[Peetwo]

RRAT committee on the warpath -

Just reviewing the Hansard from last week's hearing: Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (Senate-Tuesday, 29 August 2017)

I must admit to not being particularly interested in the AAA section of that hearing but in hindsight I believe that segment was more enlightening than the combined 3 aviation safety Stooges segments that followed...

Examples:

Senator O'SULLIVAN: My concern is, gentlemen, you represent these airports. I'm focusing my questions now on the operations of X airport, and I have to be honest, I haven't picked up the same feeling of urgency from your testimony to date that we seem to have inherited as a committee. Why would you bother to have radar control and air traffic control over one piece of tin? What would your view be? Should we not call for air traffic control over the other pieces of tin, wherever there is a capacity for those pieces of tin to share space?

Mr Bourke : I would probably align with what you're saying there, where we have RPAS potentially operating in protected airspace then there probably is a role for air traffic control to get involved. I note you have Airservices on the agenda later today, so that's probably a good question to put to them on what steps they're taking in that space. If RPAS into the future are going to be operating in that same protected airspace as commercial aircraft then we certainly would be advocating there should be a form of traffic control.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Don't worry about the future; you've had 180 incidents reported in the present, in the proximity of aircraft that have left your airport. It's happening now. What I'm trying to urge is that we start to get a scream out of the balance of industry to support this question. We need to make the highest possible standards around this. I'm worried that you are comfortable with the three kilometre zone when your pilots are not comfortable with 40 kilometres. I'm worried that you want to operate your airports where one piece of tin is regulated to the nth degree, but I'm not hearing a shout out of you to say anybody that has the capacity to get within a bull's roar of my planes ought to meet all the same standards about pilot training, registration, maintenance of aircraft, understanding meteorology, being on the radar, air traffic control, the whole thing.

Gentlemen, I'm trying to urge you to say: 'Listen, the standards ought to be identical, and if not, why not?'

---

Senator FAWCETT: I'll skip to the prevention part then, to follow that line of questioning. Airports have accepted for many years the responsibility to reduce hazards over things like bird strikes, and so you spend a lot of money on reducing lying water and on having bird scaring or other activities. You prevent the incursion onto the airfield physically of animals or people or other things that may present a hazard to the aircraft that operate from your airfield. Why is it that you don't see you also have an obligation to expend resources and time in preventing, to the extent you can, the hazard presented by another form of object, whether it be animal, bird, person or, in this case, an RPAS?

Mr Goodwin : It's not that we don't see it. In fact, we are looking at this and we've been talking and assessing that risk internally for quite some time. I sit on an international committee as well, which has been talking about this for almost two years. I have been working with them, and they work directly with ICAO. However, it's the regulator who tells us what we have to do. We can do more, and that's why we're investigating some of these emerging technologies. But it is something that is an emerging technology around us too, so we don't understand it all. We don't understand every drone and everything.

We haven't got that sort of knowledge yet ourselves, so it's something we are investigating. But we work with the regulator to enforce what they tell us that we have to do. At this stage, there are limited regulations around that, and they are the ones that we're working towards and working with them on that. It's not that we're not aware of it, not that we don't want to take extra; it's a question of: how do you do that and what's the best solution which is going to benefit everybody? We're not the only player in here.

We've got other big players, like Airservices and the like, who have technology out there as well. We don't want to put something in place that's going to interfere with theirs.

There are integration issues as well. There will probably be quite a bit of discussion we have to do with a number of players before we get to an answer on that.

Senator FAWCETT: On the technological front, I'm aware the Americans have things like DroneShield there; the Chinese are talking about what they're calling the great electronic wall of China around airports; the Russians talk about GPS spoofing and things like that. They're different terminologies but essentially the same concept.

Mr Goodwin : Yes.

Senator FAWCETT: You've mentioned you're looking at it in principle. Do you have a timeline? Are you looking to do trials or an operational capability assessment?

Mr Goodwin : Not as yet, to be honest. It's something we've probably only been looking at seriously in the last, say, eight or nine months. So we haven't really come to a conclusion on that. We've just been talking to some vendors and seeing what's possible. I would be hopeful of having a trial—if we are going to do that—within a 12-month time frame, something like that.

Senator FAWCETT: Mr Bourke, from an AAA perspective, are you encouraging airports, particularly the major airports, or the secondaries, around Australia to actively collaborate with you? If we're going to have a technology that works rather than each individual airport having different technologies, I would've assumed that AAA would've seen a role for itself. Are you active in this space?

Mr Bourke : I guess our main focus at the moment has been ensuring that the regulatory framework is in place to support these options.

