[Peetwo]

Estimates AQON update & Drone rule 303 -

Well another turn up for the books, remembering there was a 2nd Supp Estimates hearing, apparently miniscule 4D & Minister 'Pete the pot-plant' Nash have prompted M&M and his motley band of minions, to stick to the AQON requested timetable... - Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development

Not too many surprises so far, although it does appear that CASA & ASA are ducking for cover, while attempting to throw each other under the bus, on Sir A & Harfwit's attempt to save (accelerate me) the ever diminishing OSTF (OneSKY trough fund). More on this ATP funded cluster-duck on the ASA boards very soon..

Example: Comardy  AQON141

Senator Xenophon, Nick asked:

Senator XENOPHON: Can you provide details to this committee of the information that has been requested, including any emails, correspondence, notes or other documentation as to the flow of information between CASA and Airservices Australia about this organisational change.

Mr Tiede: We will be able to do that—not right now.

Answer:

Given the scale and complexity in respect of Airservices ‘Accelerate’ programme and the fact that it would be rolled out over a period of time, CASA took the position that it would be preferable to have updated briefings provided at the senior level between CASA and Airservices management on a regular basis.

The types of information requested and provided includes copies of Airservices Operating Model, Structure and Safety Case Assessment and Reporting (SCARD), charts on the new Airservices structure, safety management accountabilities in Airservices, Airservices IT access issues, and operational and technical staffing matters including at specific Airservices locations.

The Accelerate programme is an integrated activity within Airservices, rather than a stand-alone or parallel activity. As such, CASA’s routine surveillance activities are examining Accelerate components simultaneously with business as usual components. Surveillance includes continuous exchange and review of related documentation.

Structural changes were implemented within CASA in early October to align the CASA structure with the new Air Navigation Service structure implemented by Airservices, placing surveillance responsibility for the air traffic control and air traffic engineering regulations under one CASA team.

Since August 2016, Accelerate-related meetings, briefings and informal discussions have regularly taken place between CASA and Airservices. In some instances, these have been at the narrow level of a specific regulation, in other cases more broadly to facilitate ‘big picture’ understanding. The overview briefings have taken place alongside the standing, quarterly, regulation-specific, CASA/Airservices meetings. CASA was also concerned that during the Accelerate programme full access was able to be maintained by CASA to the relevant sections of Airservices’ IT system to facilitate documentation review.

CASA’s view is that the safety of the programme would be determined as the capability assessments were completed, positions established and staff members allocated, that is, on a rolling and ongoing basis. CASA continues to monitor the safe operation of Airservices during the transition period.

Copies of the key safety documents shared between CASA and Airservices up to 17 October 2016 are provided in the response to 152.

 
Note how the answers get longer, the weasel words increase and they talk in circles. This is classic bureaucratese attempting to totally obfuscate all liability in the answer -   

Next an update to yet another growing and shambolic Fort Fumble induced regulatory cluster-duck...

First from Lexology on part II of their UAV/RPA review:

Rise of the Drones Part 2 - Using drones for commercial purposes






Australia January 25 2017

In a recent article, we outlined the issues to consider when using drones for recreational use, highlighting the case of a Victorian man who used a drone to collect a Bunnings sausage whilst reclining in his backyard pool, risking a $9,000 fine.

In this article we look at the commercial uses of drones and the issues to consider when using drones in the suburbs to deliver pizza, monitor agricultural livestock and crops, or in remote mine sites to survey power lines and pipelines.

What initially began as a novelty toy has slowly turned into a product with serious commercial usage. The concept of having an eye in the sky is no longer just ‘pie in the sky’, as more and more companies take advantage of the high resolution graphics, quality audio and at times high thermal imaging stemming from advances in drone technology.

In addition, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) recently stripped away the red tape that had previously imposed higher costs and legal burdens for low risk drones (commonly referred to as remotely piloted aircraft). As from 29 September 2016, commercial operators of very small drones (weighing between 100 grams and 2 kilos) do not require an operator’s certificate or a remote pilot licence.

In a nutshell, the standard drone operating conditions are that the drone:

• must be at least 30 metres away from people (or no closer than 15m with the person’s consent);
  
• must be at least 5.5km away from a controlled airdrome;
  
• must not fly higher than 120 metres (400 feet);
  
• must fly only during the day, and not during night, or into a cloud or bad weather (where visibility cannot be maintained);
  
• must fly within the visual line of site (unless prior approval has been granted);
  
• must not be flown over populated areas (ie beaches, parks and sports ovals);
  
• must not be flown near an area affecting public safety or where emergency operations are under way (ie car crash, police operations, bush fires etc);
  
• only one drone may be operated at a time; and
  
• must not drop or discharge any objects in any manner that may create a hazard for people, property, or other aircraft.
  

In respect of the agricultural industry, amendments have been made to the Agricultural Chemicals Distribution Control Act 1966, which has the effect of allowing drones to be used to spray crops in more difficult areas without the need for a remote pilot licence from CASA.

The effect of such changes has seen drones now used for a wide variety of purposes, such as :

Environmental - analysing vegetation coverage; detailed terrain models and photo mosaics of ground conditions, and erosion monitoring. The Victorian government has been monitoring Koala populations with drones, and this summer used the same technology to provide real time reporting on firefighting operations. Scientists have been using drones to record and map the health of coral populations on the Great Barrier Reef as well as mangrove forests along Darwin’s harbour. Polar oceanographers have been using drones to monitor sea ice changes in the Artic and Antarctica, and monitor populations of artic sea birds.

Mining - surveying power lines and gas pipe lines, where previously helicopters and four wheel drive vehicles were required in remote areas. Drones are also being used to check on ore stockpiles and perform maintenance inspections around plants, as well as geotechnical issues that may have dangers such as dangerous or unstable pit walls.

Agricultural - checking on stock in remote areas, checking fence lines or water troughs, monitoring bushfires and as mentioned above, spraying for crops. Spectral imaging is being used to check crop health to assist with determining fertiliser and irrigation application rates. Near infrared can reveal plants under stress days before those stress signs would normally be visible. Breeding cows and ewes can be checked without the stress and interference associated with four wheel drives and motorbikes.

Commercial – in late 2016, Dominoes successfully delivered its first pizza via a drone in New Zealand as part of its 10 minute target delivery programme. Australia Post has been trialling drones for parcel delivery in rural areas. In Nevada, drones have received approval to deliver bottled water, emergency food and first aid kits to people isolated in emergency situations. A trial for the delivery of medical supplies to remote NSW communities was in place for late 2016.

In deciding to use drones you must ask yourself one of two questions:

• Will I get the drone myself and make sure that I comply with all of the CASA regulations; or
  
• Am I going to use a commercial drone operator (of which there are now many available). In which case, as when entering into any contract you will need to carefully consider the terms and conditions that you agree to. Paying particular attention to what data, images or information you are to receive and for how much.
  

Careful consideration must be given with respect to who owns that data, and ensuring that any of your trade secrets or intellectual property is properly protected so that commercially sensitive material you may have on your land is not leaked to your competitors. Importantly, you may need to consider liability for any accidents or negligence – imagine if a drone flew into a powerline causing a blackout to hundreds of businesses, or injured a pedestrian and the operator didn’t hold sufficient insurance.

When considering using drones for commercial gain and whether to use them yourself, or outsource to specialist contractors, be sure to receive the right legal advice before hand.

For more information or discussion, please contact HopgoodGanim Lawyers.
HopgoodGanim - Ben Ricketts and James Knell

 Finally a slightly more amusing story on drones and the currently inadequate FF ruleset, courtesy Townsville Bulletin... :  

Farmers invoke rule .303
February 1, 2017 12:00am
John Andersen
Green groups will use drones to take photos of suspected illegal land clearing.

