[Kharon]

Does size matter?

It is a ‘nasty’ thing to have something collide with an aircraft when low and slow, particularly at night and I wouldn’t dream of discounting the potential for accident – well not too much. However, for the lighter aircraft, particularly from the ‘frontal area profile’ perspective the ‘risk’ factor is, mathematically at least, not that great. A drone through the windscreen is a possibility – and a potential killer, contact anywhere else, through distraction at a critical time, is an increase on the risk matrix. Conversely, the light aircraft are an easier target, due to the relatively low speed of the aircraft and the less monitored operational environment, an increase in the frequency of ‘attack’ would nullify the reduced percentage risk of a ‘bad’ strike.  

The ‘size’ of the vulnerable area matters; the frontal area of a jet engine fitted to a passenger transport aircraft would easily match (give or take) the front profile of a ‘lighty’; two such engines (by-pass included) increase the percentage chance of a ‘bad strike’; then one must account for the area of ‘inlets’, exhausts and other items which, if damaged, have the potential to create ‘distraction’ during a critical phase of flight.

In short, almost anything airborne is presently at some increased degree of risk while ‘drones’ can be operated pretty much anywhere, anytime without control. It is of grave concern, however the risks to ‘aeroplanes’ is not the one that should be keeping the ‘powers that be’ awake at night.

Helicopters are the really vulnerable aircraft. Mostly those belonging to essential services, such as the police and ambulance services. They are a natural attraction – a crowd puller – the excitement and drama of it all. The work they do is, by definition, high risk; the services work hard, very hard, to mitigate unnecessary operational risk; they monitor it, they train for it, they test for it. Some of the operations conducted require the utmost concentration, care and skill levels. A stationary helicopter, at night, large profile from any angle; extremely vulnerable, essential moving parts, critically balanced rotor blades and tail rotor; close to building or a hospital; at exactly the time when great concentration is needed.. The potential for a catastrophic event and the percentage chance of that occurring due to drone strike, at that time are ‘scary’.

These risks exist – now – they are real. Yet the government minister and his agencies are operating at a snails pace; almost still in the denial phase. CASA places it’s faith in the ‘by-pass’ system of the modern jet aircraft; ATSB will eventually get around to reporting on the few incidents which they deign to acknowledge; the minister is doing an ostrich impersonation. The Senate committee is paying attention; trying to come to grips with the potential dangers, but then, we’ve all seen how their recommendations are treated and their comments disrespected by the ‘experts’.

We take extraordinary care of ‘safety’ in the aviation community, particularly in areas where it is our ‘responsibility’. Drones are not our responsibility; they are the governments. I say it’s time the government stopped playing at politics and get on top of the situation before there is an event which claims lives – unnecessarily – due to inaction.

Toot – tick tock – Toot.

[Peetwo]

All airways lead to PelAir (cover-up) -

Slight thread drift here but remember JT the REX HF drone?

Here is a reminder:

REX COI on UAV/RPAS -

If you ever wanted to witness a greater contrast to the excellent forthright evidence given by the representatives of AusALPA, one cannot go past the insipid (read 'soft cock') performance of the nominated REX HF Muppet Mr Tessarolo... - see HERE

The brevity of that particular session perhaps highlights the weight given by the Senators to the quality and significance of the evidence as presented by REX.

This however should not be surprising given how politically conflicted, therefore potentially regulatory captured, the REX Group and by default the RAAA currently is...

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  ...The only message I have got for you is we need all of you in this space to really have a thorough review of what is going on and join us, if you are as concerned as we are with respect to the circumstances.

CHAIR: Does Rex say it is okay; you 'do not see any problems'?

Mr Tessarolo : We did not say 'we do not see any problems'.

CHAIR: Sorry, they were my words.

Mr Tessarolo : There is room for improvement.

CHAIR: You said it was 'adequate'.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  No, he said 'it may be sufficient', which was what attracted my attention. You said 'that while the current regulations may be sufficient …' I am asking you to review that language because nobody we have heard from thinks the current regulations 'may be sufficient'.

CHAIR: So you, Mr Tessarolo, are the general manager of the human factors group. What is a human factors group?

Mr Tessarolo : The human factors group of Rex comprises group safety compliance, engineering, QA, dangerous goods and the human factors training of pilots.

CHAIR: So when you were writing your submission, did you consult your pilots? Did you ask them? Or did you just have a team inside your area that wrote it?

Mr Tessarolo : We had a team inside our area. This was actually written in consultation with one of our board members, who is knowledgeable in the space of RPAS.

CHAIR: With the greatest respect, I do not know who your board member is but I would much rather hear from the pilots themselves. When we have the most senior pilots in a Australia's aviation industry sitting before us, all as one saying 'we have an issue' and when we have former Qantas chief pilot, Chris Manning, now at ATSB saying very clearly 'anything in airspace—'

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  And the air traffic controllers are saying it too. The only ones who might think things are okay are those who do have an interest in the unmanned aircraft space. They think everything is hunky dory in most instances. I too think you need to really go back and take a more critical look at the question with your pilots. They are the ones in the box seat.

CHAIR: I am a little bit alarmed. Anyway, you have got that message. If there is a different submission, we will take that submission late once you have spoken to your pilots. We would be happy to hear from them too should they want to appear. What system exists within your company to report drone violations? How does Rex do it?

Mr Tessarolo : Since 11 June 2016, we have had five events reported within our safety management system. The one on 11 June did not actually involve a Rex flight but involved a UAV that was spotted by an off-duty Rex pilot approximately 0.7 nautical miles from the threshold of runway 29 at Orange. The other reports actually did involve Rex aircraft. Effectively before December 2016, before CASA introduced their drone complaints form, there was no real system of identifying and reporting these to CASA. We reported these to CASA but just through our safety liaison people and then we just reported them to the ATSB.

CHAIR: That does not surprise us, particularly after CASA's very poor performance in front of Senate estimates a number of weeks ago when they referred to our concerns as: 'Why are we worried? There has not been an incident yet. It would be virtually like a bird strike.' So that does not surprise me one little bit.

This is my last one. In your submission, you talk about how you would be prepared to report the sightings of drone activity, which you have just told us. But, under the CASA and ATSB reporting regime, they are described as non-reportable events. If you have done the right thing, or your pilots have done the right thing, and reported it, do you get any feedback, or will someone just say, 'Thank you very much; check you later'? What happens?

Mr Tessarolo : From the ATSB, we have not actually received any feedback. I did receive from one CASA inspector, I believe—I am just delving into my memory with this—just a response saying that he will pass it on. From one report that we submitted using the actual complaints form, we just got a series of very generic questions about the drone event, but clearly we could not provide any answers, because it is almost impossible to provide those answers.

CHAIR: It has been proved very clearly—and ATSB have been very keen to work with us; there is no argument about that—that they have no idea who owns these things. There is no registration or number plates on them. There is no technology that says, 'This one flying by is owned by little Billy Jones down the corner there, who should be at school rather than flying his drone around the airport.' Thanks, Mr Tessarolo.

---

And perhaps the best dismissal line from that whole disappointing session   :

CHAIR: Mr Tessarolo, thank you for your time, and we look forward to some feedback from your pilots.

Mr Tessarolo : Thank you. That is noted.

 

Well in a bizarre coincidence (not really - ), apparently JT will be representing Pel-Air at the upcoming Aeromed conference.

Here is JT's BIO and a summary of his presentation on behalf of PelAir:

John Tessarolo
Pel-air Aviation Pty Limited

---

Biography:
Group GM Human Factors Group - John Tessarolo
John is an ATPL holder and commenced his airline flying career with Hazelton Airlines in 1999.  He then went on to obtain flying positions with Rex Airlines where he later became the Sydney Flight Operations Manager and later, National Flight Operations Manager.  These roles involved being the Project Lead for the Rex Group Fatigue Risk Management System and CASA regulatory matters.  In May 2015, John was appointed GM Human Factors Group with oversight across Safety, Security, Compliance & Quality Assurance departments.  John brings with him vast operational, regulatory and risk management experience.
 

