[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