft mid air collision study.
The study was commissioned by the U.K. Department for Transport, the Military Aviation Authority and British Airline Pilots’ Association (BALPA) to determine effects of a mid-air collision between small remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS, commonly known as a drones) and manned aircraft. The study was conducted by QinetiQ and Natural Impacts using laboratory collision testing and computer modelling.
The study aimed to find the lowest speed at collision where critical damage could occur to aircraft components. Critical damage was defined in this study to mean major structural damage of the aircraft component or penetration of drone through the windscreen into the cockpit.
The study has indicated that:
- Non-birdstrike certified helicopter windscreens have very limited resilience to the impact of a drone, well below normal cruise speeds.
- The non-birdstrike certified helicopter windscreen results can also be applied to general aviation aeroplanes which also do not have a birdstrike certification requirement.
- Although the birdstrike certified windscreens tested had greater resistance than non-birdstrike certified, they could still be critically damaged at normal cruise speeds.
- Helicopter tail rotors are also very vulnerable to the impact of a drone, with modelling showing blade failures from impacts with the smaller drone components tested.
- Airliner windscreens are much more resistant, however, the study showed that there is a risk of critical windscreen damage under certain impact conditions:
* It was found that critical damage did not occur at high, but realistic impact speeds, with the 1.2 kg class drone components.
* However, critical damage did occur to the airliner windscreens at high, but realistic, impact speeds, with the 4 kg class drone components used in this study.
- The construction of the drone plays a significant role in the impact of a collision. Notably, the 400 g class drone components, which included exposed metal motors, caused critical failure of the helicopter windscreens at lower speeds than the 1.2 kg class drone components, which had plastic covering over their motors. This is believed to have absorbed some of the shock of the collision, reducing the impact.
- The testing and modelling showed that the drone components used can cause significantly more damage than birds of equivalent masses at speeds lower than required to meet birdstrike certification standards.
More information:
Small Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (drones) Mid-Air Collision Study (PDF)
ASN Drone Near Miss database
& via PT:
UK test flies drones into damaging collisions with aircraft
[i]Given some of the apologist posturing about how drones are not a risk to airliner safety, this study provides factual insights into the damage they could do on the approaches to airports[/i]
Ben Sandilands
Oh wizard! … a small remotely piloted aircraft has strayed into our path
UK researchers have found that even a very small hobbyist drone could pose a serious risk to some helicopters and light aircraft, and that heavier but increasingly widely used drones could break an airliner’s windscreen in a collision at altitudes and speeds typical of a jet making an approach to a landing.
Although some of the findings aren’t surprising, this is the believed to be the first time speculation about the dangers to flight posed by drones flown into the path of aircraft has been provided with evidence based support.
Using a 10 metre long compressed air gun, and real drones and drone parts, and various recreations of helicopter components and airliner cockpits, the test were done in a laboratory at the aviation research and testing facility at Farnborough, England.
The results showed that even the smallest and cheapest drone, coming in at a mere 400 grams, could cause critical failure (which is stiff upper lip for ‘blow apart) a helicopter windscreen at low speed (such as hovering). This was because that type of drone, with exposed metal micro motors, was considerably more potentially damaging to some choppers than a 1.2 kilogram quadrocopter with its engine components covered by thick, strong plastic.
Critical damage could be done to an airliner windscreen at the speeds and heights that would be realistic for a collision near an airport between a jet airliner and a comparatively heavy 4 kg drone, with typical mass and characteristics for a commercial or serious hobbyist drone.
[b]The study[/b] was commissioned by BALPA, the British commercial pilot’s association, the Military Aviation Authority and the UK Department for Transport.
Unsurprisingly, the study found that in helicopter and airliner collisions drones can cause significantly more damage than a bird strike of equivalent mass at the same impact speed. This was because of the unyielding nature of the metallic and hard plastic or composite materials in drones compared to flesh and feathers.
The study was unable to replicate some key factors in a drone collision with an airliner such as the effects of cabin pressurisation.
One of its recommendations is the drone makers be required to make their devices fall apart more readily in a collision, and use soft plastic coatings to minimise the damage done by solid metal components.
Hmm...wonder if that is 'evidence based' enough for Mr CC...
MTF...P2
Indifference, incompetence or purblind arrogance.
