[Peetwo]

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….

Excellent post and the burden of the unanswered Senator Barry O question (now QON) will I feel remain unanswered until such time as Dr A is frog marched from the FF HQ building (Aviation House)...

However I get the feeling that if aviation legal guru Joseph Wheeler was in charge of the Fort Fumble LSD, that the burden of Barry O's QON would be promptly answered and a legislative solution put forward within days of receiving the QON...

Here is JW talking on the issue today, courtesy of the Oz:

 

Law of air must be stronger
12:00amJOSEPH WHEELER
There is insufficient legal deterrent for the use of remotely piloted aircraft systems.

Law must be stronger to deal with malicious use of drones

JOSEPH WHEELER The Australian 12:00AM September 1, 2017

Aviation is as much a drawcard for the criminal elements of our world as it is for those using its technology and systems to connect people and places. But at present, there is insufficient legal deterrent for the use of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) that endanger the safety of other aircraft.

Since the 1980s in particular, aerial terrorism in the form of ­hijackings and bombings have spawned both international legal mechanisms for deterrence and enforcement as well as domestic regulation in many states.

When states fail to prosecute or extradite aerial criminals, it leads to the imposition of economic sanctions and effectively, air transport isolation under The Hague and Montreal Conventions.

In 2001, the scale of this aerial terrorism rose in a spectacular way in the 11 September attacks. For the first time we witnessed the use of domestic passenger aircraft as missiles. The challenge for airlines and governments was and still remains the unpredictability of potential criminal acts against aircraft and their occupants.

While that challenge has not diminished, the level of global awareness and vigilance has increased exponentially such that major potential attacks can be foiled through effective intelligence-sharing.

Given all the focus on hijackings, our present international and local legal constructs are concentrated on the criminalisation of unlawful interference with aircraft crews and flights that endanger flight safety.

Thus, the present law may be insufficient to deal with the new potential species of threats when it comes to aviation security against RPAS or drones when they are used to threaten or endanger civilian flights, whether purposefully or through negligent use too close to civilian flights.

Crimes involving aircraft in Australian legislation depend on the definition of “Australian aircraft” in the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Commonwealth), which is not met typically by RPAS, whether they are commercial, recreational, or otherwise.

This is because, in the definition, there is a reliance on the aircraft being “registered or required to be registered” in Australia. That takes away the applicability of the act’s offence provisions from many RPAS in use in Australia, because there is no present legal requirement for registration.

This has some peculiar results. If, for example, an Australian-owned RPAS is used outside Australia’s territorial boundaries for the purposes of international law — that is, only 12 nautical miles from the waterline — activity which could otherwise be an offence if committed in Australia or on an Australian aircraft outside Australia, would not be an ­offence.

The same problem occurs with the Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991, which is responsible for the creation of offences such as “prejudicing safe operation of aircraft”, under which conduct such as threatening other flights by simply being too close to them might well be argued to fall under.

The offences in our legislation are the byproduct of the kinds of threats we have thus far encountered in aviation — typically politically inspired crimes — and have led to traditional manned aviation being the focus. The end result is our security legislation has seemingly not been examined with a mind to the malicious or criminal uses of RPAS.

This is why our “drone regulations” found in Part 101 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 criminalises only “unsafe ­operation” of RPAS, without sufficient regard to, in my view, imposing a penalty of sufficient magnitude to deter malicious, intentional or even negligent RPAS use near other aircraft.

There is clearly a need for a uniform system of prosecution and deterrence globally in ­aviation.

This challenge has partially been met on a smaller scale with regard to the criminalisation of unruly passenger offences. Such offences can and do threaten the safety of flights and passengers travelling on them.

As an observer for the International Federation of Airline Pilots Associations to the International Civil Aviation Organisation Task Force charged with updating guidance material on the legal aspects of unruly/disruptive passengers, I have seen first-hand the difficulty in trying to pin states down to a definition of just what “acceptable behaviour” is in air transport, given the variances in culture and behavioural norms around the world.

However, the criminalisation of acts endangering or threatening aviation such as using drones to endanger other flights should be easier to engage with.

It just requires the international community to decide to push through the diplomatic challenges to agree on a way to properly safeguard aviation from this and other new threats. Hopefully it will do so before pessimistic predictions of lost life from failure to engage with such difficult legal questions become a reality.

Joseph Wheeler is the principal of aerospace law firm IALPG, aviation legal counsel to the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, and national head of aviation law for Maurice Blackburn Lawyers.

MTF...P2