Anyone care to Tango?
Good post P2. I need to preface this with ‘reason’ and consideration; it is highly unlikely, bordering on the improbable. However, it is possible and serves as an extreme case of ‘if it can go wrong – it will’. Murphy’s law always valid - 24/7.
We have a friend – comrade in arms who lives in the Sydney inner city suburb of Paddington. Pleasant spot, if densely populated. To the East at about 200 meters is a university; across the road from that, at about 300 meters is the Victoria barracks. Now the barracks get a fair amount of ‘chopper’ traffic, which, for some strange reason seems to prefer to descend and approach the barracks pad over the top of a densely populated area and the Uni. The noise is at industrial sound protection levels, shakes the windows and rattles the doors. Why they feel this is acceptable is beyond my comprehension – when about 400 meters to the south of the barracks, there are ‘paddocks’ – big ones, at least four football fields worth, over which they could descend and approach without annoying the crap out of anyone. That said it is a side issue (just me barking).
If you continue South from the barracks (300 meters) – there are the football stadiums, the SCG and the RAS showground. These attract ‘big’ crowds when there is an event on and helicopters. They also attract ‘drones’ – not many I’ll warrant, but we counted five airborne at the last footy match. The drones were in as much danger from each other as the choppers were; but random, impulse flight paths and sneak looks over the walls at the match made for interesting, heart stopping watching.
Balance of probability – what chance one of those drones could clip one of the choppers; what chance one of those drones could clip a chopper in a vulnerable spot? I tried to work out the odds – they are long – but; even so, why take the remote chance of it happening. Nightmare – densely populated area, big crowds, low flying, slow or hovering choppers all mixed in with unregulated, unlicensed, random flight path drone traffic.
I’m with Barry O’ Braces. A packet of dodgy sausages in a super market (or a rag-doll) prompts immediate, strong actions – in the name of public safety.
It is no good relying on ‘the regulator’ to sort it out, they can’t do high speed, high value, sensible regulation, not even after 30 years of practice. The minister is about as much use as three men away from home and the local councils (bless ‘em) can’t do too much. If we had a switched on regulator – a six month moratorium on unlicensed operating could serve; but we can forget that. Which only leaves one option – a total ban, on the unlicensed - until a plan, something like notions presented by John Reidy-Crofts, can be instituted and supported. Good submission that one…Choc frog job.
"Another concern that I wish to raise is relating to emergency helicopters operating on G class airspace at low altitudes and the serious risk a small RPA could do if it impacted with that aircraft. A RPA with a weight under 2kg can be likened to a flying house brick propelled at 70 kph. I hope that this imagery is not overlooked.authorities that I contacted stating that they had no policy for this activity."
"There needs to be in my opinion, a standard policy that relates to ALL local government councils that is integrated with CASA Rules and Regulations. Being a past Chief Executive Officer of a several rural/regional local authorities and large metropolitan local authority, I have a few ideas as to how this could be achieved, however that is not the purpose of this submission."
Meanwhile – I will, humbly, remind you of Newton’s second law F=ma. Two Kg at 20 Kph =? Then add that to a Bell 206 at 1400 Kg @ 40 Kph = ? I’ll let you do the math – but it’s a considerable amount of energy, the closer they are to each other, the risks increase exponentially. It takes two to Tango.
Toot – toot.
Good post P2. I need to preface this with ‘reason’ and consideration; it is highly unlikely, bordering on the improbable. However, it is possible and serves as an extreme case of ‘if it can go wrong – it will’. Murphy’s law always valid - 24/7.
We have a friend – comrade in arms who lives in the Sydney inner city suburb of Paddington. Pleasant spot, if densely populated. To the East at about 200 meters is a university; across the road from that, at about 300 meters is the Victoria barracks. Now the barracks get a fair amount of ‘chopper’ traffic, which, for some strange reason seems to prefer to descend and approach the barracks pad over the top of a densely populated area and the Uni. The noise is at industrial sound protection levels, shakes the windows and rattles the doors. Why they feel this is acceptable is beyond my comprehension – when about 400 meters to the south of the barracks, there are ‘paddocks’ – big ones, at least four football fields worth, over which they could descend and approach without annoying the crap out of anyone. That said it is a side issue (just me barking).
If you continue South from the barracks (300 meters) – there are the football stadiums, the SCG and the RAS showground. These attract ‘big’ crowds when there is an event on and helicopters. They also attract ‘drones’ – not many I’ll warrant, but we counted five airborne at the last footy match. The drones were in as much danger from each other as the choppers were; but random, impulse flight paths and sneak looks over the walls at the match made for interesting, heart stopping watching.
Balance of probability – what chance one of those drones could clip one of the choppers; what chance one of those drones could clip a chopper in a vulnerable spot? I tried to work out the odds – they are long – but; even so, why take the remote chance of it happening. Nightmare – densely populated area, big crowds, low flying, slow or hovering choppers all mixed in with unregulated, unlicensed, random flight path drone traffic.
I’m with Barry O’ Braces. A packet of dodgy sausages in a super market (or a rag-doll) prompts immediate, strong actions – in the name of public safety.
It is no good relying on ‘the regulator’ to sort it out, they can’t do high speed, high value, sensible regulation, not even after 30 years of practice. The minister is about as much use as three men away from home and the local councils (bless ‘em) can’t do too much. If we had a switched on regulator – a six month moratorium on unlicensed operating could serve; but we can forget that. Which only leaves one option – a total ban, on the unlicensed - until a plan, something like notions presented by John Reidy-Crofts, can be instituted and supported. Good submission that one…Choc frog job.
"Another concern that I wish to raise is relating to emergency helicopters operating on G class airspace at low altitudes and the serious risk a small RPA could do if it impacted with that aircraft. A RPA with a weight under 2kg can be likened to a flying house brick propelled at 70 kph. I hope that this imagery is not overlooked.authorities that I contacted stating that they had no policy for this activity."
"There needs to be in my opinion, a standard policy that relates to ALL local government councils that is integrated with CASA Rules and Regulations. Being a past Chief Executive Officer of a several rural/regional local authorities and large metropolitan local authority, I have a few ideas as to how this could be achieved, however that is not the purpose of this submission."
Meanwhile – I will, humbly, remind you of Newton’s second law F=ma. Two Kg at 20 Kph =? Then add that to a Bell 206 at 1400 Kg @ 40 Kph = ? I’ll let you do the math – but it’s a considerable amount of energy, the closer they are to each other, the risks increase exponentially. It takes two to Tango.
Toot – toot.