Will the colossal arrogance of CASA be a radical cause the first drone related fatal accident?
Drones ‘fly’ in a space where ‘things’ airborne are strictly regulated, operated by people who are strictly regulated. CASA is used to a disciplined, rule conscious, safety aware industry which has a default setting of avoiding situations which could result in accident or incident.
The risk of a mid air collision were staggeringly low – until now. The chances of bird strike have always been at the low end of the scale, yet they happen. With a few notable exceptions, bird strike is not ‘alarmingly’ dangerous – however it is bloody inconvenient, often expensive and highly disruptive. We cannot control the ‘birds’; but we can control drones.
The problem is one of control for the undisciplined who have nothing to do with CASA and could care less for their puerile little rules; even if these folk could be ‘caught’ there’s precious little CASA could do about them – and even less chance of preventing a repeat offence. Think parking fines or speeding fines - they only stop honest folk, occasionally, from doing it again.
What will the smug visage of Carmody look like when the Senate committee ask him awkward questions about a helicopter smacking into a hospital roof; brought to grief by some fool who wanted to capture the drama? IMO; there is more chance of that happening than there is of bumping into a grey faced Foxbat one evening – yet even that happens.
If a thing flies and there is even a remote chance that it can hit another flying thing; then CASA is responsible for ensuring, as far as humanly possible, that the risks are minimised. Otherwise what’s the use of this very expensive ‘regulator’ of matters aeronautical?
Copper – “We’ve had reports of shots being fired from here, care to explain?”
Purdy – “Yes officer – I’ve been scaring the birds off the apple trees and clearing out some vermin”.
Copper notes bits of plastic being shuffled out of sight – smiles “Very good Sir, thankyou I’ll let the chopper drivers know”.
Toot – Purdy 6 – Drones 0 - toot.
(07-24-2017, 06:03 AM)kharon Wrote: [ -> ]Indifference, incompetence or purblind arrogance.
Will the colossal arrogance of CASA be a radical cause the first drone related fatal accident?
Drones ‘fly’ in a space where ‘things’ airborne are strictly regulated, operated by people who are strictly regulated. CASA is used to a disciplined, rule conscious, safety aware industry which has a default setting of avoiding situations which could result in accident or incident.
The risk of a mid air collision were staggeringly low – until now. The chances of bird strike have always been at the low end of the scale, yet they happen. With a few notable exceptions, bird strike is not ‘alarmingly’ dangerous – however it is bloody inconvenient, often expensive and highly disruptive. We cannot control the ‘birds’; but we can control drones.
The problem is one of control for the undisciplined who have nothing to do with CASA and could care less for their puerile little rules; even if these folk could be ‘caught’ there’s precious little CASA could do about them – and even less chance of preventing a repeat offence. Think parking fines or speeding fines - they only stop honest folk, occasionally, from doing it again.
What will the smug visage of Carmody look like when the Senate committee ask him awkward questions about a helicopter smacking into a hospital roof; brought to grief by some fool who wanted to capture the drama? IMO; there is more chance of that happening than there is of bumping into a grey faced Foxbat one evening – yet even that happens.
If a thing flies and there is even a remote chance that it can hit another flying thing; then CASA is responsible for ensuring, as far as humanly possible, that the risks are minimised. Otherwise what’s the use of this very expensive ‘regulator’ of matters aeronautical?
Copper – “We’ve had reports of shots being fired from here, care to explain?”
Purdy – “Yes officer – I’ve been scaring the birds off the apple trees and clearing out some vermin”.
Copper notes bits of plastic being shuffled out of sight – smiles “Very good Sir, thankyou I’ll let the chopper drivers know”.
Toot – Purdy 6 – Drones 0 - toot.
To follow up on the top "K" post and the absolute on display arrogance of CC at Estimates - additional reference courtesy Senate Estimates RRAT committee:
...I note that today CC actually got off his 'shiny bum' and responded, with M&M support, to the probing Senator Fawcett QON 98:
Quote:Senator Fawcett, David asked:
Senator FAWCETT: To follow up briefly, before Senator Back starts a different line of questioning: we have talked before, when discussing ARPAS, the fact that this should be a whole-of-government solution—not just the safety regulation, but also import restrictions. I raised the question at the time: have you engaged with other departments? That includes you as well, Mr Mrdak. At the time you had no answer for me. Can I ask the question again: have you engaged with other departments specifically to look at import prohibitions for drones that do not meet a requirement that we may choose to lay down, in terms of shaping the safety environment for drones, to ensure compliance, given that, to date, voluntary education in the form of things on your website or pieces of paper in a box have not proven to curtail or restrict the way that some people choose to use these devices?
