[Peetwo]

CAsA & ATsB out of the loop on RPA/UAV safety -

Remember this??

This was the QON & the ATSB somewhat flippant answer:

Senator Fawcett, David asked:

Senator FAWCETT: … Early this year just north of Perth a Dash 8 had a very near miss with a reasonable-sized UAV. I understand ATSB has made comment on that incident. But, more broadly, the question I am interested in is how many incidents are being reported to you through the various reporting mechanisms that you have, whether it is micro or larger UAVs. Secondly, what input, if any, are you having into the current NPRM that CASA has on the streets around looking at new rules for UAV operations?

Mr Dolan: The first half of your question I think we would have to take on notice, unless someone has the material in front of them. But we are tending to look at all significant events involving UAVs, just because it is one of those growing territories, at least to some establish-the-facts sort of level. I would have to consult with my colleagues to establish what we have been doing with CASA on the specific question of their new rule suite.

Senator FAWCETT: I am happy for you to take that on notice. I would also like you to take on notice ATSB's position, with the breakdown of incidents that have occurred—just from what I have seen in the media, the majority appear to be the smaller UAVs that your amateur can buy from whatever kind of shop—on the concept that anything less than two kilograms essentially does not present a risk and therefore should be unregulated, and whether in the light of incidents that have occurred you are comfortable with that approach.

Mr Dolan: I am happy to give you a response on notice.

…

CHAIR: Then will you come back to the committee—or through the secretary or through the department or through the minister—and explain to the Australian public and this committee what their protection is from the growing plethora of unmanned vehicles in the air?

Answer:

The ATSB has received 19 reports relating to UAVs over the last 3 years (although two may have been model aircraft). Twelve of these were medium (2 to 150 kg), one was small (150g to 2 kg) and six are unknown (likely to be either small or medium).

The ATSB received a briefing on the NPRM at the last ATSB/CASA Bi-annual meeting on 4 June 2014. The ATSB did not consider it necessary to make a submission on the NPRM.

The types of incidents reflect manned aircraft incidents (apart from i & vi):

i. 5 datalink/communication failures

ii. 5 engine failures

iii. 1 airframe failure

iv. 1 birdstrike

v. 3 near collisions with aircraft (two of these may have been model aircraft)

vi. 1 collision with a person resulting in minor injuries

vii. 2 UAV operating in a CTAF without making calls and/or in circuit area

viii. 1 UAV operating near a controlled aerodrome outside VMC

Refer to SEQoN 236.

 
And this was where we last left the vexed issue of UAV/RPA regulation on Aunty Pru:

Drones and the like.

This topic is getting some traction, particularly now with ‘sales’ expected to increase 10 fold.  It got some attention at the BRB last evening.  It’s not a ‘hot’ topic, not yet at least, but the different ‘styles’ of risk management were discussed. The FAA appear to be taking a strong line, registration and airworthiness checks, CASA a more laid back approach where responsibility is abrogated through the familiar hand washing process. One of the almost unanimously agreed points was that no matter what the official approach taken, the ‘rogue’ element and those who wilfully intend to misuse the UAV will do so, regardless.

The conversation then turned to ‘numbers of’ – in the long term.  Just how many of the wretched things can we expect.  Consensus seemed to be that at the moment, it’s a ‘fad’ which will hit a peak and diminish as interest wains and wrecks increase.  Sensible money seems to be bet across a three horse race; the sane, safe, legal productive use of an excellent tool by responsible adults: the dedicated aero-modeller types who have never yet created a problem to anyone; and, the dedicated Darwin award crowd who also like lasers and spotlights.  The also rans are those who will purchase not a tool or a thing of interest but a trendy ‘product’ to amuse ‘junior’ for a while until it is discarded and finds it’s way into the nearest skip, broken and forgotten as easily as it was purchased.

One thing was agreed, UAV’s are here to stay in one form or another; it only remains to be seen how ‘government’ will respond – after the fact with retrospective knee-jerk; or, proactively looking carefully at the risks.

We shall see – for mine, the shotgun is always handy.

Toot toot.

Hmm...I'm a little bit dubious of this...