---

 
This presentation is to share learnings Pel-Air Aviation (Pel-Air) has derived from implementing an airline standard Safety Management System (SMS) in its aeromedical operations.  The SMS is approved by CASA to regular public transport standards, as Pel-Air is able to leverage on resources within the Rex Group of companies.  The mainstay of the SMS is an electronic reporting system, a culture of reporting and commitments by management towards safety management.

The objective of the presentation is to raise industry awareness and the level of safety through shared learning.  The SMS has shown benefits in identifying trends in areas of flying operations, aircraft maintenance and work, health and safety.

Below are a couple of cases where the SMS helped increase safety standards.

1. Air Ambulance Victoria fixed wing aeromedical operations to aircraft landing areas (ALA).  Many of these ALA are unmanned aerodromes and operate to Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF), where pilots interact with others within the vicinity to determine take-off and landing arrangements.  Through reporting in the SMS, Pel-Air identified a developing risk in unmanned aerodromes whereby patients, who were conveyed by private means, encroached onto the airside while the airplane was still running.  In one incident, the patient walked through the unsecured gate and onto the tarmac prior to the aircraft shutting down and the patient made it to within 2 metres of the still spinning propellers.
   
2. Fatigue monitoring of flight crew.  Pel-Air operates to a CASA-approved Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS).  Through the SMS and the regular Safety Management Group meetings, statistics on fatigue, pilot reports and audit reports are quickly raised to stakeholder and management attention for decision-making.
   

We find that a systematic approach towards investigating and analysing safety events can improve safety aspects of the operations.

Hmm...for reasons of anonymity we can't show you John's face...



"Hi I'm John and I'm a CAsA-sexual" - 


MTF...P2

Ps Thread drift over -

[Peetwo]

More singing from same drone sheet -  

Via the other Aunty:

Drone instructor welcomes CASA crackdown and social media trawling to prosecute illegal flying

ABC Illawarra
By Justin Huntsdale

Updated Fri at 11:43amFri 14 Jul 2017, 11:43am


Photo: Braidwood drone instructor Anthony Hoy flys a drone at Flagstaff Hill in Wollongong. (Supplied: Anthony Hoy)

A Civil Aviation Safety Authority-certified drone operator has welcomed a crackdown on illegal drone use, saying beginners do not realise the remote aircraft are capable of bringing down commercial aircraft.

Braidwood drone instructor Anthony Hoy has watched with alarm as drones have become more affordable, widely stocked, and increasingly commonplace in the sky.

"There's a proliferation of the machines at low cost, and I found someone who had purchased one for $200 this week," he said.

The problem is, not everybody knows how to use them safely, or in line with Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) laws.

This week, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau launched an investigation into a suspected collision between a drone and an aircraft in Adelaide.

Three people were also fined a total of more than $3,000 for illegal drone use earlier this year.

Incriminating social media

CASA has taken to trawling sites such as YouTube to source illegal footage.

"The mistake people are making is that the regulator is watching where people are posting footage and they're being prosecuted off their posting — I think that's an encouraging development," Mr Hoy said.

In recent times, the recreational use of smaller drones under two kilograms had been deregulated by CASA.

The rules surrounding their use now are:

• No night flying or flying through cloud or fog
  
• Flying only within line of sight
  
• No flying closer than 30 metres to people or over populous areas such as beaches, parks or sports ovals
  
• No flying above 120 metres from the ground
  
• No flying within 5.5 kilometres of an airfield
  

Photo: An aerial view of Flagstaff Hill lighthouse captured by drone. (Supplied: Anthony Hoy)

Drones can bring down aircraft

While a small plastic quadcopter may seem harmless, Anthony Hoy said they were capable of causing serious damage to people and aircraft.

"These machines at high impact have the capability to bring a commercial airline down if it was sucked into an engine or cracked a windscreen of the plane," he said.

"They move quite quickly and they're a solid object."

Mr Hoy said people most commonly disregarded the rules about flying near people.
Also, with higher powered drones boasting longer battery life, people were also flying their drone significant distances away from themselves.

"In recent times there's been a well-known brand that's $1,600 and capable of flying to 1,000 feet (300 metres), which is against the CASA guidelines," Mr Hoy said.

"It also has a range of four to five kilometres, so you can fly off the aerial imagery well beyond visual line of sight, which is also a breach of the law."

He said the battery life of 20 minutes was far longer than most of his commercial flights, which usually lasted about seven minutes.

Photo: Anthony Hoy advises new drone users to hook up with a club to improve their flying skills. (Supplied: Anthony Hoy)

How to effectively and safely use a drone

Drones have revolutionised photography and videography, but Anthony Hoy said people usually failed when they started using them.

"It might seem like an insignificant amount of money, but 90 per cent of these machines end up in pieces and packages in cupboards after the first fight," he said.

He recommended people connect with a professional instructor or a hobby club when they started using a drone for the first time.

"My advice is to affiliate yourself with a model aircraft club where you have the mentorship of experienced operators who can instruct on the regulatory side of things and the correct way to incrementally improve your piloting skills."

CASA also provides an app called Can I Fly There, which can be a helpful aid.

+ Senate Estimates - Some drone AQON: 117-126 CASA PDF 51KB*

 

Senator Rice, Janet asked:

Senator RICE: Can you take this on notice? I assume there have been some comparisons in other jurisdictions around the world on what the relative impact of drone strikes versus bird strikes would be. Have you analysedthat data yourself?

Mr Carmody: We continue to look at material all the time on those sorts of matte
rs, but, as I said—

Senator RICE: Could you take it on notice to provide for the committee some of your rationale about the difference between bird strikes and drone strikes, and your basis for deciding that drone strikes are, it sounds like, no more of an issue than bird strikes?

Mr Carmody: I would be happy to. I think that the need to know more about the issue is the point we are endeavouring to make. We have a lot of bird strikes and a lot of animal strikes.

CHAIR: There are a hell of a lot more birds than drones out there at the moment.

Senator RICE: But regarding the issue of what impacts a drone strike would have—particularly the recreational drones; the under two-kilogram drones that are being used for recreational purposes that we know are flying where they should not be in controlled airspace, out of sight and far higher than they are meant to—

Mr Carmody: We can certainly take it on notice.

Answer:
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has reviewed a number of preliminary international studies and research papers that show the impact of drone strikes on aircraft are similar in consequence and severity to those of bird strikes in a similar weight category. In the absence of sufficient data to determine the true severity of a
drone strike, with only five confirmed drone strikes with aircraft recorded worldwide since 1997, the closest comparison on potential effects of a drone strike on aircraft is a bird strike. - Does that qualify as yet another 'UP YOURS' from Carmody to the RRAT committee Chairs?  

CASA continues to monitor international studies, reviews and tests in this area.

---

Senator RICE: If you provide the comparison to the committee, that would be very useful for us. Another bit of information that I would like to know is: you have been talking about your communications program to inform recreational users—how much assessment and what knowledge do you have about the level of knowledge amongst those recreational users of what the rules are and whether they can play with them?

Mr Carmody: We are communicating constantly—

Senator RICE: That is not my question. My question was: how much knowledge in the community is there?

Mr Carmody: I would prefer to take it on notice. I think that I can probably find the answer for you.

Senator RICE: Have you done any analysis of the level of understanding amongst recreational drone users of what the rules are?

Mr Carmody: I am not aware, so I will take it on notice.
…
CHAIR: I am familiar with when it was. You referenced that. You would, no doubt, have information about who you consulted and what the breadth of the consultation was. Could you take that on notice and provide us with who you consulted and if there are any documents where they made a submission to you, you exchanged or a file note—could you also produce that for us?

Mr Carmody: I am happy to. We have a pretty standardised process for consultation. We are very happy to take it on notice.

Answer:
CASA uses its social media channels to determine the communication reach of its safety messages. So far this year, CASA has reached over 1.4 million people through 32 drone safety related posts on Facebook. CASA also provides safety advice and delivers safety education and training through its Aviation Safety Advisors throughout Australia, which includes information on drones.

CASA released a new smartphone app ‘Can I fly there?’ in May 2017 which saw over 20,000 downloads after its first week of launch. The app provides the rules around where you can and cannot fly your drone, presented in an easy-to-use graphic format and using non-aviation language.

CASA also received 90 responses to its Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) for the CASR Part 101 amendments in 2014, which was open to comment from industry and the general public.