Mr Mrdak: The department has been scoping the issue of import controls. That is part of the work that will feed into the government's position on these matters.
Senator FAWCETT: Can I just clarify: when you say 'scoping', are you talking internally, or have you engaged with other government departments?
Mr Carmody: My understanding is we have engaged with other government departments, but, if Ms Spence cannot help, I will confirm that on notice.
Ms Spence: We have had some high-level discussions, but I will take on notice any more details that I can provide.
Note the word 'scoping' - code for obfuscation - and the way the original context of the question is purposely sidestepped in the AQON by our highly paid, unelected bureaucracy
Answer:
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), which has aviation safety regulatory responsibility for Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) operations, is engaging with federal, state and territorial law enforcement authorities on improving the coordination of actions to enforce laws governing RPAS and RPAS-related activities, including the use of counter-drone devices by law enforcement agencies.
CASA is undertaking a review of aviation safely regulation of RPAS and will be releasing a discussion paper shortly calling for public, industry and agency comments on the paper.
At this stage, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development broader consultations on RPAS have focussed on CASA and the Attorney Generals Department in the preparation of advice to the Government on its response to the House of Representatives Inquiry on RPAS.
The Department will continue to consult with other Government departments and agencies as appropriate.
Very much related to the above abrogated, bollocks AQON I note that over the weekend the UK Government has come out swinging on the 'evidence based' findings (see above) by the Department for Transport, the Military Aviation Authority and British Airline Pilots’ Association (BALPA), via AP:
Quote:UK to tighten rules on drones after near-misses with planes
LONDON (AP) — British officials announced plans Saturday to further regulate drone use in a bid to prevent accidents and threats to commercial aviation.
The new rules will require drones that weigh eight ounces (226.79 grams) or more to be registered and users will have to pass a safety awareness exam.
The government acted because of concerns that a midair collision between a drone and an aircraft could cause a major disaster. Pilots have reported numerous near-misses in the last year alone in Britain. Earlier this month London’s Gatwick Airport briefly closed its runway over safety concerns when a drone was spotted in the area and several planes had to be diverted.
The British Airline Pilots Association said independent tests show even a small drone could cause severe damage to a helicopter or an airline windscreen. The union’s general secretary, Brian Strutton, said pilots “have been warning about the rise in the number of cases of drones being flown irresponsibly close to aircraft and airports for some time.”
He said a new report “clearly shows that readily available drones which can be flown by anyone can shatter or go straight through an aircraft windshield or shatter a helicopter rotor. And those impacts would have catastrophic consequences.”
British police have also reported a sharp rise in complaints from the public about intrusive drone use.
Aviation Minister Martin Callanan said drones are providing many useful services but that the new regulations are need to prevent the technology from being misused.
“Our measures prioritize protecting the public while maximizing the full potential of drones,” he said.
The new rules will make it easier for the government to track drones that have been flown in an allegedly risky manner or that infringed on protected airspace. Details of the registration plan haven’t yet been worked out.
MTF...P2
CC & 6D
Perhaps; instead of listening to the ‘official’ dribble and getting caught in the rush to the exits; the Senators could have a minion read through a very sane, sensible briefing provided by the
BALPA, MAA and the UK DoT. The comments on the Sandilands article in ‘
Plane-Talking’ are worth the reading.
But; I can summarise the report – these drone things, in the wrong, unaccountable hands, are an uncontrolled, high level risk to air traffic and the general population.
They don’t have the piñata North of the UK border, but, it matters not, you can always kick seven bells out of anything with less brains than a sporran.
“Catastrophic - involving or causing sudden great damage or suffering.”
“Disastrous - causing great damage.”
“Ruinous - costing far more than can be afforded.”
A thesaurus would help to define the differences, concisely and provided a suitable barrage of verbiage to amuse and distract from the simple fact that a ‘drone’ whether through a by-pass, down an inlet; or, into your personal outlet, is a very nasty experience.