SHOTGUNS could be used to shoot green group spy drones out of the sky over North Queensland grazing properties.

Environmental group The Wilderness Society is about to launch a hi-tech operation labelled Sky Scout that will employ drones to take photos of suspected illegal land clearing.

Prominent grazier Graham Elmes said landholders would be worried the drones would stampede their cattle. He said he would not be surprised if graziers used rifles and shotguns to shoot down unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles.

The Wilderness Society is crowdfunding $30,000 to buy and provide operational backup for three drones, one each in Queensland, WA and NSW.

Brisbane-based spokeswoman Gemma Plesman said that with two weeks left to run the crowdfunding campaign was close to its financial target.

She said Queensland was the worst offender when it came to tree clearing.

Ms Plesman said video footage from the drones would be released to politicians and the public. “We want to show the scale of destruction to the community,” she said.

Ms Plesman said the drones would be used to monitor large scale land clearing on properties, some in excess of several thousand square kilometres.

But, given that drones cannot be lawfully flown beyond the operator’s line of sight, the plan has logistical difficulties of its own to overcome.

Craig Newlyn, technical editor of Drone Magazine Australia, said that Civil Aviation Safety Authority laws dictated drones could not be flown beyond visual line of sight.

He said larger drones costing more than $25,000 each had a visual range of about 700m in clear weather. Small drones had a range of between 300m and 400m.

He said drones could be flown longer distances, but only if there were other operators to maintain visual contact.

“The reality of being able to accomplish what they want to achieve will be difficult with a $10,000 drone,” he said.

Mr Elmes, who now lives on a grazing property at Millaa Millaa, on the Atherton Tableland has owned and operated cattle stations in the Cooktown area of Cape York Peninsula.

He said for The Wilderness Society to be successful, its drone operators would have to drive on to the property they were targeting for video and photographic images.

“If they trespass how would they be legally able to distribute those images? I don’t know how they expect to get away with this sort of thing,” he said.

“People could take a shot at them (drones). If you don’t know what it is or what it is doing there, what options do you have?”

Mr Elmes said noise from the drones could easily frighten cattle into stampeding. He said the agitated cattle could smash fences and run until they were exhausted

 


 MTF...P2  

[Gobbledock]

Love it;

"Prominent grazier Graham Elmes said landholders would be worried the drones would stampede their cattle. He said he would not be surprised if graziers used rifles and shotguns to shoot down unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles".

Two choccie frogs to any Farmer who takes out a Drone using a firearm and posts it on Poohtube!

[Kharon]

Just a fillip really; you can read the CASA blurb from Gibson – HERE - .  A pointless waste IMO, those who operate responsibly will be aware of the rules and check; those who will not are unlikely to trouble themselves, download an Ap and then check.   I wonder, will this magic  Ap flag and update in real time areas like bush fires then warn of the flight paths to, from and within the working area? Bet the Ag boys would like to think it does.  The ever pragmatic Hurst – as usual - hits the nail on the head.

Phil Hurst – “Now we need an app to let low airspace users know where a drone is operating. Good start though.”

My property – my drone: Purdey 2 - Idiots 0.

[Peetwo]

Just a fillip really; you can read the CASA blurb from Gibson – HERE - .  A pointless waste IMO, those who operate responsibly will be aware of the rules and check; those who will not are unlikely to trouble themselves, download an Ap and then check.   I wonder, will this magic  Ap flag and update in real time areas like bush fires then warn of the flight paths to, from and within the working area? Bet the Ag boys would like to think it does.  The ever pragmatic Hurst – as usual - hits the nail on the head.

Phil Hurst – “Now we need an app to let low airspace users know where a drone is operating. Good start though.”

My property – my drone: Purdey 2 - Idiots 0.

Via Avbiz... :

CASA launches "no-drone zone" app for operators
10 February 2017

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has teamed up with specialist company, Drone Complier, to develop a smartphone, tablet and web-based app that will alert drone operators to “no-drone zones” in their intended area of flight.

The app, called "Can I fly there?" is due to be launched in May this year. It will allow those flying drones for fun, or under the new sub-2kg commercial category to enter a location where they are proposing to fly. It will then flag nearby ‘no-drone zones’ such as airports, helicopter landing areas and other restricted areas.

It will also flag ‘no-drone zones’ areas where emergency services such as firefighters are operating.

CASA’s Group Manager, Aviation, Graeme Crawford, said that the app would also educate Australia’s drone community on what rules to follow.

"The app will encourage these drone flyers to operate responsibly and to follow our standard operating conditions each and every time they fly" Mr Crawford said.

"We know people want to have fun with their drones. We want to help them do this safely by reducing the potential for them to fly their drone inadvertently in a way that might cause a threat to aircraft or other people.

"This app will provide them with the relevant content and services they expect to have at their fingertips when out flying."

Drone Complier’s Chief Executive Officer, Wayne Rochat, said the app was a simple-to-use way of increasing safety for drone operators and the aviation community. 

"Our software is focused on ensuring simple drone compliance, delivering safety and simplicity for both hobbyist and enterprise customers," Mr Rochat said.

Drone Complier was selected by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority following a competitive tender process that opened in September 2016.

Read more at http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/lates...cl6CV4d.99

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Estimates cometh - Time to grow a set.

It is indeed; time for this industry, if it intends to survive to grow a set. Time and time again, the same old story, the same old ploys and industry falls for it – every bloody time.  Same –same the politicians – talk, talk, negotiate – a small concession is offered and everyone thinks they have done their job.  Cycle after cycle proves the insanity as industry keeps bending over and taking it.  Time to force CASA to justify every sentence in every putrid rule they generate, in every disgusting action they take and challenge every bare faced lie told.

It is time to face down these truly dreadful administrations, industry, politicians and the public alike. Just for once, stand your ground, ignore the threats, refuse the placebo and force the changes demanded. Make it happen, before it is too late.

Nick X set a great example – he just says, No, sorry, that's not good enough, back to the drawing board. Industry should follow that example – Sorry, 61 and 48.1 are not acceptable, go away and fix them, that’s what we pay you for.

The word NO should be tattooed on the balls of every industry participant – when they grow a set that is.

Toot toot.

[P1_aka_P1]

Tim Tam "K". All indications are that industry will, once again, take the bait. All too easy to do as things get worse.

[Peetwo]

Additional Estimates: Feb 27 2017. 

Estimates timetable released:

Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio program: 27 February 2017: (PDF 48KB)

QON list for the Senators...

 Questions on MH370??

• Can the ATSB tell the Senators why, based on the quoted figures from the next best tenderer for the MH370 SIO deep sea search, that they went with Fugro when the other tendered offer would have been approximately 160 million dollars cheaper and the priority search zone would have been search completed approximately 18 months earlier?
  

Questions on Airservices Australia OneSKY trough fund?

• Where to begin? - How about here: Update: Aunty/ATCOs/Xenophon vs The Oz(Cleary)/ASA/Harfwit
  

 
MTF? - Definitely...P2

[Kharon]

The semantics of aircraft in the lounge room.

It depends which team you support how you regard last nights Estimates session with CASA. When we have the Hansard and video it will be a lot easier to pick out the bones, but one major topic for the BRB will be the way in which ‘responsibility’ for the dreadful safety state of our airports has been passed about like a parcel.  Old ‘Shifty’ Tiede & Co. played a merry tune to go with the parcel passing.  Carmody was so quick to unload it he almost shoved Halfwit under the Senate bus (MTF).

For the lay person, the easiest thing to understand will be ‘buffer zones’ and the lack thereof. Essentially ‘tis but a ‘fenced off’ no building area, either side of the runway, precisely designed to prevent exactly the kind of accident we witnessed last week in Melbourne. The UK, USA and most ‘grown up’ aviation nations have these areas; for what must now be, to all, blindingly obvious reasons – Australia does not.