Consultation was also undertaken through CASA’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems Standards sub-Committee, which currently has 75 member organisations.

CASA expects to publish a Summary of Responses to the NPRM within the next three months, which includes the comments, the respondent’s name/organisation and CASA’s response to all the NPRM responses.   Huh - err why can't they publish that now? Shirley it is just a matter of copying and pasting to a summary file? Hell I'll do it for them if they can't find a minion with a spare 15 minutes - FDS!

---

Mr Walker: Correct. We look at how they gain their information. It would be quite simplistic to say that we would take out some advertising, et cetera, which we do in drone publications and, obviously, IT magazines. But where we have been targeting is very much in the social media space. An example is our Facebook site— CASA now has a Facebook site. We started that a couple of years ago; we have seen an exponential growth in the number of people looking at that site. We now have 30,000 followers, and the vast majority of those and a vast amount of the traffic we are seeing is around drones and people wanting to know more information around drones. We have used social media specifically—including Twitter—around targeting the mums and the dads and the 13 year-old kids. And then the next area we have looked at is very much, I suppose, the hobbyist and enthusiast who is not necessarily interested in buying a commercial off-the-shelf drone; they actually buy their components via the internet and they build their own. That has been another key target area.

Senator RICE: What has been the cost of your communications campaign so far?

Mr Walker: In terms of total spend, I would have to take that on notice. In terms of social media, we manage that in-house—that is, the staff, relying on the expertise we have with our own subject-matter experts, and the content is all generated and delivered in-house as part of our normal communications packages.

Answer:
Since the establishment of CASA’s ongoing drone campaign in late 2013, through to June 2017, CASA has spent approximately $177,600 on production and distribution of leaflets, other advertising and associated costs, and on production of the drone app. Social media campaigns are delivered from in-house resources. There's the answer to speeding up the processing of the original Part 101 NPRM stakeholder response summary - or like I said just send them to me and I'll do it for them (for a small fee of course - ).  

---

QON 120

..Senator RICE: How many people would you have reached at that show, for example?

Mr Walker: Over the three days, I would have to take it on notice to give you precise numbers; obviously, it tends to be a little bit anecdotal. I know I had three staff on the stand and they were literally hammered for the three days.

Answer:
Over the trade days (Tuesday-Thursday) at the 2017 Avalon Airshow, and the three days (Friday-Sunday) of the inaugural Avalon Air Show Drone Zone, CASA reached an estimated 6,000 people.

---

Senator RICE: Will that be targeted at the group that we are concerned about, the recreational drone users?

Mr Walker: Yes, this would be targeted at the general public—targeted at, I suppose, mums and dads and kids—to try and understand what their level of awareness is and, based on that, what our level of effectiveness has been in delivering the communication packages that we have.

Senator RICE: So you are hoping to have determined the program by the end of the year or be out in the field by the end of the year?

Mr Walker: I would like to think we will be out in the field by the end of the year in a position to have some data on the back end of that early in the New Year.

Senator RICE: If you could provide on notice some details of what you have planned in that field, that would be appreciated.

Mr Walker: Certainly, happy to.

Answer:
CASA will be undertaking its biennial stakeholder engagement survey in November 2017 that will include the topic of drones and the understanding of CASA’s role. That's a QON dodge if I have ever seen one. WTD does the biennial stakeholder survey have to do with testing the effectiveness of the CASA drone awareness and education program?

MTF...P2

[Cap'n Wannabe]

As a follow up to my earlier post on Parafield..

Bat, not drone, blamed for light plane collision during landing at Parafield Airport

Earlier this month, a pilot reported hitting what he thought was a drone when landing at the airport in Adelaide's northern suburbs.


"After landing, the instructor conducted an inspection of the aircraft and found minor damage to the right wing," the ATSB said in a statement on its website.

"As there were no visible signs of biological matter, he contacted the control tower and reported the incident as a possible drone strike."
Investigators from the ATSB searched the area the morning after the incident, but could not find the reported object.

Today it announced it was calling off the investigation, after swabs from the plane were sent to the Australian Museum for DNA testing.

That testing revealed the object hit was most likely a grey-headed flying-fox, from the bat family.

The ATSB said "there [was] little potential for the enhancement of transport safety through further investigation" of the incident.

It said it had now discontinued the investigation.

[thorn bird]

"grey-headed flying-fox"

Darn it Cap'n the missus was a fox, still is to me, but now they call her the "Old Bat", then again she has been variously known amongst other names as "The Witch". You sure there was no broomstick bristles mixed up in the DNA?
Na. couldn't be her, she was know as a Macho woman, Rolled her own Tampons and Kick started her broomstick, these days needs a good down hill run to get it to fire.

[Peetwo]

6D & Comardy Capers living in ignorant bliss -  



Reference via Budget Estimates...

CHAIR: I tell you what, Mr Carmody, I hope the day never comes. But if it does—it will be the longest day out you and some others have had if we have a catastrophic accident with a drone. You know my history. I had 20 years investigating catastrophic accidents of international flights all over the world. I have seen accidents happen because an individual left a screwdriver in a turbine when they went in to do some repairs. You can do all the regulations you like, but it is not going to prevent an event if we get sufficient density up in the air. I asked one of the other witnesses this morning, one of the other officers, about the chicken and the egg. Don't you think it would be better if we stopped this proliferation until your organisation, and indeed our committee and industry, has a chance to collaborate and get a set of circumstances in place that we think can absolutely minimise the potential impact of this?

Mr Carmody : I think, through our regulatory framework that we have in place now, we are endeavouring to do just that. The industry wants the decisions of the regulator to be consistent. It wants them to be evidence based.

CHAIR: Sure.

Mr Carmody : It wants them to be predictable.

CHAIR: We want that too.

Mr Carmody : The evidence that I have over the last two years is, for example, 1,800 bird strikes in 2016, 1,700 bird strikes in 2015 and no reports of a drone striking an aircraft. But birds and other animals are striking aircraft. If I may, that is evidence. I have no evidence at the moment that the regulatory framework that we have in place—

CHAIR: Is that what you need, Mr Carmody? You need evidence? You want a drone to strike an aeroplane before you take some measures here?

Mr Carmody : You need to be able to make evidence based decision rather than hypothetical decisions. The evidence that I have from the United States is very clear. I have evidence from the United States about the effect of what is happening with drones in the United States.

CHAIR: No, you have evidence from the United States of a lack of events where there has been a catastrophic collision.

Mr Carmody : Where there has been a collision, if I may, and they have a much denser air environment than we have in Australia. I am looking at what other regulators are doing. I share your concern. I understand where you are coming from—I really do.

CHAIR: What harm is there in us going steady, with respect to the proliferation, before you finish your important work, Mr Carmody? No, look, that is a valid question. Do you take into account the retail sector as you make decisions about whether we should leave these things out of the air for the moment until your work is done?

Mr Carmody : No, I do not take into account the retail sector, but the statement of expectations from my minister is very clear:

… focus on aviation safety as the highest priority …
…   …   …
… consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community in the development and finalisation of new—
regulations and regulatory changes.

CHAIR: Yes.

Mr Carmody : And take 'a pragmatic, practical and proportionate approach to regulation as it applies' to different industry sectors. I am fulfilling that mandate.

CHAIR: All right.

Or at 05:10 here:

And today via ASN:

U.K. Government releases results of drone / aircraft mid air collision damage study
23 July 2017

The U.K. Government released the results of a drone / aircraft mid air collision study.

The study was commissioned by the U.K. Department for Transport, the Military Aviation Authority and British Airline Pilots’ Association (BALPA) to determine effects of a mid-air collision between small remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS, commonly known as a drones) and manned aircraft. The study was conducted by QinetiQ and Natural Impacts using laboratory collision testing and computer modelling.

The study aimed to find the lowest speed at collision where critical damage could occur to aircraft components. Critical damage was defined in this study to mean major structural damage of the aircraft component or penetration of drone through the windscreen into the cockpit.

The study has indicated that:

• Non-birdstrike certified helicopter windscreens have very limited resilience to the impact of a drone, well below normal cruise speeds.
  
• The non-birdstrike certified helicopter windscreen results can also be applied to general aviation aeroplanes which also do not have a birdstrike certification requirement.
  