Senator FAWCETT: Can I take that as a no?

Mr Bourke : No, we haven't been actively encouraging vendors to contact airports around solutions. What we do is share information on potential solutions that are being explored with our members. But, as Stephen has mentioned, to date it's really just been a trial and an information-gathering exercise, from my understanding, predominantly with the major airports, on potential solutions they might look at implementing. I don't have particular details on any trials that are underway, but I'm happy to take that on notice if that's something you're interested in.

Senator FAWCETT: We are, and we'd welcome feedback, but do you not see that AAA, as the association that is the umbrella for all of these airports, should be providing leadership in this?

Mr Bourke : Yes, I take your point. Where possible we would certainly encourage airports to take a proactive stance on addressing this technology. But our primary focus is ensuring that the regulatory framework's there to support it. As Stephen mentioned, CASA sets the regulatory framework for the safety management of airport operations, so I think it's appropriate that we have that appropriate regulatory environment set in place first, which can be supported by innovation and technology solutions that our airports can look into implementing. Certainly, AAA could take a more proactive role in that space.

Senator FAWCETT: Can I just make the point that, particularly in the area of aviation, if people waited for government to do things, we would have no aviation, aircraft, postal service or airlines; Toowoomba West would not have an airport. The private sector has always had, and will continue to have, a role in leading innovation in terms of capability and safety. The development of technology means that regulation is nearly always lagging. If the safety of the people who are using your airports is at stake, the private sector, which includes you as airport operators, has a role to play in that.

Mr Bourke : Most certainly, and, wherever possible, we have been trying to get this information out to all of our members, particularly through some of our events like our national conference. We've had a number of suppliers come along and present on drone shield type technologies and giving airports ideas for investigating what they can do to proactively manage this issue. We're certainly not sitting on our hands, pretending that this isn't an issue. That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is we're doing everything we can at the moment to share information for airports to implement these solutions as they see fit. But we really need that regulatory framework to sit underneath it to support how these things can be managed appropriately.

Senator FAWCETT: On a different aspect of prevention, you mentioned, Mr Goodwin, that you engage with stakeholders on your airport—leaseholders—about what they can and can't do with drones. I'm aware that the vast majority of airports liaise intensively with their local government bodies around traffic and road access, open water et cetera. Do you liaise with them around their control, their signage and their understanding of the risks that popular ovals or open spaces that the council controls—where people might go to fly RPAS—present in terms of being a hotspot or a node for intersecting with flight paths?

Have you done that analysis of what areas are around your airport and which council controls them, and have you engaged with them to help them understand the risk and to put in place appropriate signage and other things in those launch places to at least have one more layer of protection—this is James Reason's accident causation model—to try and prevent those incidents occurring?

CHAIR: A good question.

Mr Goodwin : Yes, it's a very good question. At this stage we haven't done that. We have a mechanism to that. We have a round table where we involve local government and various regulators, including CASA. That happens every couple of months. We will definitely take that on board to talk to them about that. We do it with wildlife already. Those areas are known—green spaces that attract certain types of species or parklands that attract flying foxes and things like that because of the type of trees et cetera, which are roosting areas for them. We have been very active in that space. I imagine it would only be an extension of that.

We're seeing a lot of evidence coming out about drones. Airports and airlines alike always assess risk. Risk is based on evidence of incidents, likelihood and frequency—all those types of things in terms of risk assessment. This is something we haven't seen a lot of in our backyard. Yes, it might be happening 40 kilometres out and it might be happening in places like the Brisbane CBD. We probably haven't put the focus on it that we should. As we get more evidence and hear more about this—and even what I'm hearing today is helping me to form a better understanding—we can make a better assessment of risk so that we can actually take on some of these things. I'm not trying to pass the buck and say I've missed the boat here, but it just hasn't been the highest priority for us. Wildlife is a very high priority for us—look at bird strikes and incidents that we have on airport versus the incidence of anything happening with a drone. It's always measured that way.

I know this issue is emerging and getting bigger. Therefore, it's a great idea to take it to that round table that we have and make them aware of these things. But the assessment of risk is probably where it starts. I will take it on board to do a better assessment of that risk at our airport and take that forward.

---

Senator FAWCETT: Sure. My last question for you, because I'm conscious we're out of time, is just on exposure. A lot of the focus has been on your RPT aircraft, your transport category aircraft that generally climb at a fairly rapid rate, despite Senator Sterle's concerns—about 20,000 feet in 30 kilometres. But could you take on notice to come back to us with the volume of GA and particularly helicopter traffic for your major airports and secondaries, and what percentage of the routes that they are given away from your airports are at or below 1,500 feet. Often transit routes for GA aircraft and VFR routes, helicopter routes, are in that sort of zone. I ask because there have been some studies—and CASA did one earlier this year or last year—looking at the impact of drones.

