Silence, the stern reply.
Ain’t ‘drones’ great. I was reading about the Life Savers and the on going Westpac support for that great organisation, the use of drones on our crowded city beaches is a brilliant application of a useful working tool. Then I note that ATSB have embraced the system, another great application; both operations becoming more efficient and effective. All done properly, legal, sane and sensible. How good is that? How could any pilot have a quarrel with those applications, would you even think there was a risk of being clipped by the Westpac or ATSB units; of course not.
It is so simple; get a drone, get qualified, follow the code and the risks to other users of air space are reduced to a very acceptable level. It begs the question though; why can’t the Senate committee get a ‘straight’ answer to their questions? Honestly; I’ve sat here for a couple of hours now, listening to and watching the latest ‘discussions’ between the committee and the agencies; and, to be fair the Senators are much better informed and have more ‘innovative’ ideas than any of the ‘expert’ agencies. The questions posed are ducked, the scenario’s presented seem beyond the imagination of the ‘experts’ and the answers are provided in such a defensive manner that you have to wonder just what, in the seven hells the agencies are thinking with.
There where, during the session, several valid, sensible, realistic ‘options’ presented by the committee, which –had they been treated as a ‘discussion’ topic, could have resulted in a ‘good’ debate; maybe not too many solutions, but the topics could have been expanded, ‘explored’ and discussed. Who knows, maybe the germ of a workable solution could have been found. But no, the stone wall defences are raised and the ‘debate’ withers on the vine.
Take O’Sullivan’s ‘big’ question – the one that really needs to be answered as it reflects a ‘philosophical’ basis for generating a rule set. The question posed was simple enough – to paraphrase – “Why must pilots undergo training, checking and licencing while ‘drone’ users do not?” Now it’s a fair question, but the silence of response was deafening. The question (IMO) goes to the very heart of the situation. We are not concerned about Hoody’s drone whizzing about – we are unconcerned about the Westpac Life Savers unit patrolling the beaches; nor are we concerned about any of the licenced operators using ‘drones’ carefully, correctly and sensibly. They simply are not a problem.
There is no use in looking to the agencies for ‘solutions’; but there was David Fawcett, presenting sensible, ‘do-able’ solutions. Did any one of the agencies enter into the spirit of discussion, argue the case against his solution; or, offer to explore ways and means; or, even humbly suggest a better way to approach the ‘problem’? No; is the short answer, they did not. Now we must ask why. Why is there no innovation, imagination or solutions being offered by our expensive, ‘expert’ agencies.
If the agencies can’t sort it out, double quick and get ahead of the game, then we heading toward the O’Sullivan worst case, scary scenario – where he uses the example of 50,000 guns released, un licenced and unregistered. It may be ‘politically’ unpopular to enforce ‘safety’ rules and requirements, But so is scraping body parts off city buildings when a Police or Ambulance helicopter tail rotor is destroyed by an unauthorised, unlicensed, untrained thrill seeker.
“The burden” of the questions has not been responded to in any meaningful way. This is no where near good enough; is it?
The whole session is – HERE – for your consideration.
Toot – toot….
Ain’t ‘drones’ great. I was reading about the Life Savers and the on going Westpac support for that great organisation, the use of drones on our crowded city beaches is a brilliant application of a useful working tool. Then I note that ATSB have embraced the system, another great application; both operations becoming more efficient and effective. All done properly, legal, sane and sensible. How good is that? How could any pilot have a quarrel with those applications, would you even think there was a risk of being clipped by the Westpac or ATSB units; of course not.
It is so simple; get a drone, get qualified, follow the code and the risks to other users of air space are reduced to a very acceptable level. It begs the question though; why can’t the Senate committee get a ‘straight’ answer to their questions? Honestly; I’ve sat here for a couple of hours now, listening to and watching the latest ‘discussions’ between the committee and the agencies; and, to be fair the Senators are much better informed and have more ‘innovative’ ideas than any of the ‘expert’ agencies. The questions posed are ducked, the scenario’s presented seem beyond the imagination of the ‘experts’ and the answers are provided in such a defensive manner that you have to wonder just what, in the seven hells the agencies are thinking with.
There where, during the session, several valid, sensible, realistic ‘options’ presented by the committee, which –had they been treated as a ‘discussion’ topic, could have resulted in a ‘good’ debate; maybe not too many solutions, but the topics could have been expanded, ‘explored’ and discussed. Who knows, maybe the germ of a workable solution could have been found. But no, the stone wall defences are raised and the ‘debate’ withers on the vine.
Take O’Sullivan’s ‘big’ question – the one that really needs to be answered as it reflects a ‘philosophical’ basis for generating a rule set. The question posed was simple enough – to paraphrase – “Why must pilots undergo training, checking and licencing while ‘drone’ users do not?” Now it’s a fair question, but the silence of response was deafening. The question (IMO) goes to the very heart of the situation. We are not concerned about Hoody’s drone whizzing about – we are unconcerned about the Westpac Life Savers unit patrolling the beaches; nor are we concerned about any of the licenced operators using ‘drones’ carefully, correctly and sensibly. They simply are not a problem.
There is no use in looking to the agencies for ‘solutions’; but there was David Fawcett, presenting sensible, ‘do-able’ solutions. Did any one of the agencies enter into the spirit of discussion, argue the case against his solution; or, offer to explore ways and means; or, even humbly suggest a better way to approach the ‘problem’? No; is the short answer, they did not. Now we must ask why. Why is there no innovation, imagination or solutions being offered by our expensive, ‘expert’ agencies.
If the agencies can’t sort it out, double quick and get ahead of the game, then we heading toward the O’Sullivan worst case, scary scenario – where he uses the example of 50,000 guns released, un licenced and unregistered. It may be ‘politically’ unpopular to enforce ‘safety’ rules and requirements, But so is scraping body parts off city buildings when a Police or Ambulance helicopter tail rotor is destroyed by an unauthorised, unlicensed, untrained thrill seeker.
“The burden” of the questions has not been responded to in any meaningful way. This is no where near good enough; is it?
The whole session is – HERE – for your consideration.
Toot – toot….