• Although the birdstrike certified windscreens tested had greater resistance than non-birdstrike certified, they could still be critically damaged at normal cruise speeds.
  
• Helicopter tail rotors are also very vulnerable to the impact of a drone, with modelling showing blade failures from impacts with the smaller drone components tested.
  
• Airliner windscreens are much more resistant, however, the study showed that there is a risk of critical windscreen damage under certain impact conditions:
  * It was found that critical damage did not occur at high, but realistic impact speeds, with the 1.2 kg class drone components.
  * However, critical damage did occur to the airliner windscreens at high, but realistic, impact speeds, with the 4 kg class drone components used in this study.
  
• The construction of the drone plays a significant role in the impact of a collision. Notably, the 400 g class drone components, which included exposed metal motors, caused critical failure of the helicopter windscreens at lower speeds than the 1.2 kg class drone components, which had plastic covering over their motors. This is believed to have absorbed some of the shock of the collision, reducing the impact.
  
• The testing and modelling showed that the drone components used can cause significantly more damage than birds of equivalent masses at speeds lower than required to meet birdstrike certification standards.
  

More information:

Small Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (drones) Mid-Air Collision Study (PDF)
ASN Drone Near Miss database

---

& via PT:

UK test flies drones into damaging collisions with aircraft

[i]Given some of the apologist posturing about how drones are not a risk to airliner safety, this study provides factual insights into the damage they could do on the approaches to airports[/i]
Ben Sandilands


Oh wizard! … a small remotely piloted aircraft has strayed into our path

UK researchers have found that even a very small hobbyist drone could pose a serious risk to some helicopters and light aircraft, and that heavier but increasingly widely used drones could break an airliner’s windscreen in a collision at altitudes and speeds typical of a jet making an approach to a landing.

Although some of the findings aren’t surprising, this is the believed to be the first time speculation about the dangers to flight posed by drones flown into the path of aircraft has been provided with evidence based support.

Using a 10 metre long compressed air gun, and real drones and drone parts, and various recreations of helicopter components and airliner cockpits, the test were done in a laboratory at the aviation research and testing facility at Farnborough, England.

The results showed that even the smallest and cheapest drone, coming in at a mere 400 grams, could cause critical failure (which is stiff upper lip for ‘blow apart) a helicopter windscreen at low speed (such as hovering).  This was because that type of drone, with exposed metal micro motors, was considerably more potentially damaging to some choppers than a 1.2 kilogram quadrocopter with its engine components covered by thick, strong plastic.

Critical damage could be done to an airliner windscreen at the speeds and heights that would be realistic for a collision near an airport between a jet airliner and a comparatively heavy 4 kg drone, with typical mass and characteristics for a commercial or serious hobbyist drone.

[b]The study[/b] was commissioned by BALPA, the British commercial pilot’s association, the Military Aviation Authority and the UK Department for Transport.

Unsurprisingly, the study found that in helicopter and airliner collisions drones can cause significantly more damage than a bird strike of equivalent mass at the same impact speed. This was because of the unyielding nature of the metallic and hard plastic or composite materials in drones compared to flesh and feathers.

The study was unable to replicate some key factors in a drone collision with an airliner such as the effects of cabin pressurisation.
One of its recommendations is the drone makers be required to make their devices fall apart more readily in a collision, and use soft plastic coatings to minimise the damage done by solid metal components.

Hmm...wonder if that is 'evidence based' enough for Mr CC...



MTF...P2

[Kharon]

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.

[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

[P7_TOM]

Perhaps; instead of listening to the ‘official’ dribble and getting caught in the rush to the exits; the Senators could have a minion read through a very sane, sensible briefing provided by the BALPA, MAA and the UK DoT. The comments on the Sandilands article in ‘Plane-Talking’ are worth the reading.

But; I can summarise the report – these drone things, in the wrong, unaccountable hands, are an uncontrolled, high level risk to air traffic and the general population.

They don’t have the piñata North of the UK border, but, it matters not, you can always kick seven bells out of anything with less brains than a sporran.  

“Catastrophic - involving or causing sudden great damage or suffering.”

“Disastrous - causing great damage.”

“Ruinous - costing far more than can be afforded.”

A thesaurus would help to define the differences, concisely and provided a suitable barrage of verbiage to amuse and distract from the simple fact that a ‘drone’ whether through a by-pass, down an inlet; or, into your personal outlet, is a very nasty experience.

Get on with it – before we need a mop and a bucket to clean up the mess.

“Yes; absolutely, thank you – just keep ‘em coming”.

[Peetwo]

Droning on insurance -

Via Insurance & Risk Professional online:


ARE YOU ON BOARD?

Insurance and Risk Professional 27 Jul 2017

Picture this, you’ve just finished your shift as a trauma nurse and are driving back home on Sydney’s Harbour Bridge with spectacular views on either side and suddenly, out of nowhere an object comes flying toward your window ricocheting off your car and smashing into several pieces.

by Tanaya Das

To your surprise the large object turns out to be a drone even though large parts of the harbour are a no-go zone for them due to helicopters and seaplanes operating in the area.

This is what happened to Scott Hillsley who got the shock of his life driving after his shift ended at the Royal North Shore Hospital.

It’s not the first time this has happened, in fact it is the second reported incident in the past nine months where a drone has struck a car on the Harbour Bridge.

“With an increase in the number of drones in operation, there is also an increase in the potential for third party liability claims,” says Aaron Stephenson, Director, AV Cover.

With drones being increasingly used for commercial purposes as well as for leisure, it is fast becoming a multimillion dollar industry. A report by Business Insider Intelligence, “Drones enter race for next content frontier”, estimated that globally, consumer drone shipments will reach 29 million by 2021. It projected revenues from drone sales to top US$12 billion in 2021, up from just over US$8 billion in 2015.

“Safer technology and better regulation will open up new applications for drones in the commercial sector, including drone delivery programs like Amazon’s Prime Air and Google’s Project Wing initiatives,” states Business Insider.

Stephenson says, “Most drone operators operate a land based business such as photography, video production etc, so there are opportunities for brokers to assist with their other requirements. We also see more drones being utilised by construction companies, property developers and the like which means more prospects for brokers.”

Not your average insurance

Drone insurance is not what one would consider a ‘traditional’ insurance product, says Dylan Jones, Senior Broker, Aviation Insurance Brokers Australia.

He notes, “The evolution of affordable drone technology has been rapid, with aviation underwriters forced to adapt existing hull and liability policy wordings to cover this emerging industry’s need. There is no legal requirement for drone operators to maintain insurance cover, however, often contracts will force the issue for operators with government or commercial agreements.”

The industry name for drones, is UAV – Unmanned Aerial Vehicle – and in Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) more recently has changed the name it uses to refer to drones as RPA – Remotely Piloted Aircraft.

FOUR THINGS A BROKER MUST KNOW:

1. Remember professional indemnity: All drone operators may have an exposure when producing digital images, giving advice on expected outcomes or suggesting machines to use.

2. Ask your client questions: Ask current and new clients if drones are now being used in their business as this might not be covered under their current policy. For instance, a drone can fly commercially without being licensed, if it weighs less than 2kg by simply registering on the CASA website. This means that someone like a builder could use a drone for roof inspections, and believe that this would be covered under their standard liability policy, which may not be the case.
3. Personalise solutions: There is no actual product called drone insurance. It’s basically either equipment damage or liability cover that has been customised based on the client’s risk exposures.
4. Know the regulations: Primarily be aware of the CASA regulations under which commercial operators fly and the amount of effort businesses should take to ensure that they operate in the safest manner possible.

“Drone insurance can cover public liability for the operation of the machine, and hull (the actual machine itself – while in use or transit). Licensed operators require this cover,” Aaron Donaldson, Managing Director, Allsure, says.

Jones adds, “Drone insurance initially was underwritten by specialist aviation underwriters and this is still largely the case. There are, however, more and more options becoming available with some general insurers dipping their toe in the water with offerings. We expect such endeavours to be short-lived as the market learns of the complexities involving drones and the potential for significant hull and third-party losses with a relatively shallow premium pool.”