Get on with it – before we need a mop and a bucket to clean up the mess.
“Yes; absolutely, thank you – just keep ‘em coming”.
Droning on insurance -
Via Insurance & Risk Professional online:
Quote:
ARE YOU ON BOARD?
Insurance and Risk Professional 27 Jul 2017
Picture this, you’ve just finished your shift as a trauma nurse and are driving back home on Sydney’s Harbour Bridge with spectacular views on either side and suddenly, out of nowhere an object comes flying toward your window ricocheting off your car and smashing into several pieces.
by Tanaya Das
To your surprise the large object turns out to be a drone even though large parts of the harbour are a no-go zone for them due to helicopters and seaplanes operating in the area.
This is what happened to Scott Hillsley who got the shock of his life driving after his shift ended at the Royal North Shore Hospital.
It’s not the first time this has happened, in fact it is the second reported incident in the past nine months where a drone has struck a car on the Harbour Bridge.
“With an increase in the number of drones in operation, there is also an increase in the potential for third party liability claims,” says Aaron Stephenson, Director, AV Cover.
With drones being increasingly used for commercial purposes as well as for leisure, it is fast becoming a multimillion dollar industry. A report by Business Insider Intelligence, “Drones enter race for next content frontier”, estimated that globally, consumer drone shipments will reach 29 million by 2021. It projected revenues from drone sales to top US$12 billion in 2021, up from just over US$8 billion in 2015.
“Safer technology and better regulation will open up new applications for drones in the commercial sector, including drone delivery programs like Amazon’s Prime Air and Google’s Project Wing initiatives,” states Business Insider.
Stephenson says, “Most drone operators operate a land based business such as photography, video production etc, so there are opportunities for brokers to assist with their other requirements. We also see more drones being utilised by construction companies, property developers and the like which means more prospects for brokers.”
Not your average insurance
Drone insurance is not what one would consider a ‘traditional’ insurance product, says Dylan Jones, Senior Broker, Aviation Insurance Brokers Australia.
He notes, “The evolution of affordable drone technology has been rapid, with aviation underwriters forced to adapt existing hull and liability policy wordings to cover this emerging industry’s need. There is no legal requirement for drone operators to maintain insurance cover, however, often contracts will force the issue for operators with government or commercial agreements.”
The industry name for drones, is UAV – Unmanned Aerial Vehicle – and in Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) more recently has changed the name it uses to refer to drones as RPA – Remotely Piloted Aircraft.
Quote:FOUR THINGS A BROKER MUST KNOW:
1. Remember professional indemnity: All drone operators may have an exposure when producing digital images, giving advice on expected outcomes or suggesting machines to use.
2. Ask your client questions: Ask current and new clients if drones are now being used in their business as this might not be covered under their current policy. For instance, a drone can fly commercially without being licensed, if it weighs less than 2kg by simply registering on the CASA website. This means that someone like a builder could use a drone for roof inspections, and believe that this would be covered under their standard liability policy, which may not be the case.
3. Personalise solutions: There is no actual product called drone insurance. It’s basically either equipment damage or liability cover that has been customised based on the client’s risk exposures.
4. Know the regulations: Primarily be aware of the CASA regulations under which commercial operators fly and the amount of effort businesses should take to ensure that they operate in the safest manner possible.
“Drone insurance can cover public liability for the operation of the machine, and hull (the actual machine itself – while in use or transit). Licensed operators require this cover,” Aaron Donaldson, Managing Director, Allsure, says.
Jones adds, “Drone insurance initially was underwritten by specialist aviation underwriters and this is still largely the case. There are, however, more and more options becoming available with some general insurers dipping their toe in the water with offerings. We expect such endeavours to be short-lived as the market learns of the complexities involving drones and the potential for significant hull and third-party losses with a relatively shallow premium pool.”
Stephenson says, “Drone insurance is relatively niche, most covers are transacted with aviation insurers using aviation wordings. Some non-aviation insurers also offer cover under their public liability policy with a drone extension, this is limited to certain licence categories.”
This is where it can become quite tricky for non-aviation brokers, he believes.
Flight risks
With drone use becoming more common, it is about time that brokers start to seriously look at this sector and the risks.