Where CASA took their lame defence was to what are known as Pans-Ops (PO). ICAO produce these and Australia does comply. What PO provide is an obstacle free area from the runway end out to a specified distance. The area is known as ‘the splay’. The splay widens progressively at a predetermined angle to that distance; like a fan if you will, laid out on the ground. There are maximum heights for man made structures within the fan, so to maintain a minimum clearance in the vertical (obstacle clear gradient).  Simply put, you may place a two story building at mile from the end of the runway, or; a ten story building at five miles within the ‘splay’ area. So ‘obstacle clear’ flight paths and buildings may coexist; and, provided the aircraft can maintain the gradient prescribed, in theory, all is well. This is where CASA deem their ‘safety’ responsibility to end.

Consider the Melbourne crash; the aircraft’s problems did not manifest within the ‘splay’ but within the aerodrome confines, without the protection of a ‘buffer’ zone, inevitably the aircraft crashed into whatever was ahead of it. Be it the DFO, the Freeway or a residential area, there is no protection afforded for either aircraft or the public from behind or outside of the minimum prescribed splay area; starting at the runway end.

The runway used by the crash aircraft is some 1500 meters long; the aircraft would be safely airborne and accelerating toward the splay within 1000 to 1100 meters, normally the remaining runway distance is travelled in a matter of seconds and the aircraft enters the ‘safe’ obstacle clear splay; even with an inoperative engine, given clear space the aircraft should obtain a safe height using the obstacle clear distances within that area (pilot responsibility). But the crashed aircraft did not enter the ‘splay’; whatever went wrong happened behind the ‘splay’ and the flight path was, quite legally, obstructed. Whether or not 500 meters of obstacle clear (buffer) area, to the side of the runway would have produced and different result is, as yet, hard to determine; but, given that time and distance the aircraft may well have accelerated to a speed which allowed a climb. This is why ‘buffer’ zones are mandated in other countries. If you are keen, take a look at the aerial view of Archerfield, then imagine you are in a single engine aircraft. Normally, the aircraft is airborne and climbing away within about 60% of the available runway; then engine failure. The right procedure is to land ‘straight ahead’ or as close as possible to straight.  Measure off two thirds of any Archerfield runway, then work out (roughly) the glide distance needed to land ahead, from about 60 feet and see where you finish up – mostly in Mrs. Smith’s front parlour; that’s where. Just in time for tea.

That is as close to describing the ‘problem’ for non aviation folk as I can get; and I’ve probably offended the ‘purists’, using a thumb nail dipped in tar to outline the situation, but that’s Ok. When Hansard do their thing we will take a closer look at just who is responsible for what; but CASA have made it clear they are, so far as they are concerned – off the hook.

Toot – MTF – toot.

[Kharon]

Of tangled webs and aircraft in tea shops.

I like the video segments, for many reasons, particularly for the body language, expressions, hesitations, fumbles and rescues. As one Senator said, Mike Mrdak is bloody good at his job; big fire, lots of chestnuts and many silly children to watch over. The video above stops at the end of a very ‘interesting’ passage of play. The words, standing alone in Hansard will require some serious consideration, which I will get to. But first, put your feet up, grab a beer, listen and watch the segment above – it’s worth it; if you want to understand how the game is played by the departments.

In primus– I draw your attention to the segment starting @ 02:47 – listen to the ‘switch’ and listen, carefully to the ‘threat’ (a sensitive area). Ol’ Hans Tied is about to try and sell NX some snake oil. At 03:17 there is a bare faced lie – a public safety zone etc. “the aircraft did not enter what we would understand to be” etc. Bollocks.  Nick acts puzzled. Regulatory input, not safety – unbelievable.

Secundus – once we get through CASA having ‘feelings’ about what is or is not ‘safe’ @ 06: 07 – Carmody very neatly derails the discussion and takes it all back to the ICAO requirements for stop-ways and obstacle free gradients etc. which have SFA to do with what NX is trying to get to.  Say if an aircraft blew a tyre @ lets say 70 knots and speared off the runway; if you take a modest 1000 kg as the weight and use F=MA, how far do you imagine (or calculate) that aircraft will travel before ‘stopping’, hopefully without fire. No matter; the math is academic – if you’re sitting in a tea shop 100 meters beyond where it stops; life is good. If you were sitting 50 meters from where the aircraft will, eventually stop, then you are at risk. Not a CASA problem – listen while they tell you why.

Last, but by no means least, Barry (Braces) O’Sullivan @ 10:30 weighs in and puts a rather neat hat on the antics of the CASA dancing pig.

Heigh Ho; we shall have the ‘script’ to play with soon and then we may pick out the switches and mix of terminology used in what seems like a vain attempt to side track the Senators. Well, good luck with that boys.  Much MTF – this is fun.

Toot (watch the Doc’s visage – priceless) toot.

[Kharon]

Aircraft - as garden ornaments.

About here; you must do a little work yourself; not too much, but listen again to tape 1, the last few moments from where NX plays the Fawcett trump card (07:40). Watch MM’s face and hear the bugle of the rescue party a little later, MM to the rescue. Then roll straight into CASA II and listen to the rescue mission. This is why it is said that MM is so good at his job, he can see what’s coming and like the cavalry, comes to the rescue. As the video progresses, you can see that it has not been a fully successful rescue, but he managed to buy some precious time to circle the wagons. But now the NASAG trap is sprung; more digging required. You shall see boys and girls, how quickly Carmody ‘gets it’ and supports the MM story line. The ruse very nearly works; MM did a good job pulling the Carmody wedding tackle out of the fire; but these Senators cannot be bamboozled, their advice is rock solid industry expertise.

Serious students of the MM style will have noted the give away ‘tells’; I reckon anyone of the BRB could take MM’s money at the poker table. There is the unmistakable noise of the supercharger coming on line in the speech pattern, speed and tone; the eyebrows a dead set give away. I call it the ‘thin ice dance’. MM knows he’s on thin ice and the dance begins.  Enjoy watching it as much as the Senators do the execution of superb abrogation and rapid escape tunnel construction. Smoke and mirrors at it’s very best.

NX then switches to the ASA story and the CASA involvement (or lack thereof). Carmody does not disappoint.  P_452-Fox 3 scoops the pool for defining, almost word for word, the Carmody escape clause when the pressure mounts. “It’s a view”. The final resort when CASA are caught with their pants down. Fits nicely with defining the Forsyth ASRR report with “It’s an opinion”. This single ‘statement’ more than any other shines a light on the CASA response to anything they don’t like, such as criticism, contrary opinion or evidence. {aside: the big money was on “it’s an opinion”}.

Anyway; watch CASA part II at your leisure; it is educational for those who still believe that CASA is a shining example of a muscular, no fear regulator; the robust pinnacle of safety and representative of all the best things an oversight body can be. Remember, we pay handsomely for this administrative service to industry; dontcha feel good? No, I wonder why.

The oft denied ‘causal chain’ leading to an accident is about to be tested yet again. There are two fatal accidents this year in which CASA are involved; in the chain. The department, the ASA and ATSB are also deeply embroiled. The clear evidence of abrogation, deceit and denial is presented in the Senate video’s.

There is much to concern the government, particularly the minister. The Essendon fireball was not a football club; it was a preventable accident. Starting from the very murky ‘airport’ sales, in which Mrdak, Carmody, Dolan and others were involved. The public is at risk due to the development close in to aerodromes; any one of the departments could have moved to stop this lunacy. They did not; now we must watch as the wriggle and squirm away from their base responsibility.

Enough: I’ll let the actors in CASA Part II play their parts and the audience stand as jury.

Toot toot.