Stephenson says, “Drone insurance is relatively niche, most covers are transacted with aviation insurers using aviation wordings. Some non-aviation insurers also offer cover under their public liability policy with a drone extension, this is limited to certain licence categories.”

This is where it can become quite tricky for non-aviation brokers, he believes.

Flight risks

With drone use becoming more common, it is about time that brokers start to seriously look at this sector and the risks.

Dean Lomax from Lomax Media, who uses drones extensively in creating commercial video content says, “The main risks come from those that fly their machines too close to people or property but there is also a growing number of operators who are not aware of the no-fly zones in Australia, such as those close to airports and helicopter landing zones.”

Lomax thinks there is an increasing risk of collision between those flying their machine and another airspace user.

Jones specifies that in terms of hull losses the most significant risks relate to loss of the drone and its payload. For example: sometimes through unforeseen perils such as bird strikes, or the drone simply failing to follow controller direction resulting in it never being found after leaving line of sight.

With an increase in the number of drones in operation, there is also an increase in the potential for third party liability claims.

He says, “Frequency interference has also become a concern whereby the drone becomes unresponsive to the controller. Manufacturers have moved to build in redundancies to force drones to predetermined actions where the signal between controller and the drone is lost, however, losses are still occurring.”

Further he states that third-party liability is the more significant risk and often overlooked by both recreational and commercial operators.

Also, if and where the Damage by Aircraft Act applies, operators would be deemed strictly liable for third party losses and such liability is unlimited.

Naturally this should be a concern not only for operators but insurers alike given the potential damage and consequential losses which could be caused by a drone.

He continues that one of the more interesting developments which is yet to be addressed through an insurance offering is that of privacy breaches.

The recreational use of drones has grown exponentially in the last couple of years. Donaldson believes that this poses a greater risk to the public and air travellers, due to larger numbers of toy-type craft being used.

Electric powered drones are using high-powered lithium polymer batteries, and these pose a fire/explosion risk if handled, stored or charged incorrectly.

Niche specialisation, or open to general insurance brokers?

Is insurance for remote piloted aircrafts something that only an aviation specialised broker can handle or can a general insurance broker also place commercial drone risks?
Donaldson thinks, “With a little understanding of the terms, there is no reason any broker couldn’t handle drone insurance.”

On the other hand, Jones believes drone insurance, much like aviation insurance is a very specialised field.

He says, “It’s not only necessary to be aware of the legislative landscape which effects an operator’s liability but understanding how such legislation interacts with the policies you place for your clients. It is essential to protect your client as ultimately failing to identify and address insurable risks will likely end up with the broker on the wrong side of a Professional Indemnity (PI) claim.”

As a client who needs insurance, Lomax states, “I believe that with the current situation of application of the rules from CASA, a drone insurance specialist would be a definite advantage, but there would be nothing stopping general brokers from being able to offer a product by gaining a knowledge of the rules that the industry flies under.”

Finally, brokers should remember that there are many drone operators who are underinsured due to lack of knowledge and their numbers are rapidly growing. It is imperative that insurance intermediaries know what clients are doing as a part of their business that could potentially increase their risk exposure.

Hoody now a drone clone -

Via OHS:

ATSB's Chief Pilot Approved to Fly Drones

The Australian safety agency already has taken advantage by taking investigative video with its drone after a loaded coal train derailed in Queensland on July 21, 2017.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau's Chief Commissioner Greg Hood and Transport Safety Investigation Manager Derek Hoffmeister have received a Remotely Piloted Aircraft Operator's Certificate through the country's Civil Aviation Safety Authority, meaning they are authorized to fly drones while investigating transportation accidents in the field.
The certificate was presented by CASA acting CEO/Director of Aviation Safety Graeme Crawford. It authorizes flying drones that weigh up to seven kilograms.

Hoffmeister has also been granted Chief Remote Pilot status by CASA after passing the required flying test and an interview, and ATSB already has taken advantage by taking investigative video with its drone after a loaded coal train derailed in Queensland on July 21, 2017.

"The [drone] brings significant capability to our investigations," Hoffmeister said.

"Investigators are now able to undertake an initial site survey to check for safety hazards before entering the site, and we can perform site mapping more quickly and with more accurate measurements. Also, comprehensive photos of an entire accident site can help investigations enormously. We can capture that imagery ourselves using [the drone] – imagery that could previously only be obtained with a helicopter."

Hood said the agency has been monitoring the potential benefits of drones for a number of years, and now they are equipped with software and capable of high-fidelity resolution photography for site safety assessment and site and debris mapping.

 
Hmmm...so I wonder did we ATPs pay for Hoody's drone endorsement...


MTF...P2

[Kharon]

At last!

The real risk assessors step in: it had to happen. When insurance risk assessors set to work they don’t mess about, every possible risk – to them – is weighed, measured and quantified – from every angle. Their in depth analysis are the complete opposite of the CASA scribblings. The insurers will carefully evaluate the risk associated with a ‘drone’ slipping past the fan blades of a large turbine engine and disappearing down the by-pass and define the cost, in the dollars and cents, that will be required to cover the bet they have taken. Bookmaking – down to a science.

The other angle is the ‘speed’ at which they will complete the task – they exist in the ‘here and now’ – real risk, in real time, in the real world; solutions provided within that time frame. Any insurer worth the title will have made a profit from the research and risk assessment before CASA even acknowledge that there may be risk worthy of their consideration.  

“With an increase in the number of drones in operation, there is also an increase in the potential for third party liability claims,” says Aaron Stephenson, Director, AV Cover.

“Drone insurance can cover public liability for the operation of the machine, and hull (the actual machine itself – while in use or transit). Licensed operators require this cover,” Aaron Donaldson, Managing Director, Allsure, says.

"[Jones] specifies that in terms of hull losses the most significant risks relate to loss of the drone and its payload. For example: sometimes through unforeseen perils such as bird strikes, or the drone simply failing to follow controller direction resulting in it never being found after leaving line of sight.

Reading through the article above the stark contrast between the dynamic approach of industry and insurer, in comparison to the CASA denial of responsibility for the risk is clearly visible. It’s got me beat how the likes of Carmody, the mad professor and the Scots Git can sit and play word games with the RRAT committee while the risks escalate.  Attitude adjustment required; lots of and often.

Toot toot.

[Kharon]

THE DRONES ARE COMING!
Larry Pickering
Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
BLOG / FACEBOOK

Tweet
Mon 31 Jul 2017 04:46:30 pm/678 COMMENTS

---

Perhaps only one innovation is equal to the effects of the computer and that could be the drone. It is already encroaching on every part of life from serious weapons of war to kids’ toys.

                                       
From this to no bigger than a match box

Helicopters are experiencing extensive downtime due to far cheaper drones replacing them on commercial jobs that were once the domain, and the lifeblood, of the hard working chopper and its pilot.

Even dumb terrorists have finally worked out that it's not necessary to blow the crap out of themselves. “Those 72 virgins will just have to wait until we collar some more infidels.”

Aviation authorities are on triple time and a half trying to update civil regulations that apply to these increasingly sophisticated drones. But it’s not regulations applying to civilians that we need to worry about. It’s the unregulated enemy who is becoming aware of just how valuable drones can be

                                 

Aged Phantoms are now being used as drones

One thousand pilots can be sitting opposite the White House, in Arlington County’s Pentagon, launching one thousand GPS kitted-out drones and ordinance-laden pilotless old Phantom Jets from South Korea into the North to hunt down and destroy every nuclear facility in the country while smaller drones are pinpointing every haunt the mad Zika Kid frequented in the past year.

All complete with high res cameras to ensure we get to see the fat guy’s surprised, contorted, face as he frantically tries to finish his third helping of crepe suzettes.

In case anyone survives the initial drone or Phantom blast, every bombed site is followed up with one MOAB each to suck the oxygen out of the air for miles around before setting it all alight … this will be the way of modern warfare, no soldiers, no pilots, no weaponry at risk, where the greater technology is always the winner.

Oh, the little piglet might get one or two of his ICBMs off the ground if he’s lucky but the Iron Dome defence already deployed in the South will take care of them before they get warm. And guess where they will be landing. Every day that Trump delays dealing with this, the more difficult the task.