Dean Lomax from Lomax Media, who uses drones extensively in creating commercial video content says, “The main risks come from those that fly their machines too close to people or property but there is also a growing number of operators who are not aware of the no-fly zones in Australia, such as those close to airports and helicopter landing zones.”
Lomax thinks there is an increasing risk of collision between those flying their machine and another airspace user.
Jones specifies that in terms of hull losses the most significant risks relate to loss of the drone and its payload. For example: sometimes through unforeseen perils such as bird strikes, or the drone simply failing to follow controller direction resulting in it never being found after leaving line of sight.
Quote:With an increase in the number of drones in operation, there is also an increase in the potential for third party liability claims.
He says, “Frequency interference has also become a concern whereby the drone becomes unresponsive to the controller. Manufacturers have moved to build in redundancies to force drones to predetermined actions where the signal between controller and the drone is lost, however, losses are still occurring.”
Further he states that third-party liability is the more significant risk and often overlooked by both recreational and commercial operators.
Also, if and where the Damage by Aircraft Act applies, operators would be deemed strictly liable for third party losses and such liability is unlimited.
Naturally this should be a concern not only for operators but insurers alike given the potential damage and consequential losses which could be caused by a drone.
He continues that one of the more interesting developments which is yet to be addressed through an insurance offering is that of privacy breaches.
The recreational use of drones has grown exponentially in the last couple of years. Donaldson believes that this poses a greater risk to the public and air travellers, due to larger numbers of toy-type craft being used.
Electric powered drones are using high-powered lithium polymer batteries, and these pose a fire/explosion risk if handled, stored or charged incorrectly.
Niche specialisation, or open to general insurance brokers?
Is insurance for remote piloted aircrafts something that only an aviation specialised broker can handle or can a general insurance broker also place commercial drone risks?
Donaldson thinks, “With a little understanding of the terms, there is no reason any broker couldn’t handle drone insurance.”
On the other hand, Jones believes drone insurance, much like aviation insurance is a very specialised field.
He says, “It’s not only necessary to be aware of the legislative landscape which effects an operator’s liability but understanding how such legislation interacts with the policies you place for your clients. It is essential to protect your client as ultimately failing to identify and address insurable risks will likely end up with the broker on the wrong side of a Professional Indemnity (PI) claim.”
As a client who needs insurance, Lomax states, “I believe that with the current situation of application of the rules from CASA, a drone insurance specialist would be a definite advantage, but there would be nothing stopping general brokers from being able to offer a product by gaining a knowledge of the rules that the industry flies under.”
Finally, brokers should remember that there are many drone operators who are underinsured due to lack of knowledge and their numbers are rapidly growing. It is imperative that insurance intermediaries know what clients are doing as a part of their business that could potentially increase their risk exposure.
Hoody now a drone clone -
Via OHS:
Quote:ATSB's Chief Pilot Approved to Fly Drones
The Australian safety agency already has taken advantage by taking investigative video with its drone after a loaded coal train derailed in Queensland on July 21, 2017.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau's Chief Commissioner Greg Hood and Transport Safety Investigation Manager Derek Hoffmeister have received a Remotely Piloted Aircraft Operator's Certificate through the country's Civil Aviation Safety Authority, meaning they are authorized to fly drones while investigating transportation accidents in the field.
The certificate was presented by CASA acting CEO/Director of Aviation Safety Graeme Crawford. It authorizes flying drones that weigh up to seven kilograms.
Hoffmeister has also been granted Chief Remote Pilot status by CASA after passing the required flying test and an interview, and ATSB already has taken advantage by taking investigative video with its drone after a loaded coal train derailed in Queensland on July 21, 2017.
"The [drone] brings significant capability to our investigations," Hoffmeister said.
"Investigators are now able to undertake an initial site survey to check for safety hazards before entering the site, and we can perform site mapping more quickly and with more accurate measurements. Also, comprehensive photos of an entire accident site can help investigations enormously. We can capture that imagery ourselves using [the drone] – imagery that could previously only be obtained with a helicopter."
Hood said the agency has been monitoring the potential benefits of drones for a number of years, and now they are equipped with software and capable of high-fidelity resolution photography for site safety assessment and site and debris mapping.
Hmmm...so I wonder did we ATPs pay for Hoody's drone endorsement...
MTF...P2
At last!