[Gobbledock]

Kharon unpolishing the turd;

"There is much to concern the government, particularly the minister. The Essendon fireball was not a football club; it was a preventable accident. Starting from the very murky ‘airport’ sales, in which Mrdak, Carmody, Dolan and others were involved"

And in true corrupt, governmental bureaucratic style all the aforementioned dirtbags have risen through the corporate ranks into highly remunerated lavish positions while all this bullshit has been taking place over the years. Nothing beats being rewarded for incompetence and dishonesty.

TICK TOCK

[Peetwo]

Hansard is out...

Link for M&M's mob:

Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee
(Senate-Monday, 27 February 2017)

Or if you prefer the PDF link:  Download PDF

 
MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Short diversion.

Had Glen Sterle (legend) been born a pilot, instead of a ‘Truckie’ I reckon the aviation industry would be better off today. The parallels between the two industries, particularly the ‘non-airline’ side, are remarkable. Sterle gets it – he just needs to join a few more dots and he will see that.  Quick Q&A; for a CF, to which industry are the following quotes related?

Senator STERLE: Well, we were talking about chain of responsibility when I was playing in that area too, so it would be at least 20 years now, and that has not gone anywhere. Is there any great news you have for me on chain of responsibility?

Senator STERLE: We have had decades of this sort of research that has been going on. Can you tell me what this new research is going to find in fatigue management that we do not already know? And I am sure that Senator Back could go back to the days when he was an employer and say that we were talking about this sort of stuff.

Senator STERLE: I think this should send an absolute shiver through the industry. We have got 11 or 12 hours on the eastern seaboard—different in Queensland, different in the Northern Territory, different in WA, and yet there is a group of experts, and part of that group of experts is, you said, industry stakeholders or industry organisations?

I have often wondered, since the Pel-Air inquiry, why the Senate recommendations had little to no effect. The recommendations were ‘deep and meaningful’. It’s only when you take the time to consider departments, other than aviation, that you see a pattern emerging. The infamous “it is one opinion” restated, in various forms, over and over again gives you the clues needed. The Senators who actually care about (rather than score political points off) a subject are every bit as frustrated as we, ‘the people’ are. What a game is Estimates. I digress.

Back on track, we may begin with the ‘Shifty Hans Tied’ (hall of shame) interview:- Steam On.

Tiede: “In the case of this accident, a public safety zone protected area would not have played a part in the role of the accident. The aircraft did not enter what we would understand to be a public safety zone area.”

How neat is this?  “In the case of this accident” The discussion reduced from an Australia wide serious safety matter for the public to one isolated case, for which, as yet, we have no facts. Carmody pounces on it – “still under investigation” and the whole thing disappears in a puff of smoke. Now the questions are tied to the apron strings of a single accident and the ATSB investigations. Time and impetus lost in the black holes of departmental systematic prevarication, obfuscation and dilution. Made into a non event which cannot be sheeted back to any ineptitude or fault of anyone. RIP; case closed.  

Or, if you prefer to back up the smoke with mirrors, a belt and braces approach to killing a subject, you say - “a public safety zone protected area would not have played a part in the role of the accident”. Then mess about with semantics of what, exactly a PSZ is. Now we have word weasel and legal eagle speak in the mix; just to keep the Senators party line as far away from any real exploratory work as possible

The answers are too simple to be spoken out loud: in polite company, but with dispensation from AP, in plain Anglo Saxon  “the fucking buildings are too close to the fucking runways – and you let that happen”. There, I feel better now.

Senator XENOPHON: You are there to determine the safety of those that use aircraft, and you do not say CASA has a role to say, 'This ought to be an appropriate buffer zone, or an appropriate public safety zone,' so that if a plane does lose engine power it has the maximum chance of landing safely, rather than having a building in the way?

Mr Tiede: That is correct.

There, in a nutshell, supported by the rest of the CASA script is the problem. Well, that and creatures who lurk in corridors ever ready to abrogate any and all responsibility for the safety of anything, except their own.

MTF? Yes, when I can stomach reading more of this epistle to ducking and weaving. The opening lines, in print, start the game, the video provides the rest. Watch, listen and comprehend to where this unshriven CASA crew are taking their version of ‘safety’. Every man should care. Disgusting.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

UAV/RPA inquiry update.

To begin there has been an extension to the Inquiry reporting date:

On 13 October 2016, the Senate moved that the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 27 April 2017. On 16 February 2017, the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting until 6 December 2017.

There has also been some recent additions to the Submissions.
Next the committee will be sitting this week in Dalby QLD: Public Hearings
Finally from around the traps there has been some media reports of interest.. :

Eureka Tower in Melbourne, Australia PHOTO: www.visitmelbourne.com
[/url]

[url=http://www.mygc.com.au/man-fined-crashing-drone-melbournes-tallest-building/]Man fined for crashing drone into Australia’s second tallest building  
March 11, 2017 4:58 pm/ by Jaydan Duck

A MAN who crashed his drone into the top of Australia’s second tallest skyscraper has been fined.
The man reportedly lost sight of the drone while flying it over the Melbourne suburb of Southbank back in January.
Moments later, the miniature aircraft slammed into the top of the 297.3-metre tall Eureka Tower.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority have since fined the man $1080 for operating the drone at an unsafe height over a densely populated area.

The Eureka Tower is the second tallest building in Australia – the tallest in Melbourne.
It’s dwarfed only by the Q1 skyscraper on Queensland’s Gold Coast, which currently stands as Australia’s tallest.

It was once the tallest residential tower in the world, a title it was forced to hand over to Dubai’s 337-metre tall Marina Torch tower when it was completed in 2011.

---

Senate extends regulations inquiry

12:00amCHRIS BOUNDY

Many drones are delivering post-Christmas headaches for users who are unfamiliar with aviation laws.

The Senate inquiry on drone laws is being expanded.

The committee was due to ­deliver its recommendations next month, but that reporting date has been extended until December.

In the meantime, however, many drones are delivering post-Christmas headaches for users who are unfamiliar with aviation laws and who risk incurring large fines.
Ignorance can cause serious legal problems, so it is vital users get up to speed on the new laws before their drones lift off.

The message is simple: learn what laws apply before learning to fly.

While most people are familiar with road rules, there is often a lack of knowledge about drone rules — and a failure to realise that size matters.

Everyone knows you cannot drive an 18-wheel semi-trailer if you’re licensed only to ride a ­motorbike, but many drone users fail to understand that different laws apply depending on the weight of their drone.

Our lawyers are responding to rising numbers of public inquiries about laws introduced in late September governing the operation of drones in Australian skies.

We are also receiving inquiries from people who do not have drones but are concerned about privacy, safety and other issues relating to drones being flown near their homes and public spaces.

In response to escalating public demand, we have created an easy guide to drone laws, which highlights the rules that have been expertly summarised and communicated by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

We are mirroring the CASA information to broaden public understanding of the legal obli­gations of drone users

The law stipulates where and when drones can be flown, how they can be operated, and what ­licences and permissions are needed for particular types of flying. Different rules apply to different drones and different situ­ations. Laws vary according to factors such as the weight of the drone, and whether it’s being used for recreational or commercial purposes.

Generally speaking, the laws introduced late last year reduce the legal requirements relating to what is regarded as lower-risk drone flying. If you’re flying a drone for recreational purposes and it weighs less than 2kg, there are fewer restrictions but there are still some significant legal requirements users must be aware of.

• The drone must be at least 30m from people, buildings and vehicles. It must not be flown over populous areas where there are significant numbers of people (for example, beaches, parks and sporting fields that are in use).
• In the controlled airspace that covers most cities in Australia, you are not permitted to fly a drone more than 120m above ground level. In addition, you must observe rules about flying near airfields and airports.
• You must not fly drones over situations such as bushfires, floods or vehicle accidents.

A licence is not required for a drone weighing less than 2kg if it’s being flown for recreational purposes. If flying a drone for payment, certain rules and licensing requirements apply. There are also particular regulations if you are using a drone for business purposes on your own property.