The next concern is civilian use of drones and, you know, delivering pizzas (above) and other stuff like drugs, smokes and alcohol. Of course the paedophiles will be able to hover near the windows of toilets at child-care centres and the normal pervert soon knows who likes to sunbathe starkers in the "privacy" of their own back yard or a workplace roof (below).





The serious voyeurs can get footage of famous divas on the toilet or in the shower or even shagging someone they shouldn’t be shagging. Media will pay good money when the voyeurs are finished with that footage. 

Unfaithful husbands are easy meat, as grubby private eyes learn to operate the things. Get the film evidence, point the drone toward Chile and let it go. It will run out of fuel somewhere in the Pacific leaving no evidence… but so what, they are as cheap as chips anyway.

CASA, who still doesn’t understand why planes fly, says this of drones: “Australia’s safety laws for drones or remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) generally depend on whether the operator is flying commercially or recreationally.” The idiots believe people will tell them what they are up to if they intend operating a drone illegally. Hmmmm.



Public Servant, Shane Carmody (above) is yet another dickhead CASA CEO without a commercial pilot's licence

But good ‘ol incompetent CASA has updated the rules to include terminology, so they say: “It must now align with the International Civil Aviation Organization, for example, UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) must now become RPA (remotely piloted aircraft)”. Hmmm, as long as we get the name right everything should be okay then?

                                  Amazon uses this model to deliver purchases

CASA is incapable of regulating RPT so HTF could they ever effectively regulate new-age drones?

But the third and most important shift to drones is (or soon will be) in the terrorism industry. Muslims have never been known for their high IQs but destructive drones need no more than IQs of 10 to operate, so that suits Islam ideally.



Everything from agriculture (above) to search and rescue, mustering and traffic duty, drones are here to stay and helicopters are gone, commercially.

Drones that are sold in the local store come with instructions and lots of assembly pictures and all that is needed is how to tape on the latest compact explosive hooked up to a detonator that can be activated by radio or a simple mobile phone. Islam already has a wealth of experience in detonating things. 

All that is needed now is a train or a plane timetable, where the drone can carry its payload to a railway line or to a flight path. Airline pilots are already reporting drones adjacent to flightpaths. Hmmm, I wonder what they are practising for.



           The Norwegian "Griff 300" weighs 165 pounds but can lift up to 500 pounds so                 you can easily get your mates, lots of grog and grandma, into the footy for free

                                              Kits are available everywhere

There are a lot of terrific railway bridges in Sydney and Melbourne where ungrateful Muslims can send a thousand mainly Australians to their deaths in the Hawkesbury River below. 



               The already seriously corroded Hawkesbury Bridge is an easy target

It would make a terrific photo to send to Brussels or al Raqqa and only a small amount of Semtex or C-4 is delivered to the rails approaching the bridge a mere minute before the train, which has no hope of stopping, is due to arrive. High fives all round and back to Lakemba for the celebrations.



Or camp on Bondi Beach and hover the drone on the flight path to or from Mascot to intersect the next jumbo (departing is much better as the aircraft will be full of fuel as they discovered during 9/11). Or flying one into Parliament House during Question Time would create a few divisions.    

The best part is that the hitherto martyrs are now living, breathing heroes with 72 excited Muslim sheilas eagerly upping their burkahs, or that’s what the blokes reckon. But even if the Muslim sheilas turn out to be a mirage, there are always the shy, mini-skirted, infidel ones who are easily caught.

Australia’s new Homeland Security Force combination may have thwarted the latest Muslim plans for a large airliner, but it can’t thwart what’s to come,
… and they will never catch the perps.

[Peetwo]

Parliament House drones on -

Via the other Aunty... :

Backstory: What happened when the ABC asked to fly a drone inside Parliament House?
By camera operator Greg Nelson
Posted about 8 hours ago
[/url]


A drone films Annabel Crabb walking through Parliament House during the making of The House.

Getting permission to film inside Parliament House is notoriously difficult.

Ask anyone in the Press Gallery about filming or taking pictures anywhere but the most public areas and they'll be able to offer up a tale about the time they ran foul of the Serjeant-at-Arms or the Usher of the Black Rod.



Drone operator Alastair Smith discusses the flight plan with The House production team and Parliament House staff.

It's a testament to the negotiating skills of the team behind the new Annabel Crabb series, The House, that they not only gained access to a majority of the building with documentary film cameras but also a drone.

Take a bow, director Stamatia Maroupas and series producer Madeleine Hawcroft.
Years of planning, constant meetings, approval processes and paperwork eventually led to Australia's Parliament House being opened up like never before.



Flight crew flying a drone inside the Senate chamber.

The result is a six-part series that explores the building, its influence on the political process and the people who work behind the scenes to keep the 'city on the hill' running smoothly.

The building itself is an architectural wonder but it's grandeur is only glimpsed by the public.

So, what better way to gain an appreciation for its scale and design than soaring overhead with a remotely piloted aircraft, or drone.



It took years of planning, meetings and paperwork to get permission to fly a drone and film inside Parliament House.

The series begins with a pre-dawn ritual — the changing of the giant flag atop the House.
It's a strictly controlled process for safety reasons and that meant sending camera operators up the flagpole was simply not viable.

The ARRI cameras and support rigs we used on this shoot weigh between 20 and 25 kilograms. They're big and bulky and almost impossible to safely fit into the small trolley elevator that trundles up one of the flag pole legs.

There's next to no room on the tiny platform where the flag change takes place for filming either so this is where the drone really came into its own.



The view from the drone flying over Parliament House for the first time during filming of The House.

Having an aerial camera system allowed us in one take to go from an intimate close up of the workers riding up in the trolley to a grand vista showing the flag and Parliament House looking resplendent in the sunrise.

It's a breathtaking image that can't be achieved as easily, if indeed at all, by conventional means. Fortunately, Canberra's autumn weather played along too and Capital Hill has rarely looked as spectacular on film.

Whether sweeping overhead, offering a never before seen bird's eye view of the courtyards or treetop-level vistas of the Parliament, the Inspire 1 drone opened up a world of filming possibilities for the series.



The drone in flight inside the House of Representatives. - Drone operator command input to drone - "Go to guns" -

Not least of these was the ability to fly and film inside the building.

Long before the aircraft even arrived in Canberra, there was a flurry of meetings and approvals being sent back and forward between the production team, Parliamentary Services, the Heliguy flight crew, AFP (Australian Federal Police), CASA (Civil Aviation Safety Authority) and countless other acronym departments.

Permissions were a long time coming and with the film schedule tightening and the pre-determined flying days locked in, the process was finally completed on the morning of the first flight.



The drone operator took great care to keep a safe distance from the artwork inside Parliament House.

Even with the necessary approvals, strict controls for flying the aircraft inside were still needed. Minimum safety distances had to be maintained, risks to heritage items avoided and areas closed off to staff.

This proved to be quite a challenge with a great number of interested onlookers keen to see what all the excitement was about. The numbers swelled even more when word spread that a drone was actually flying inside the House.



Maintaining a safe distance from people while filming inside Parliament House required some skilful flying, but there was plenty of open space in the Members Hall.

Now, with all this excitement, it's tempting to lay claim to being the first to fly a drone inside Parliament House.

Unfortunately as we discovered, that honour belongs, somewhat ignominiously, to some camera operators from Channel Seven.

One very quiet day, about 10 years ago, they purchased a remote-controlled helicopter, emblazoned it with Channel Seven stickers and flew from the Press Gallery down to the Members Hall.

The whole incident was captured on film and set vaingloriously to Ride of the Valkyries. It was a very different time in the House back then but the video still didn't last long on YouTube.


[url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/about/backstory/television/2017-08-08/flying-a-drone-through-parliament-house/8780500#lightbox-content-lightbox-40]
Giving a new meaning to the term 'crossing the floor' - the view from the drone flying from one side of the Senate chamber to the other.

It's truly a rare privilege that we have been granted on this series.
Access to the staid halls, the grand chambers and the hard-working staff of this building did not come easily.

Capturing it from every angle was essential and flying the drone inside and around Parliament was important to help achieve this.

It's a unique view we may never see on film again.

The House with Annabel Crabb begins at 8:00 pm on ABC and iview.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Chester answer to QIW on drones.