The UK has just recently released a study done by the Military Aviation Authority that shows that quite small drones—certainly well under your DJI Phantom 4, which is around 1.3 or 1.4 kilograms—have the potential to do damage to windscreens, for example, of light aircraft. Particularly for helicopters, impact with the tail rotor is catastrophic. Even with the main rotor, the tips are near transonic speed, and if you've got media helicopters, police helicopters, EMS helicopters or firefighting helicopters operating at those heights, where it is more than conceivable that these things will be operating, then that substantially increases the risk and increases the value of low-cost activities like signage through the councils et cetera if there are parks that are near the routes by which aircraft operating from your airports are transiting to and from the airport.

Mr Bourke : I'm more than happy to take that on notice and have a look at what those GA traffic volumes are. If we can get that information around that below-1,500-feet level, I am happy to provide that to the committee.

Senator FAWCETT: Thank you.

---

CHAIR: Thank you. Gentlemen, before I let you go, I know how Senator O'Sullivan thinks—this is the scary part. I think, personally—he speaks for himself—you were doing quite well until the last round of questioning. I'll tell you right now, Mr Bourke, that I think you let the team down. The way you were answering questions, Mr Goodwin, has been very, very good. You have accepted that there are lots of things to look at and you have been taking that up. We've heard that you're actually listening. I'll help you out, Mr Bourke: you should apply the theory of Sydney's The Daily Telegraph—that terrible rag from New South Wales—to your answers, because if there was a tragic incident, as Senator O'Sullivan said, and if there was a screaming out for a ban or a recall of these drones, I don't think many people would have copped the answer that you just gave. I'm helping you out.

Senator FAWCETT: Chair, to be fair—

CHAIR: I will let you come, Senator Fawcett. I am helping you out because, in your heart of hearts, I don't think that's the answer you wanted to give. I think you were trying to think, 'What would my members be saying?'

Senator FAWCETT: Chair, to be fair—

CHAIR: No, let Mr Bourke respond. I know Senator O'Sullivan. If he were sitting here, you wouldn't be going now. It's just that he's been knocked around by the flu, so he's a bit weak at the moment.

Mr Bourke : I appreciate that, Senator. Front of mind, my purpose of being here is to reiterate our organisation's position and our focus. So I don't want to be drawn into speculation around recalls and bans. Our focus—we aimed to drive the committee's focus in this area—is around the regulatory framework for this technology and making sure it's appropriate, and making sure we work with industries and the suppliers of these to implement technology solution that is can address this problem.

CHAIR: I understand. You've said that. I just don't want you to leave the room thinking that we're all in agreeance, you see.

Mr Goodwin : Could I add to that? I think if the risk assessed supports implementation of the changes you're suggesting, then yes, we would do it. I think that needs to be done more than maybe—I'm not suggesting everything that's said is anecdotal, but I think we need to get some serious assessment of the risk and then apply the right control to that risk.

CHAIR: Of course. We're going to have the privilege of getting a presentation from a helicopter mob down in Melbourne. They're doing it up and they're going to show us—this is Senator Fawcett's area of expertise, not mine—what can happen and what would be the potential risk if one of these two-kilo JB Hi-Fi things goes through helicopter rotor or a windscreen. Senator Fawcett, did you wish to have a crack at me?

Senator FAWCETT: I was only going to make the comment, Chair, that on what we have been calling for—for operators who are suitably trained and aware of airspace, et cetera—Mr Bourke made the comment that it would be unreasonable to recall the instrument of trade of somebody who has an appropriate licence, who has airspace awareness and is safe. I think that was quite reasonable. The contention that was put to him by Senator O'Sullivan hinged almost solely on a 40-kilometre lateral limit. If anything, vertical limits are where you actually need the geofencing. If it can't fly above 200 feet then it's going to be safe even if it's only three kilometres from the airport. Let's not get too specific and pedantic about solutions. Let's look at the broader issues.

CHAIR: I'm not going to carry on. I was thinking more about the incident at Jandakot.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for your time. We appreciate your evidence. Safe travels home.

  
Anyone else get the impression that; a) the committee is working to a strategic game plan and that; b) Senator Fawcett is all over this and working to getting industry stakeholders to understand the issues and singing from the same hymn sheet -

MTF...P2