The use of drones can raise legal questions about matters such as privacy, surveillance ­devices, indecent filming, trespass and neighbourhood noise.

We are receiving inquiries from people who are concerned that laws are being broken as a ­result of drones being flown in­appropriately near them or their property. In that situation, we can clarify what the law says and how an individual can make a formal complaint if they wish to.

Chris Boundy is the manager of access services at the Legal Services Commission of South Australia.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

UAV/RPA inquiry update.

To begin there has been an extension to the Inquiry reporting date:

On 13 October 2016, the Senate moved that the following matters be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 27 April 2017. On 16 February 2017, the Senate granted an extension of time for reporting until 6 December 2017.

There has also been some recent additions to the Submissions.
Next the committee will be sitting this week in Dalby QLD: Public Hearings
Finally from around the traps there has been some media reports of interest.. :

Man fined for crashing drone into Australia’s second tallest building  
March 11, 2017 4:58 pm/ by Jaydan Duck

A MAN who crashed his drone into the top of Australia’s second tallest skyscraper has been fined.
The man reportedly lost sight of the drone while flying it over the Melbourne suburb of Southbank back in January.
Moments later, the miniature aircraft slammed into the top of the 297.3-metre tall Eureka Tower.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority have since fined the man $1080 for operating the drone at an unsafe height over a densely populated area.

The Eureka Tower is the second tallest building in Australia – the tallest in Melbourne.
It’s dwarfed only by the Q1 skyscraper on Queensland’s Gold Coast, which currently stands as Australia’s tallest.

It was once the tallest residential tower in the world, a title it was forced to hand over to Dubai’s 337-metre tall Marina Torch tower when it was completed in 2011.

---

Senate extends regulations inquiry

12:00amCHRIS BOUNDY

Many drones are delivering post-Christmas headaches for users who are unfamiliar with aviation laws.

The Senate inquiry on drone laws is being expanded.

The committee was due to ­deliver its recommendations next month, but that reporting date has been extended until December.

In the meantime, however, many drones are delivering post-Christmas headaches for users who are unfamiliar with aviation laws and who risk incurring large fines.
Ignorance can cause serious legal problems, so it is vital users get up to speed on the new laws before their drones lift off.

The message is simple: learn what laws apply before learning to fly.

While most people are familiar with road rules, there is often a lack of knowledge about drone rules — and a failure to realise that size matters.

Everyone knows you cannot drive an 18-wheel semi-trailer if you’re licensed only to ride a ­motorbike, but many drone users fail to understand that different laws apply depending on the weight of their drone.

Our lawyers are responding to rising numbers of public inquiries about laws introduced in late September governing the operation of drones in Australian skies.

We are also receiving inquiries from people who do not have drones but are concerned about privacy, safety and other issues relating to drones being flown near their homes and public spaces.

In response to escalating public demand, we have created an easy guide to drone laws, which highlights the rules that have been expertly summarised and communicated by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

We are mirroring the CASA information to broaden public understanding of the legal obli­gations of drone users

The law stipulates where and when drones can be flown, how they can be operated, and what ­licences and permissions are needed for particular types of flying. Different rules apply to different drones and different situ­ations. Laws vary according to factors such as the weight of the drone, and whether it’s being used for recreational or commercial purposes.

Generally speaking, the laws introduced late last year reduce the legal requirements relating to what is regarded as lower-risk drone flying. If you’re flying a drone for recreational purposes and it weighs less than 2kg, there are fewer restrictions but there are still some significant legal requirements users must be aware of.

• The drone must be at least 30m from people, buildings and vehicles. It must not be flown over populous areas where there are significant numbers of people (for example, beaches, parks and sporting fields that are in use).
• In the controlled airspace that covers most cities in Australia, you are not permitted to fly a drone more than 120m above ground level. In addition, you must observe rules about flying near airfields and airports.
• You must not fly drones over situations such as bushfires, floods or vehicle accidents.

A licence is not required for a drone weighing less than 2kg if it’s being flown for recreational purposes. If flying a drone for payment, certain rules and licensing requirements apply. There are also particular regulations if you are using a drone for business purposes on your own property.

The use of drones can raise legal questions about matters such as privacy, surveillance ­devices, indecent filming, trespass and neighbourhood noise.

We are receiving inquiries from people who are concerned that laws are being broken as a ­result of drones being flown in­appropriately near them or their property. In that situation, we can clarify what the law says and how an individual can make a formal complaint if they wish to.

Chris Boundy is the manager of access services at the Legal Services Commission of South Australia.

Update: 14/03/17

By Robyn Ironside, via the Courier Mail:

Different drone laws trigger confusion and calls for uniformity
Robyn Ironside, National Aviation Writer, News Corp Australia Network
March 14, 2017 12:00am

INCONSISTENT drone laws have created a confusing situation for recreational users — who could find themselves facing fines in one state and operating legally in another.

Although Civil Aviation Safety Authority regulations apply Australia-wide, there are still state-by-state differences pertaining to national parks and even council land.

In the case of Cameron Corner National Park, recreational users would be free to operate in the part of the park in Queensland, need permission from the park ranger for the part of the park that lies within New South Wales and face a $75 fine for operating in the national park area that is within South Australia.

Victoria takes a hard line on recreational drone users filming in places like Grampians National Park. Picture: News Corp Australia

In Alpine National Park, recreational users would need to get a licence and apply for a permit from the Victorian Government to operate a drone but in the park land that lies within NSW speaking to a ranger would be sufficient.

Western Australia authorities require users to seek written permission to operate a drone in a national park, even for recreational purposes, and Tasmania has banned recreational drones in national parks but is currently considering making some areas available to operators.

The wild variations in the law have prompted calls for Australian states and territories to adopt the same blanket ban on recreational drones in National Parks as the United States.

Victoria National Parks Association’s protection manager Phil Ingamells said it would be helpful for everyone to be on the same page so drone users know exactly where they stood.

“They’re an absolute nuisance,” Mr Ingamells said of drones.

“They have the same effect on birds and animals as an eagle — drones are like a predator in the sky.”

He said they were also difficult to police in national parks.

“It’s another burden on park rangers,” said Mr Ingamells.

media_cameraIt’s easy to see why National Parks like the Blue Mountains are a magnet for drone operators. Picture: Hamilton Lund

Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said although their own regulations for drone use applied across the country, it was up to individual states to decide how they could be operated on state-owned land.

“A uniform approach would require all state environment ministers sitting down and agreeing to pass complementary legislation,” said Mr Gibson.

“Our jobs is protecting people, property and other aircraft and anything other than that such as privacy is out of our jurisdiction.”

Maurice Blackburn aviation lawyer, Joseph Wheeler said a unified approach between states would help in the understanding of drone regulation.

“People want to use them all over the place,” said Mr Wheeler.

“Defining areas where it’s safe and not safe (to use drones) could be used as a vital tool to teach people about aviation safety.”

He said the current Senate Inquiry into drone use and regulation needed to clarify the issue.

“There’s a lot of confusion in this country and that’s been compounded by a lot of very small drone operations,” Mr Wheeler said.

“The rules need to be significantly simplified and a new education campaign made to inform both recreational and commercial users.”

Aerial shot of Granite Bay in the Noosa National Park. Picture: Tourism Events Queensland

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Of dogs, cats and drones.

I can’t help but think the ‘drone’ matter could be best dealt with at local council level; much the same as they do with dogs and cats. John Howard’s free association law prevents a mandatory joining of an organisation such as the aero modellers; which is unfortunate as education and guidelines are important – if we are to prevent accident, incident or the other problems created by the ‘irresponsible’. So, what to do?