The real risk assessors step in: it had to happen. When
insurance risk assessors set to work they don’t mess about, every possible risk – to them – is weighed, measured and quantified – from every angle. Their in depth analysis are the complete opposite of the CASA scribblings. The insurers will carefully evaluate the risk associated with a ‘drone’ slipping past the fan blades of a large turbine engine and disappearing down the by-pass and define the cost, in the dollars and cents, that will be required to cover the bet they have taken. Bookmaking – down to a science.
The other angle is the ‘speed’ at which they will complete the task – they exist in the ‘here and now’ – real risk, in real time, in the real world; solutions provided within that time frame. Any insurer worth the title will have made a profit from the research and risk assessment before CASA even acknowledge that there may be risk worthy of their consideration.
“With an increase in the number of drones in operation, there is also an increase in the potential for third party liability claims,” says Aaron Stephenson, Director, AV Cover.
“Drone insurance can cover public liability for the operation of the machine, and hull (the actual machine itself – while in use or transit). Licensed operators require this cover,” Aaron Donaldson, Managing Director, Allsure, says.
"[Jones] specifies that in terms of hull losses the most significant risks relate to loss of the drone and its payload. For example: sometimes through unforeseen perils such as bird strikes, or the drone simply failing to follow controller direction resulting in it never being found after leaving line of sight.
Reading through the article above the stark contrast between the dynamic approach of industry and insurer, in comparison to the CASA denial of responsibility for the risk is clearly visible. It’s got me beat how the likes of Carmody, the mad professor and the Scots Git can sit and play word games with the RRAT committee while the risks escalate. Attitude adjustment required; lots of and often.
Toot toot.
THE DRONES ARE COMING!
Larry Pickering
Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
BLOG / FACEBOOK
Tweet
Mon 31 Jul 2017 04:46:30 pm/678 COMMENTS
Perhaps only one innovation is equal to the effects of the computer and that could be the drone. It is already encroaching on every part of life from serious weapons of war to kids’ toys.
From this to no bigger than a match box
Helicopters are experiencing extensive downtime due to far cheaper drones replacing them on commercial jobs that were once the domain, and the lifeblood, of the hard working chopper and its pilot.
Even dumb terrorists have finally worked out that it's not necessary to blow the crap out of themselves. “Those 72 virgins will just have to wait until we collar some more infidels.”
Aviation authorities are on triple time and a half trying to update civil regulations that apply to these increasingly sophisticated drones. But it’s not regulations applying to civilians that we need to worry about. It’s the unregulated enemy who is becoming aware of just how valuable drones can be
Aged Phantoms are now being used as drones
One thousand pilots can be sitting opposite the White House, in Arlington County’s Pentagon, launching one thousand GPS kitted-out drones and ordinance-laden pilotless old Phantom Jets from South Korea into the North to hunt down and destroy every nuclear facility in the country while smaller drones are pinpointing every haunt the mad Zika Kid frequented in the past year.
All complete with high res cameras to ensure we get to see the fat guy’s surprised, contorted, face as he frantically tries to finish his third helping of crepe suzettes.
In case anyone survives the initial drone or Phantom blast, every bombed site is followed up with one MOAB each to suck the oxygen out of the air for miles around before setting it all alight … this will be the way of modern warfare, no soldiers, no pilots, no weaponry at risk, where the greater technology is always the winner.
Oh, the little piglet might get one or two of his ICBMs off the ground if he’s lucky but the Iron Dome defence already deployed in the South will take care of them before they get warm. And guess where they will be landing. Every day that Trump delays dealing with this, the more difficult the task.
The next concern is civilian use of drones and, you know, delivering pizzas (above) and other stuff like drugs, smokes and alcohol. Of course the paedophiles will be able to hover near the windows of toilets at child-care centres and the normal pervert soon knows who likes to sunbathe starkers in the "privacy" of their own back yard or a workplace roof (below).
The serious voyeurs can get footage of famous divas on the toilet or in the shower or even shagging someone they shouldn’t be shagging. Media will pay good money when the voyeurs are finished with that footage.
Unfaithful husbands are easy meat, as grubby private eyes learn to operate the things. Get the film evidence, point the drone toward Chile and let it go. It will run out of fuel somewhere in the Pacific leaving no evidence… but so what, they are as cheap as chips anyway.
