[Peetwo]

Indifference, incompetence or purblind arrogance.

Will the colossal arrogance of CASA be a radical cause the first drone related fatal accident?

Drones ‘fly’ in a space where ‘things’ airborne are strictly regulated, operated by people who are strictly regulated. CASA is used to a disciplined, rule conscious, safety aware industry which has a default setting of avoiding situations which could result in accident or incident.

The risk of a mid air collision were staggeringly low – until now. The chances of bird strike have always been at the low end of the scale, yet they happen. With a few notable exceptions, bird strike is not ‘alarmingly’ dangerous – however it is bloody inconvenient, often expensive and highly disruptive. We cannot control the ‘birds’; but we can control drones.

The problem is one of control for the undisciplined who have nothing to do with CASA and could care less for their puerile little rules; even if these folk could be ‘caught’ there’s precious little CASA could do about them – and even less chance of preventing a repeat offence.  Think parking fines or speeding fines - they only stop honest folk, occasionally, from doing it again.

What will the smug visage of Carmody look like when the Senate committee ask him awkward questions about a helicopter smacking into a hospital roof; brought to grief by some fool who wanted to capture the drama? IMO; there is more chance of that happening than there is of bumping into a grey faced Foxbat one evening – yet even that happens.

If a thing flies and there is even a remote chance that it can hit another flying thing; then CASA is responsible for ensuring, as far as humanly possible, that the risks are minimised. Otherwise what’s the use of this very expensive ‘regulator’ of matters aeronautical?

Copper – “We’ve had reports of shots being fired from here, care to explain?”

Purdy – “Yes officer – I’ve been scaring the birds off the apple trees and clearing out some vermin”.

Copper notes bits of plastic being shuffled out of sight – smiles “Very good Sir, thankyou I’ll let the chopper drivers know”.  

Toot – Purdy 6 – Drones 0 - toot.

To follow up on the top "K" post and the absolute on display arrogance of CC at Estimates - additional reference courtesy Senate Estimates RRAT committee:

...I note that today CC actually got off his 'shiny bum' and responded, with M&M support, to the probing Senator Fawcett QON 98:

Senator Fawcett, David asked:

Senator FAWCETT: To follow up briefly, before Senator Back starts a different line of questioning: we have talked before, when discussing ARPAS, the fact that this should be a whole-of-government solution—not just the safety regulation, but also import restrictions. I raised the question at the time: have you engaged with other departments? That includes you as well, Mr Mrdak. At the time you had no answer for me. Can I ask the question again: have you engaged with other departments specifically to look at import prohibitions for drones that do not meet a requirement that we may choose to lay down, in terms of shaping the safety environment for drones, to ensure compliance, given that, to date, voluntary education in the form of things on your website or pieces of paper in a box have not proven to curtail or restrict the way that some people choose to use these devices?

Mr Mrdak: The department has been scoping the issue of import controls. That is part of the work that will feed into the government's position on these matters.

Senator FAWCETT: Can I just clarify: when you say 'scoping', are you talking internally, or have you engaged with other government departments?

Mr Carmody: My understanding is we have engaged with other government departments, but, if Ms Spence cannot help, I will confirm that on notice.

Ms Spence: We have had some high-level discussions, but I will take on notice any more details that I can provide.

Note the word 'scoping' - code for obfuscation - and the way the original context of the question is purposely sidestepped in the AQON by our highly paid, unelected bureaucracy  

Answer:

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), which has aviation safety regulatory responsibility for Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) operations, is engaging with federal, state and territorial law enforcement authorities on improving the coordination of actions to enforce laws governing RPAS and RPAS-related activities, including the use of counter-drone devices by law enforcement agencies.

CASA is undertaking a review of aviation safely regulation of RPAS and will be releasing a discussion paper shortly calling for public, industry and agency comments on the paper.

At this stage, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development broader consultations on RPAS have focussed on CASA and the Attorney Generals Department in the preparation of advice to the Government on its response to the House of Representatives Inquiry on RPAS.

The Department will continue to consult with other Government departments and agencies as appropriate.

Very much related to the above abrogated, bollocks AQON I note that over the weekend the UK Government has come out swinging on the 'evidence based' findings (see above) by the Department for Transport, the Military Aviation Authority and British Airline Pilots’ Association (BALPA), via AP:

UK to tighten rules on drones after near-misses with planes


 
LONDON (AP) — British officials announced plans Saturday to further regulate drone use in a bid to prevent accidents and threats to commercial aviation.

The new rules will require drones that weigh eight ounces (226.79 grams) or more to be registered and users will have to pass a safety awareness exam.

The government acted because of concerns that a midair collision between a drone and an aircraft could cause a major disaster. Pilots have reported numerous near-misses in the last year alone in Britain. Earlier this month London’s Gatwick Airport briefly closed its runway over safety concerns when a drone was spotted in the area and several planes had to be diverted.

The British Airline Pilots Association said independent tests show even a small drone could cause severe damage to a helicopter or an airline windscreen. The union’s general secretary, Brian Strutton, said pilots “have been warning about the rise in the number of cases of drones being flown irresponsibly close to aircraft and airports for some time.”

He said a new report “clearly shows that readily available drones which can be flown by anyone can shatter or go straight through an aircraft windshield or shatter a helicopter rotor. And those impacts would have catastrophic consequences.”

British police have also reported a sharp rise in complaints from the public about intrusive drone use.

Aviation Minister Martin Callanan said drones are providing many useful services but that the new regulations are need to prevent the technology from being misused.

“Our measures prioritize protecting the public while maximizing the full potential of drones,” he said.

The new rules will make it easier for the government to track drones that have been flown in an allegedly risky manner or that infringed on protected airspace. Details of the registration plan haven’t yet been worked out.

 

MTF...P2

CC & 6D