Anyone can buy a dog and is basically free to train the animal as much or as little as pleases; but there are laws which ‘serve and protect’, there are also licences and registration fees; not to mention serious fines if a ranger catches you ‘at it’. So why not same-same for the drones?

Ranger spots a drone being operated in/on/over a council declared ‘No-Drone-Zone’; on the spot fine; not registered – on the spot fine; doing something ‘illegal’ or contrary to the CASA guidelines for safe operation; on the spot fine. Same as dog pooh on the footpath.  National parks and such, those who can control entry to an area could make their own rules. CASA could generate a ‘rule-set’ and guidelines which a council could easily adopt; the additional revenue from registration fees and fines would more than cover the cost of minimal training for the Rangers.

Much like with dogs and cats, it is difficult to govern with ‘broad strokes’, but a local council could manage it, set up the NDZ’s, give the Rangers a watching brief and at least some semblance of control is established at ground level.

Its probably not that simple to do, but some form of solution is needed before the problem, just like Topsy, just grow’d. Aye, all too much for my wooden head, second coffee required.

Toot toot

[Peetwo]

UAV/RPA Senate Inquiry update etc. 

Yet to get the Hansard for the Dalby QLD drone (UAV/RPA) display and public hearing but the ABC Rural did provide this overview of the days proceedings... :

Senate drone inquiry raises questions over safety at public hearing in Queensland
ABC Rural
By Jodie Gunders

Posted yesterday at 3:14pmFri 17 Mar 2017, 3:14pm

Photo: Aviation experts are worried that even lightweight drones pose a risk to aircraft. (ABC TV)


From delivering a pizza to dropping a parcel right at your doorstep, the potential uses for drones are endless.

In rural Australia, unmanned aircraft are already becoming an essential tool for farmers, and now a Senate inquiry is reviewing their use and safety implications.

The Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee held its only public hearing in Dalby, in southern Queensland this week.

Meg Kummerow sells out-of-the-box drone kits to farmers and was one of a number of stakeholders who demonstrated the latest in drone technology to the five senators ahead of the public hearing.

"I just wanted to get across how farmers are using the technology on farm; things like drones deployed to get crop imagery as well as for the livestock industry, whether that's mustering, watering point checking, just to show them how farmers are using this technology," she said.

Queensland senator Barry O'Sullivan instigated the inquiry and brought his fellow senators to Dalby to see how the technology was being used and what the future may hold.

"It won't be long before we look up in the sky and have a mass of activity," he said.

"I mean, even a provincial city in Australia where there could be thousands of unmanned aircraft and devices going about their business of delivering pizzas or your order from the chemist shop or a packet of cigarettes, a six pack of beer and so on," he said.

Mr O'Sullivan was worried that regulation would have trouble keeping up with the rapid development of the technology.

"I felt that if we didn't keep pace with this, what would happen is we'd have some catastrophic event and then the reaction would be almost prohibitive on the use of these devices," he said.

"I see an enormous future for them in agricultural applications and if I could put my view as simply as I can, I think that while ever it's on the parameters of your property, subject only to the impact it might have on issues of workplace health and safety and issues to do with general aviation, beyond that I don't think there should be any regulation," he said.

What could go wrong?

Safety remained a major concern for those in the drone industry.

Aviation safety specialist David Wiman spent 35 years as an air traffic controller and now works to educate operators about the potential threats that drones pose.

"What could go wrong? The worst possible thing that could go wrong is an actual collision between the drone and an aircraft," he said.

Mr Wiman said better education was critical to prevent a future disaster.

"The majority of drones the guys will go out and buy from their local shop are quite light, under 2kg," he said.

"There are very few rules and regulations that pertain to those drones but 2kg, if you were to ingest that into a jet engine, has disastrous consequences," he said.

Last year, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) changed the rules governing the use of commercial drones to make it easier for farmers to use them on private properties.

Rules lightened up for farmers

Meg Kummerow said the new rules had opened up access for farmers, allowing them to operate drones up to 25kg on their own properties, but she was also concerned about safety.


Photo: A group of Australian senators inspects a drone controller at a public demonstration in Dalby, Queensland (ABC Rural: Jodie Gunders)

"For me, airspace safety is really critical when we're also dealing with airspace that our low level ag operators are also working in," she said.

"Once they put that drone up, they don't want a lithium battery to go through a turbine engine and harm their local aerial operator."

Mr O'Sullivan said the Senate Committee would consider "living, breathing" legislation that could deal with constantly changing technology.

"For people on the land with cropping … they're talking about devices that you'll be able to pre-set and go to bed.

"So when that happens, we'll obviously have to consider that not only is it operating out of sight, but it's operating remotely, robotically," he said.

The Senate Committee is due to report its findings in December.

  
Also related, in somewhat of a passing strange coincidence the ATSB have released IMO a half-arsed, neutered research paper for public (& presumably Senator) consumption...  
Here is the presser that accompanied that lack lustre report:

A safety analysis of remotely piloted aircraft systems 2012 to 2016: A rapid growth and safety implications for traditional aviation

Summary

Why the ATSB did this research

The growth in the number of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) in Australia is increasing exponentially. This presents an emerging and insufficiently understood transport safety risk.

Through this research report, the ATSB aims to better understand the implications for transport safety associated with the expected continual growth in the number of RPAS in Australia.

What the ATSB found

Although accurate assessments of the number of RPAS in Australia is not possible, using proxy data, it is clear that the number of RPAS in Australia is rapidly growing each year. Compared to 2016, there will be a possible doubling in the number of systems in Australia by the end of 2017.

In association with the level of growth, the number of RPAS‑related safety occurrences reported to the ATSB has increased exponentially during the 2012 to 2016 period.
About half of the 180 occurrences from 2012 to 2016 involved near encounters with manned aircraft. Over 60 per cent of all reported RPAS near encounters (108 occurrences) occurred in 2016 (69 occurrences). Statistical models forecast a 75 per cent increase in the number of near encounters in 2017. Most occur in capital cities, Sydney in particular, and mostly above 1,000 ft above mean sea level (AMSL).

To date, there have been no reported collisions between RPAS and manned aircraft in Australia.

The next most common type of occurrence involved collisions with terrain, accounting for 52 occurrences between 2012 and 2016, 35 of which occurred in 2016. Terrain collisions were most commonly associated with a loss of control (about 40 per cent), a bird striking the RPAS (about 10 per cent), or engine failure or malfunction (10 per cent).

The consequences of collisions between RPAS and manned aircraft are not yet fully understood. World-wide, there have been five known collisions. Three of these resulted in no damage beyond scratches. However, one collision with a sport bi-plane in the United States of America (USA) in 2010 resulted in a crushed wing. Fortunately, the aircraft landed safely. Less fortunately, a Grob G 109B motor glider had a wing broken by an RPAS collision in 1997 in Germany, resulting in fatal injury to the two people on board.

Due to the rarity of actual collisions, and very minimal actual testing, mathematical models have been used to predict damage expected from collisions between RPAS and manned aircraft. These are informed by abundant aircraft birdstrike data.

RPAS collisions with high capacity air transport aircraft can be expected to lead to an engine ingestion in about eight per cent of strikes. The proportion of ingestions expected to cause engine damage and engine shutdown will be higher than for bird ingestion (20 per cent of ingestions).

RPAS have the potential to damage a general aviation aircraft’s flight surfaces (wings and tail), which could result in a loss of control. Furthermore, a collision with a general aviation aircraft’s windscreen poses a high risk of penetration.

Safety message

The operation of remotely piloted aircraft is an emerging risk to transport safety that requires close monitoring as the popularity of these aircraft continues to rapidly grow.