CASA, who still doesn’t understand why planes fly, says this of drones: “Australia’s safety laws for drones or remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) generally depend on whether the operator is flying commercially or recreationally.” The idiots believe people will tell them what they are up to if they intend operating a drone illegally. Hmmmm.
Public Servant, Shane Carmody (above) is yet another dickhead CASA CEO without a commercial pilot's licence
But good ‘ol incompetent CASA has updated the rules to include terminology, so they say: “It must now align with the International Civil Aviation Organization, for example, UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) must now become RPA (remotely piloted aircraft)”. Hmmm, as long as we get the name right everything should be okay then?
Amazon uses this model to deliver purchases
CASA is incapable of regulating RPT so HTF could they ever effectively regulate new-age drones?
But the third and most important shift to drones is (or soon will be) in the terrorism industry. Muslims have never been known for their high IQs but destructive drones need no more than IQs of 10 to operate, so that suits Islam ideally.
Everything from agriculture (above) to search and rescue, mustering and traffic duty, drones are here to stay and helicopters are gone, commercially.
Drones that are sold in the local store come with instructions and lots of assembly pictures and all that is needed is how to tape on the latest compact explosive hooked up to a detonator that can be activated by radio or a simple mobile phone. Islam already has a wealth of experience in detonating things.
All that is needed now is a train or a plane timetable, where the drone can carry its payload to a railway line or to a flight path. Airline pilots are already reporting drones adjacent to flightpaths. Hmmm, I wonder what they are practising for.
The Norwegian "Griff 300" weighs 165 pounds but can lift up to 500 pounds so you can easily get your mates, lots of grog and grandma, into the footy for free
Kits are available everywhere
There are a lot of terrific railway bridges in Sydney and Melbourne where ungrateful Muslims can send a thousand mainly Australians to their deaths in the Hawkesbury River below.
The already seriously corroded Hawkesbury Bridge is an easy target
It would make a terrific photo to send to Brussels or al Raqqa and only a small amount of Semtex or C-4 is delivered to the rails approaching the bridge a mere minute before the train, which has no hope of stopping, is due to arrive. High fives all round and back to Lakemba for the celebrations.
Or camp on Bondi Beach and hover the drone on the flight path to or from Mascot to intersect the next jumbo (departing is much better as the aircraft will be full of fuel as they discovered during 9/11). Or flying one into Parliament House during Question Time would create a few divisions.
The best part is that the hitherto martyrs are now living, breathing heroes with 72 excited Muslim sheilas eagerly upping their burkahs, or that’s what the blokes reckon. But even if the Muslim sheilas turn out to be a mirage, there are always the shy, mini-skirted, infidel ones who are easily caught.
Australia’s new Homeland Security Force combination may have thwarted the latest Muslim plans for a large airliner, but it can’t thwart what’s to come,
… and they will never catch the perps.
Chester answer to QIW on drones.
Via House Hansard yesterday, Chester actually answers a QIW and makes it sound like he actually know what he is talking about -
Quote:Drones
(Question No. 739)
Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 29 May 2017:
In respect of reported incidences involving drones between 26 May 2015 and 26 May 2017, how many accidents or near-accidents, breaches of privacy or other regulations have been reported (a) over Australian airspace, and (b) over South Australian airspace, © over the airspace of our capital cities including metropolitan (i) Adelaide, (ii) Perth, (iii) Darwin, (iv) Brisbane, (v) Sydney, (vi) Canberra, (vii) Hobart, and (viii) Melbourne, and (d) within a (i) 20, (ii) 15, (iii) 10, and (iv) 5, kilometre radius of the Adelaide Airport.
Mr Chester: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) collects information on the number of aviation safety occurrences reported in accordance with the mandatory occurrence reporting requirements of the Transport Investigation Act 2003 (TSI Act) and associated aviation safety regulations. The information on occurrences collected by the ATSB is categorised into three types:
Accidents: An occurrence involving an aircraft where: a person dies or suffers serious injury; the aircraft (which includes a drone) is destroyed or seriously damaged; or any property is destroyed or seriously damaged.
Serious Incidents: An incident involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly occurred.
Incidents: An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation and also meets the definition of a 'Transport Safety Matter' in the TSI Act.
Available information on the number of aviation safety related occurrences as requested, is in the table below.