Via House Hansard yesterday, Chester actually answers a QIW and makes it sound like he actually know what he is talking about -

Drones
(Question No. 739)
Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 29 May 2017:

In respect of reported incidences involving drones between 26 May 2015 and 26 May 2017, how many accidents or near-accidents, breaches of privacy or other regulations have been reported (a) over Australian airspace, and (b) over South Australian airspace, © over the airspace of our capital cities including metropolitan (i) Adelaide, (ii) Perth, (iii) Darwin, (iv) Brisbane, (v) Sydney, (vi) Canberra, (vii) Hobart, and (viii) Melbourne, and (d) within a (i) 20, (ii) 15, (iii) 10, and (iv) 5, kilometre radius of the Adelaide Airport.

Mr Chester: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) collects information on the number of aviation safety occurrences reported in accordance with the mandatory occurrence reporting requirements of the Transport Investigation Act 2003 (TSI Act) and associated aviation safety regulations. The information on occurrences collected by the ATSB is categorised into three types:

Accidents: An occurrence involving an aircraft where: a person dies or suffers serious injury; the aircraft (which includes a drone) is destroyed or seriously damaged; or any property is destroyed or seriously damaged.

Serious Incidents: An incident involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly occurred.

Incidents: An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation and also meets the definition of a 'Transport Safety Matter' in the TSI Act.

Available information on the number of aviation safety related occurrences as requested, is in the table below.

The ATSB has advised that it is currently reviewing the Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems occurrence data for the first half of 2017 and expects to publish updated figures and analysis in August 2017.

Information on incidents that are not aviation safety related, for example, privacy, are a matter for the relevant authority in each state and territory. 



Source: ATSB National Occurrence Database - detailed data on occurrences involving remotely piloted aircraft for the period 26/5/15 to 26/5/17 (http://data.atsb.gov.au/DetailedData)

1 For the purposes of this response, 'Capital City Airspace' has been defined as Class C and D airspace, which is the controlled airspace and control zones around major airports (Class C) and the controlled airspace and control zones around controlled metropolitan and regional airports (Class D).

2 All 'accidents' reported to the ATSB involved damage to the drone (which is defined as an 'aircraft' for the purposes of this reporting) or other property only. No accidents involved injuries to persons or damage to other aircraft.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Dear CC - Please explain? L&Ks GS

Chester answer to QIW on drones.

Via House Hansard yesterday, Chester actually answers a QIW and makes it sound like he actually know what he is talking about -

Drones
(Question No. 739)
Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 29 May 2017:

In respect of reported incidences involving drones between 26 May 2015 and 26 May 2017, how many accidents or near-accidents, breaches of privacy or other regulations have been reported (a) over Australian airspace, and (b) over South Australian airspace, © over the airspace of our capital cities including metropolitan (i) Adelaide, (ii) Perth, (iii) Darwin, (iv) Brisbane, (v) Sydney, (vi) Canberra, (vii) Hobart, and (viii) Melbourne, and (d) within a (i) 20, (ii) 15, (iii) 10, and (iv) 5, kilometre radius of the Adelaide Airport.

Mr Chester: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) collects information on the number of aviation safety occurrences reported in accordance with the mandatory occurrence reporting requirements of the Transport Investigation Act 2003 (TSI Act) and associated aviation safety regulations. The information on occurrences collected by the ATSB is categorised into three types:

Accidents: An occurrence involving an aircraft where: a person dies or suffers serious injury; the aircraft (which includes a drone) is destroyed or seriously damaged; or any property is destroyed or seriously damaged.

Serious Incidents: An incident involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly occurred.

Incidents: An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation and also meets the definition of a 'Transport Safety Matter' in the TSI Act.

Available information on the number of aviation safety related occurrences as requested, is in the table below.

The ATSB has advised that it is currently reviewing the Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems occurrence data for the first half of 2017 and expects to publish updated figures and analysis in August 2017.

Information on incidents that are not aviation safety related, for example, privacy, are a matter for the relevant authority in each state and territory. 



Source: ATSB National Occurrence Database - detailed data on occurrences involving remotely piloted aircraft for the period 26/5/15 to 26/5/17 (http://data.atsb.gov.au/DetailedData)

1 For the purposes of this response, 'Capital City Airspace' has been defined as Class C and D airspace, which is the controlled airspace and control zones around major airports (Class C) and the controlled airspace and control zones around controlled metropolitan and regional airports (Class D).

2 All 'accidents' reported to the ATSB involved damage to the drone (which is defined as an 'aircraft' for the purposes of this reporting) or other property only. No accidents involved injuries to persons or damage to other aircraft.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Drone Wars Update: CC warns against using Purdy -

Comardy Capers once again proves how out of touch with reality he and his Fort Fumble minions truly are when it comes to drones, via the Oz: 

Aviation safety watchdog’s warning to anti-drone vigilantes

’CASA has no interest in discouraging the responsible development and controlled deployment of effective counter-drone technologies’.

• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM August 11, 2017
  
• [size=undefined]ANNABEL HEPWORTH
  
  Aviation Editor
  Sydney
  @HepworthAnnabel
  [img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/d4b891a093ad6ddc703117011dc4fd61/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img][/size]
  

The aviation safety watchdog has warned against “unlawful vigilantism” by people to jam or destroy drones they feel have intruded on them.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has sounded the alarm about sophisticated “counter-drone” technologies used in a “dangerous and unlawful” way in response to drones.

In a discussion paper for a landmark review into drones, CASA says remotely piloted aircraft have been linked to the ­delivery of contraband to prisons, interfering with firefighting operations and encroaching into ­controlled airspace — leading to technologies being developed to thwart drones.

“Understandable though the frustration and indignation of people may be when they believe that their rights have been intruded upon by an irresponsible or malevolent RPA operator, it is important not to encourage­ ­potentially dangerous and unlawful vigilantism,” the discussion paper says.

“The uncontrolled use of counter-drone technology could create more problems than it is ­intended to solve.

“At the same time, however, CASA has no interest in discouraging the responsible development and controlled deployment of effective counter-drone technologies. Such technologies can serve important and beneficial purposes without un­acceptably compromising safety.”

There are concerns drones could be used to invade people’s privacy, including when they are skinny-dipping in backyard pools. It is estimated 50,000 drones are used in Australia as they become cheaper.

The discussion paper canvasses requiring hobbyists to register the devices, including asking for feedback on whether there should be a minium age for ­people to operate drones.

The paper flags the possibility of mandatory training before people fly drones. Also under consideration is “geo-fencing”, which uses GPS or other radio frequencies to exclude drones from certain areas, although there are concerns the technology could itself be a safety risk.

CASA asks for feedback on whether the use of recreational drones should be “prohibited completely until the actual and perceived safety risks they pose has been effectively mitigated”.

The authority’s chief executive, Shane Carmody, also notes that drone technology could ­deliver “a multitude of beneficial humanitarian, economic and recreational applications” and says that commercial opportunities should not be unnecessarily constrained.

Do you think Old MacDonald, from the back of Burke, is going to think twice about blowing a drone out of the air with two barrels from the Purdy, just because Dr A and wingnut Carmody say it is unlawful? - next they'll be saying it is unlawful to be thinking of going flying while under the influence...    

Meanwhile it is quite legal to be sipping a Chardy heavily under the influence and at the same time operating a drone while at a BBQ in the local park - UDB!


MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

Drone Wars Update: CC warns against using Purdy -

Comardy Capers once again proves how out of touch with reality he and his Fort Fumble minions truly are when it comes to drones, via the Oz: 

Aviation safety watchdog’s warning to anti-drone vigilantes

’CASA has no interest in discouraging the responsible development and controlled deployment of effective counter-drone technologies’.

• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM August 11, 2017
  
• [size=undefined]ANNABEL HEPWORTH
  
  Aviation Editor
  Sydney
  @HepworthAnnabel
  [img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/d4b891a093ad6ddc703117011dc4fd61/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img][/size]
  

The aviation safety watchdog has warned against “unlawful vigilantism” by people to jam or destroy drones they feel have intruded on them.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has sounded the alarm about sophisticated “counter-drone” technologies used in a “dangerous and unlawful” way in response to drones...