Type: Research and Analysis Report
Investigation number: AR-2017-016
Publication date: 16 March 2017
 



Last update 16 March 2017

Download complete document
[ Download PDF: 2.78MB]
 
 
Listen to this PDF
Alternate: [ Download DOCX: 11.39MB]
 

 
And here was GT's expert ( ) summary, with Hoody word weasel confections (quotes), of the ATB report (via the West Oz):

Drones pose a threat to planes, warns Australian Transport Safety Bureau
Geoffrey Thomas
Friday, 17 March 2017 3:50AM
Drones have been involved in near encounters with planes.Pictureicture: Getty Images

Australia’s air crash investigators have warned that drones pose a serious risk to commercial aircraft.

The number of drones flying is expected to double by the end of the year.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau yesterday released a report Safety Of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (drones) and the numbers are concerning.

Between 2012 and last year, there were about 180 incidents of drones being too close but more than 60 per cent of all reported encounters — 108 incidents — happened last year.

Statistical models forecast a 75 per cent rise in the number of near encounters this year, the safety bureau said. Most encounters happened in capital cities and almost all were above the allowed altitude for drones of 400ft (122m).

Some near misses happened at 3000m. The bureau report said “while there had been no reported collisions between RPAS and manned aircraft in Australia, and given the variables, the potential consequences of collisions are not yet fully understood”.

According to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, uncertified drones must also be in line of sight of the controller and at least 5km away from an airport boundary and in non-populated areas. Nearly all encounters breached some or all of these conditions.

The safety bureau’s chief commissioner Greg Hood said the report sought to better understand the implications for transport safety associated with the rise in the number of drones.

“Based on our knowledge of bird strikes, RPAS collisions with high capacity air transport aircraft could lead to an engine ingestion in about eight per cent of strikes,” Mr Hood said.

“RPAS also have the potential to damage a general aviation aircraft’s flight surfaces (wings and tail), which could result in a loss of control.

“Similar to the impact from a large bird, collision between a RPAS and a general aviation aircraft’s windscreen poses a high risk of penetration.”

In April 2014, a participant in a triathlon in Geraldton received minor injuries when the remote pilot of a drone filming the event lost control of it and the drone crashed to the ground.

the a from collidng while competing in a triathlon in Geraldton from collision with an RPAS that was filming the race.

The collision occurred after the remote pilot lost control of the aircraft

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Dildo delivery to your door?

Yes indeed the rise of the drones is certainly taking shape.

Sen Bazza said;

"I mean, even a provincial city in Australia where there could be thousands of unmanned aircraft and devices going about their business of delivering pizzas or your order from the chemist shop or a packet of cigarettes, a six pack of beer and so on," he said.

Yes, a wonderful thought having thousands of these things flying near cities and airports. From sausage sizzle deliveries to perhaps timber and doors from Bunnings? Maybe CAsA will do their operational audits using drones? I'm waiting for a Fyshwick adult store to start drone deliveries. Can you imagine sitting in your pool watching your neighbour receiving a drone delivery of a rubber jumpsuit, 14 inch double ended dildo and 1 kilo of water soluble lubricant? Heck, that could be a wealthy PM's house at Point Piper!!!

Tick 'buzzzzzzz' Tock

Beg pardon - Think good GD; wait a while. There are benefits to this all happening; for the price of a dozen shotgun shells I can have my pick of fast food delivery and other goodies. Bang, dinner is served Madam.

 
Purdy 3 – Idiots 0.

[Peetwo]

Bad news for proponents of drone shotgun law #101 -  


Reference posts:

Love it;

"Prominent grazier Graham Elmes said landholders would be worried the drones would stampede their cattle. He said he would not be surprised if graziers used rifles and shotguns to shoot down unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles".

Two choccie frogs to any Farmer who takes out a Drone using a firearm and posts it on Poohtube!

Just a fillip really; you can read the CASA blurb from Gibson – HERE - .  A pointless waste IMO, those who operate responsibly will be aware of the rules and check; those who will not are unlikely to trouble themselves, download an Ap and then check.   I wonder, will this magic  Ap flag and update in real time areas like bush fires then warn of the flight paths to, from and within the working area? Bet the Ag boys would like to think it does.  The ever pragmatic Hurst – as usual - hits the nail on the head.

Phil Hurst – “Now we need an app to let low airspace users know where a drone is operating. Good start though.”

My property – my drone: Purdey 2 - Idiots 0.

Yesterday the Fort Fumble social media stooge answered a question on drones: 

https://twitter.com/CASABriefing/status/...5782140928

'If there's a drone flying over my property, can I shoot it down?' No, no you can't. Learn more: https://www.facebook.com/CivilAviationSafetyAuthority/photos/a.358791474313880.1073741829.314732775386417/628263130700045/ … #aviation #drone

https://www.facebook.com/CivilAviationSa...=1&theater

'If there's a drone flying over my property, can I shoot it down?'

---

No, no you can't.

Under Australian law, a drone is legally defined as an aircraft, and unlawfully interfering with an aircraft—like shooting it down—is an offence that will land you in jail.

Drone operators should always seek permission of the landholder before flying over private property.

If you are concerned about unsafe drone operations, you can make a complaint via our website at casa.gov.au/dronecomplaint

Next they will be defining birds as meeting the definition of aircraft - well they are unmanned...

Damn "K" there goes the idea of harvesting the skies for lunch or dinner...

 "..Beg pardon - Think good GD; wait a while. There are benefits to this all happening; for the price of a dozen shotgun shells I can have my pick of fast food delivery and other goodies. Bang, dinner is served Madam..."

 Finally for those interested here is a link for the Hansard transcript from last week's Dalby Drone Inquiry public hearing - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (Senate-Thursday, 16 March 2017) 


MTF...P2

Ps Good to see Senator Fawcett is engaged with this 'drone inquiry':

Senator FAWCETT: Thank you, Councillor Smith. Does the council have any formal position on your role or capacity in reporting or enforcement of compliance with appropriate regulations for the use of ARPAS?

Councillor Smith : Thank you for the question. Not at this point in time. That is not a space that we are playing in at this stage. What will unfold, who knows, but we do not have a position at this point in time.

Senator FAWCETT: We have had some people talk to us about examples, like where the father and son are beside a council operated pool having their first fly of an aircraft out of the Christmas box and putting a number of people at risk. People are there under the duty of care of the council. Yes, there are generic rules—not to be used within 30 metres of a populated area—put down by a federal government agency, but does the council see that they have any role or could have any role in enforcing or reporting breaches of regulations?

Councillor Smith : Certainly, in regard to reporting, I have no doubt, especially if it is involving council infrastructure and facilities—and, indeed, probably non-council facilities. Fortunately, I do not think we have had those incidences yet, but I dare say, as the technology unfolds—a bit like mobile phones, I guess—and until a large number of the population end up with this technology, we probably will not see those issues. Certainly reporting is something that we would do, but, from a policing perspective, I guess we would have to be governed by the act and by legislation.

Senator FAWCETT: The feedback we have had from commercial operators is that probably the biggest risk to them reputationally is an incident involving somebody who is not a commercial operator flying an ARPAS that creates either nuisance or, in the worst case, damage or injury. You have your incidental recreational user, if you like, but also excluded users. There are anecdotal stories—I assume if it happens elsewhere it probably happens within your shire region—where excluded users, for example, fly beyond visual line of sight. If those things continue unchecked, it puts the whole industry at some risk. One of the issues CASA have is that they do not have enough people in enough places to witness and then report and take action. Perhaps on notice, could the council consider what you might do about having a structured policy to work with the federal government on reporting incidents that come to your attention, either through direct observation or through reporting from the community?

Councillor Smith : Our community is No. 1 to us. If it is protecting our community, I am sure council would certainly engage. To what limit, I am not sure, but council would certainly engage in monitoring and reporting. But, ultimately, if we felt as though certain activities were happening that were damaging people in our community, council would engage.