The ATSB has advised that it is currently reviewing the Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems occurrence data for the first half of 2017 and expects to publish updated figures and analysis in August 2017.
Information on incidents that are not aviation safety related, for example, privacy, are a matter for the relevant authority in each state and territory.
Source: ATSB National Occurrence Database - detailed data on occurrences involving remotely piloted aircraft for the period 26/5/15 to 26/5/17 (http://data.atsb.gov.au/DetailedData)
1 For the purposes of this response, 'Capital City Airspace' has been defined as Class C and D airspace, which is the controlled airspace and control zones around major airports (Class C) and the controlled airspace and control zones around controlled metropolitan and regional airports (Class D).
2 All 'accidents' reported to the ATSB involved damage to the drone (which is defined as an 'aircraft' for the purposes of this reporting) or other property only. No accidents involved injuries to persons or damage to other aircraft.
MTF...P2
Drone Wars Update: CC warns against using Purdy -
Comardy Capers once again proves how out of touch with reality he and his Fort Fumble minions truly are when it comes to drones, via the Oz:
Quote:Aviation safety watchdog’s warning to anti-drone vigilantes
’CASA has no interest in discouraging the responsible development and controlled deployment of effective counter-drone technologies’.
- The Australian
- 12:00AM August 11, 2017
- [size=undefined]ANNABEL HEPWORTH
Aviation Editor
Sydney
@HepworthAnnabel
[img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/d4b891a093ad6ddc703117011dc4fd61/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img][/size]
The aviation safety watchdog has warned against “unlawful vigilantism” by people to jam or destroy drones they feel have intruded on them.
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has sounded the alarm about sophisticated “counter-drone” technologies used in a “dangerous and unlawful” way in response to drones.
In a discussion paper for a landmark review into drones, CASA says remotely piloted aircraft have been linked to the delivery of contraband to prisons, interfering with firefighting operations and encroaching into controlled airspace — leading to technologies being developed to thwart drones.
“Understandable though the frustration and indignation of people may be when they believe that their rights have been intruded upon by an irresponsible or malevolent RPA operator, it is important not to encourage potentially dangerous and unlawful vigilantism,” the discussion paper says.
“The uncontrolled use of counter-drone technology could create more problems than it is intended to solve.
“At the same time, however, CASA has no interest in discouraging the responsible development and controlled deployment of effective counter-drone technologies. Such technologies can serve important and beneficial purposes without unacceptably compromising safety.”
There are concerns drones could be used to invade people’s privacy, including when they are skinny-dipping in backyard pools. It is estimated 50,000 drones are used in Australia as they become cheaper.
The discussion paper canvasses requiring hobbyists to register the devices, including asking for feedback on whether there should be a minium age for people to operate drones.
The paper flags the possibility of mandatory training before people fly drones. Also under consideration is “geo-fencing”, which uses GPS or other radio frequencies to exclude drones from certain areas, although there are concerns the technology could itself be a safety risk.
CASA asks for feedback on whether the use of recreational drones should be “prohibited completely until the actual and perceived safety risks they pose has been effectively mitigated”.
The authority’s chief executive, Shane Carmody, also notes that drone technology could deliver “a multitude of beneficial humanitarian, economic and recreational applications” and says that commercial opportunities should not be unnecessarily constrained.
Do you think Old MacDonald, from the back of Burke, is going to think twice about blowing a drone out of the air with two barrels from the Purdy, just because Dr A and wingnut Carmody say it is unlawful? - next they'll be saying it is unlawful to be thinking of going flying while under the influence...
Meanwhile it is quite legal to be sipping a Chardy heavily under the influence and at the same time operating a drone while at a BBQ in the local park - UDB!
MTF...P2
Oz Flying..
"CASA's discussion paper on drone regulation is now ready for industry comments. This may be just a fringe issue to many of us who are still struggling with AirVenture, Part 61, rising rents, SIDs and every other spear in the side that is depleting our lifeblood at the moment, but you can bet it's very important to the drone community, which I have no doubt will be pouring feedback into CASA. If the general aviation community takes a stand-off approach to this, then the feedback from the drone people is all they will have. It's probably a critical enough issue for general aviation to take notice and speak up, or we certainly won't be listened to on this topic in the future."
In a nutshell - time for a recreational GA summit. Sort it out then act as one. Lead or follow, but don't get under anyone's feet.