"...Australia can be confident that the biggest aerial innovation since the jet engine is being introduced safely and deliberately. Nobody knows this better than CASA — and when CASA promotes the benefits of more commercial micro drones in Australia, we should all listen..."

From his track record so far Skidmore has shown no inclination to giving a flying fig (or UAV) for minority industry groups and/or their commercial concerns, it is simply not part of his vocabulary -   

Moving back to the Gold Coast incident two days ago, here is an update via the GC Bulletin:

The helicopter was flying at 60m on Wednesday when it nearly collided with the drone. Picture: Westpac Lifesaver Rescue Helicopter Service.

Call from drone pilot training after near miss with Gold Coast chopper
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/article/70373654dd04500200fef506aea12bd0?t_product=GoldCoastBulletin&t_template=s3/chronicle-tg_tlc_storyheader/index&esi=true&td_noGallery=true&td_device=desktop[/img]Alison Marks, Gold Coast Bulletin
July 8, 2016 10:20am

It may be a case of.."damned if you do, damned if you don't"; however going off the track record of the Department & it's aviation safety agencies, I am somewhat suspect that Murky & his minions are obfuscating their responsibilities in a further attempt to limit the government's public liability on such issues as the rapidly growing plethora of small (<2kg) UAVs. That is they are once again divorcing themselves from the safety loop.

Today's Oz article by Binger does nothing to dispel my suspicions... :

Drone deregulation: fatalities will be a case of ‘when, not if’

Scott Goodkin cuts up a carrot with the spinning blades of a 2kg drone. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen

• Mitchell Bingemann
  

Reporter
Sydney
@Mitch_Hell
[img=0x0]http://pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/4c134add4c3a9e4881f7841b69d9ac85/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
Professional drone operators are putting pressure on the government to dump new laws that would deregulate the commercial operation of remotely piloted aircraft by the end of this month.

Peak group Australian Certified UAV Operators held a demonstration in Brisbane this week to underline its concerns about the rule changes, at which photographic drone pilot Scott Goodkin used the spinning blades of a drone to sever a raw carrot.

ACUO has enlisted the International Aerospace Law and Policy Group to help it put its case to government to fight the legislation, which will allow commercial operators to fly without a licence drones weighing less than 2kg from the end of this month.

The group thinks deregulating the operation of commercial drones will lead to an increase in civilian accidents.

“This amendment allows people to fly drones up to 2kg in weight, without any training, insurance, registration or certification. It will open Pandora’s box in terms of new dangers for airlines and the general public,” ACUO’s president Joe Urli said.

Operators must still obey standard flight rules, which are not to fly within 5.5km of an airport, above 400 feet or within 30m of buildings, railways or vehicles, and always to have line of sight of the drone.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority requires that a list of these rules is included with the sale of any drone but ACUO says these are neither strict nor clear enough in explaining the risks.

IALPG principal Joseph Wheeler said the legislation was a step backwards for aviation regulation and that it would put Australia’s enviable aviation safety record in jeopardy.

“While the rest of the world are tightening restrictions on drone technology, Australia has put in place a level of deregulation which will end in a safety nightmare when, not if, the first fatalities ­happen,” Mr Wheeler told The Australian.

“Allowing the untrained, uncertified, uninsured and unproven to commercially offer services to the public for money, using high-powered, off-the-shelf (or homemade) drones, is reprehensible.”

A CASA spokeswoman said the amendments would cut costs and red tape for low-risk drone ­operations while continuing to prioritise safety.

“Requiring all commercial operators to be trained, qualified and certified to operate regardless of drone size would be an unnecessary regulatory burden on people carrying out low-risk RPA (remotely piloted aircraft) operations, including private model and recreational flyers,” she said.

Last year CASA issued 15 infringement notices for breaches of drone safety rules and has issued seven notices so far this year. Two investigations are under way.

Recent research by RMIT University showed technical problems were the cause of 64 per cent of drone-related accidents between 2006 and this year. The paper’s author said it would be necessary for stricter safety regulations to be put in place because Australian skies were used increasingly by commercial drone operators.

ACUO wants the regulations to revert to original rules to protect controlled airspace, aerodromes and airports from errant drones. It also wants all commercial operators to be properly trained, qualified and certified to operate, regardless of drone size.

 
MTF...P2