Senator FAWCETT: On a proactive note, has council considered, as recreational use increases—and I think this morning we were told some 50 ARPAS have been sold in the local area in recent times—declaring certain areas as the desired location for people to go and operate these, if they are just for recreational training use as opposed to on-property use?

Councillor Smith : Not at this point in time, but I do know that we have a couple of dog parks—we could probably have these vehicles above and the dogs underneath. But I agree. These are issues, I suppose, that will come to us. For us, it is very early days, but I guess it is probably no different to a kite-flying park, as such.

Senator FAWCETT: I think the dog park might breach the 30 metre rule.

Councillor Smith : It may do, it may do.

---

Senator FAWCETT: A part of the conversation we have been having is about the recreational user set and how we can use technology. For most airspace use, putting a technical limit on their liberty to fly above 400 feet appears desirable but, clearly, in your case, that is not going to help you nor would it help the Army flying at 250 feet around any of their training fields. Do you have any proposed solutions to that? Is there anything as an operator you look at and go, 'Gee, I wish someone would do this.'

Mr Smart : We have got to look at technology, the apps and things like that, I suppose. But that comes back to the private fellas. How are we going to get to them first? The hobbyists are probably the most dangerous ones—if you want to call it that. How do we educate them? Yes, we obviously have to educate them, like Mr McWatters was saying, so we need some literature out there. We have to get in touch with them and then try to get them onto something like an app. But I think for my area in the Darling Downs, if we had an app just for this area, and if you buy a drone and you are in this area, you have to be involved with that app and you have to let that app know when you want to launch your drone. So for an agronomist, or someone who uses it like that, the NOTAM system is no good because he will be in one paddock, and then half an hour later he will be in another paddock, and then he will be in another paddock. To try and put that out on a NOTAM through CASA where we can see it is not going to work. So it has to be something live with an app somehow.

Senator FAWCETT: Do I take it from that that you see your greatest risk as not being the 15-year-old kid who got one for Christmas but someone who is an excluded user using it on their property or an agronomist, or somebody who is using it as part of an ag-related or industry-related role, even if it is not for profit, as opposed to the purely recreational user?

Mr Smart : No, I think the recreational user is my biggest concern.

Senator FAWCETT: How many recreational users would you have flying into places where you are spraying?

Mr Smart : I could not put a number to it, but the kids have got them. There would be quite a few farmers' kids out there that would have them. There are quite a few farmers that have them that just want to flyer over their crop and have a look at it. I could not put a number to it, but I reckon there would be a fair few out there. And whether they get inquisitive when you flying around, you do not know. But how do you educate the children too?

---

Senator FAWCETT: Can I just ask Insitu something. You mentioned some of the regulatory reform that you would like to see. I notice that you are a member of the UAS Standards Sub-committee. Has that been an effective vehicle from your perspective for industry to get their voice heard by CASA and to essentially put forward the concepts and the safety cases underpinning them for regulatory reform?

Mr Donald : Yes, I think it is. My chief pilot is sitting right behind me. He may want to interject at any time. Rhys, our chief pilot, sits on those committees day to day, almost. We support all of those kinds of committees that are involved in grappling with regulation and oversight. We want to do it because we believe we are a very responsible member of the aviation community—not just the RPAS community but the aviation community. We see ourselves as an aviation player, and on top of that, by understanding those rules and how the rules and the legislation are developing, we can tailor our technology and our business approach to take advantage of that so that, in a competitive sense, we can operate and support our customers like QGC. So we find that that and others are very effective platforms.

Senator FAWCETT: I notice that in the list of industry members there are a number of members represented. Is there any attempt across the commercial RPAS operators to reach consensus on positions that those members of that subcommittee then take to the meetings and work through with CASA?

Mr Donald : If I could refer to Rhys, I think that is the case.

Mr Mudford : Absolutely. Across these committees and working groups there are a range of stakeholders, and they all bring a lot of ideas and opinions to the table, and at times it can be difficult to reach a consensus. Has there been a drive to consolidate those thoughts through a single unified voice? Probably at this stage, no, but I think in the future it is more likely that the industry sees that we can work as one to achieve our goals and grow the industry for everyone, rather than everyone going their own way and perhaps not reaching a consensus.

Senator FAWCETT: At the risk of asking you to do something on behalf of other members of the committee—and perhaps we will approach them as well—are there any areas where there has been broad consensus amongst the industry members but you have not seen progress in an area of regulatory reform? I am happy for you to take that on notice.

Mr Mudford : No, I think that, obviously, in the areas where we have made a lot of progress, everyone accepts that, as an aviation operator in the modern world and as an RPAS operator, you are a risk manager. It is your responsibility to manage risks, so I think that is done very well. The industry accepts that they are responsible for managing risk. The future areas where we do need to make progress are into the certification space and allowing both the small and the very large aircraft to reach the requirements for certification.

Senator FAWCETT: So, clearly, many of the things that you are talking about from a commercial perspective are sort of looking forward at opportunities and the most recent change—where we now have sub-two kilogram commercial operations based essentially on a notification to CASA. Is the committee relaxed about that?

Mr Mudford : Again, I think there are many views but, in my opinion, the views of these committees, broadly, are very positive that the approach is a good one and that the assessment of that—the risk that those standard operating conditions pose—is a good balance between commercial operation and safety.

Senator FAWCETT: And my final question on that particular topic: you have seen a lot of the discussion today revolve around the safety implications to the recreational users. Has the committee considered this issue and how the whole of government—and not just CASA as the regulator but import restrictions et cetera et cetera—could be brought to bear? Has the committee come up with a preferred solution?

Mr Mudford : Again, there are many imports and it is a very complex issue. It is something that we discuss a lot, and I do not believe there is a unified consensus yet.

[Peetwo]

Airports & aviation security report (finally) tabled -

After 848 days and on behalf of Senate RRAT Reference committee Chair Senator Sterle the committee report from the Airports & aviation security inquiry was finally tabled... :

Report

Airport and aviation security

30 March 2017
© Commonwealth of Australia 2017
ISBN 978-1-76010-540-2

View the report as a single document - (PDF 661KB)

List of recommendations

Recommendation 1

2.62 The committee recommends that any future reviews of and amendments to

aviation security regulation be risk-based and fit for purpose, with consideration

given to the unique challenges faced by regional and rural airports and the

overall diversity of Australian airports.

Recommendation 2

3.74 The committee recommends that the Inspector of Transport Security

complete and publish its review into aviation security training and education as

soon as practicable.

Recommendation 3

3.75 The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure and

Regional Development develop a framework to ensure that subcontracted

screening bodies have appropriate employment standards and provide security

training and services consistent with those provided by screening authorities

under the Aviation Transport Security Regulations 2005. The framework should

take into account any inconsistencies in the training and education as identified

by the Inspector of Transport Security.

Recommendation 4

4.53 The committee recommends that the Australian Government amend the

Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 to make it compulsory for aviation industry

participants to report information currently captured under the voluntary

reporting scheme.

Recommendation 5

5.80 The committee recommends that the Australian Government review the

feasibility of establishing a centralised issuing authority for Aviation Security

Identification Cards.

Recommendation 6

5.83 The committee recommends that the Australian Government consider the

development of a national automatic notification system for aviation-securityrelevant

offence convictions of Aviation Security Identification Cards holders.

Recommendation 7

5.88 The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure and

Regional Development update the committee early in 2018, on progress and

outcomes, following implementation of Stage Two of the Visitor Identification

Card enhancements.

Recommendation 8

5.89 The committee recommends the Australian Government consider

mechanisms, including legislative amendment, to strengthen the Visitor

Identification Card process, incorporating appropriate background checking

where appropriate.

Recommendation 9

6.19 The committee recommends that the Australian Government implement

the regional aviation security awareness training package, in accordance with its

2015 commitment.

MTF...P2