Do you think Old MacDonald, from the back of Burke, is going to think twice about blowing a drone out of the air with two barrels from the Purdy, just because Dr A and wingnut Carmody say it is unlawful? - next they'll be saying it is unlawful to be thinking of going flying while under the influence...    

Meanwhile it is quite legal to be sipping a Chardy heavily under the influence and at the same time operating a drone while at a BBQ in the local park - UDB!

Update: Via Oz Flying & FF.

CASA is seeking feedback on how to regulate drones such as this quadrotor. (Australian Research Centre for Aerospace Automation)

CASA seeks Comments on Drone Regulation
11 August 2017

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority today released a discussion paper reviewing regulation of drone operations in Australia.

DP1708OS is part of a review started in June to review CASA's approach to regulating Remotely-Piloted Aircraft (RPA) operations, and canvasses several topics and options including registration, experience and training, geo-fencing and counter-drone technology.

According to CASA CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody, the rise of drone use has presented National Aviation Authorities around the world with similar issues to those encountered in Australia.

"Globally, aviation safety regulators are facing the same kinds of challenges: to maintain high levels of safety without unnecessarily impeding progress or unduly constraining commercial opportunities to use a technology capable of a multitude of beneficial humanitarian, economic and recreational applications," he said in his foreword to the DP.
...

"I recognise the need for existing aviation safety requirements to be reviewed, critically assessed and updated in response to emerging risks, new technologies, international regulatory developments, and the advice and views from other government, industry and community stakeholders. Therefore I look forward to [the] responses to this discussion paper."

The CASA RPA review is different to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) inquiry into the safe use of drones, but CASA expects the outcome of their review will provide information to that inquiry.
DP1708OS is available for download from the CASA website.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...SpzoDEs.99

---

&..

Discussion paper - review of RPAS operations (DP 1708OS)

Closes 22 Sep 2017
Opened 11 Aug 2017
Contact
RPAS Branch

131 757
regulatoryconsultation@casa.gov.au

Overview

Australia was one of the first countries in the world to introduce legislation governing the operation of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), commonly referred to as drones. Part 101 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) was introduced in 2002 in response to the need for an effective regulatory framework within which the development of this rapidly evolving technology could progress without compromising the safety of other airspace users and people and property on the ground.

Since that time the RPA sector in Australia, as elsewhere in the world, has experienced enormous growth, driven by advancements in technology that continue to fuel commercial and recreational consumer demand, while providing easier access to increasingly sophisticated devices at relatively low cost. As of 24 July 2017 there were 5,870 remotely piloted aircraft licence (RePL) holders and 1,106 remotely piloted aircraft operator’s certificate (ReOC) holders in Australia. The vast majority of RPA owners and operators are recreational users who require neither a RePL nor a ReOC. It is estimated that there are at least 50,000 drones being operated in Australia today, mostly for sport and recreational purposes.

Globally, aviation safety regulators are facing the same kinds of challenges: to maintain high levels of safety without unnecessarily impeding progress or unduly constraining commercial opportunities to use a technology capable of a multitude of beneficial humanitarian, economic and recreational applications. Responding to these challenges, CASA introduced important amendments to the regulations that took effect in September 2016.

Why We Are Consulting

While reducing the regulatory burden on some commercial uses of RPA, the regulations continue to require all drone operators to comply with the basic safety requirements set out in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the regulations. In fact, the recent amendments to Part 101 of CASR included a set of generally applicable standard operating conditions designed to enhance the high level of safety already provided under the existing rules. The Notice of Final Rule Making for these amendments is expected to be released shortly.

We recognise, of course, that departures from these requirements—deliberate or unintentional—can heighten those risks, and that effective action to address, and where possible to prevent, such departures is essential. To that end, CASA has continued with a major education program about the safe and compliant operation of RPAs. CASA’s drone safety awareness campaign is estimated to have reached more than a million people through our social media channels. It also includes targeted advertising through other media to explain the regulations for recreational and sub-2kg (very small) RPA users.

I recognise the ongoing need for existing aviation safety requirements to be reviewed, critically assessed and updated in response to emerging risks, new technologies, international regulatory developments, and the advice and views from other Government, industry and community stakeholders. Therefore, I look forward to your responses to this discussion paper.

I appreciate your commitment in time and effort in providing comments on these important issues, and I thank you in advance for your contributions.
 
Shane Carmody
Chief Executive Officer and
Director of Aviation Safety
 
 
A copy of the discussion paper is provided below. You can read it on this screen using the scroll bar or save it to your computer using the popup options. 
 
Provide your feedback
Online Survey
Related

• Drones fact sheet 1.1 MB (PDF document)
  

• Flying drones / remotely piloted aircraft in Australia
  
• Senate Standing Committees on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport
  
• Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (includes Part 101)
  
• Terms of reference for CASA's drone safety review
  

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Oz Flying..

"CASA's discussion paper on drone regulation is now ready for industry comments. This may be just a fringe issue to many of us who are still struggling with AirVenture, Part 61, rising rents, SIDs and every other spear in the side that is depleting our lifeblood at the moment, but you can bet it's very important to the drone community, which I have no doubt will be pouring feedback into CASA. If the general aviation community takes a stand-off approach to this, then the feedback from the drone people is all they will have. It's probably a critical enough issue for general aviation to take notice and speak up, or we certainly won't be listened to on this topic in the future."

In a nutshell - time for a recreational GA summit. Sort it out then act as one. Lead or follow, but don't get under anyone's feet.

[Peetwo]

Drone Wars in a parallel hemisphere -

Via Twitter today:

Someone flew a drone into a Gatwick Airport flight path and caused hours of delays - see the chaos here.

P2 - To view click on the tube in YouTube...

---

Via Business Insider:

This map shows the chaos that ensues when a drone flies too close to an airport

• David Ibekwe and Kieran Corcoran
  

A new data visualisation has shown the scale of the disruption caused when a drone gets too close to a major airport.


Footage generated from flight path data shows planes struggling to land at Gatwick on July 2 this year, when air traffic controllers stopped all take-offs and landings because of a drone sighting.

Dozens of flights were delayed, and some redirected entirely because of the closure. The footage, generated from raw data by air traffic monitor NATS, shows how pre-determined holding patterns near the runway quickly filled and then overflowed.

Further flights, shown in orange, were directed to a larger holding route near Southampton, while planes running low on fuel (shown in red) left for other airports.
Even though the runway was only closed for 14 minutes in total (once for nine minutes, then for another five after a second sighting), the drone sighting had knock-on consequences which lasted far longer.

Produced by David Ibekwe

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Drone Wars Update -

Via the Oz:

Drone safety risks spark calls for tougher training

• Annabel Hepworth
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM August 18, 2017
  

[img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/d4b891a093ad6ddc703117011dc4fd61/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]Calls for more stringent training of drone operators have emerged after Australia’s national aviation safety investigator renewed warnings that the surge in the gadgets poses an emerging transport safety risk.

This comes as the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has reduced its forecast for the number of incidents or near encounters involving drones for this year.

In a new analysis, the ATSB finds that despite a surge in safety incidents related to remotely piloted aircraft systems between 2012 and 2016, the number during the first half of this year has been below expectations.

“The number of reported RPAS-related safety occurrences increased significantly in 2016 compared to previous years,” the report says.

“Contrary to previous assessments, this appears to have levelled off significantly until mid-2017, with the total number of occurrences forecast to be similar to 2016 numbers.”
But the body qualifies its forecasts as “indicative only”, saying the uncertainty involved means “they are not intended to be accurate predictions”.

UAVAIR general manager Ashley Cox said he wanted to see more standard safety requirements for drones.

“The reality is that drone operators want to protect their industry from cowboys coming into the market,” Mr Cox said.

[img=558x366]http://cdn.thinglink.me/api/image/954619972892491778/1024/10/scaletowidth#tl-954619972892491778;1043138249'[/img]

He said operators “want the training standards to be lifted, they want the compliance requirements to be audited and maintained, because they are really concerned that the guy down the road having an accident could ­affect their ability to be on a worksite.”

The findings come as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority conducts a landmark review into drones in which it is considering requiring hobbyists to register the devices, mandatory training before people can fly drones and the use of “geo-fencing” to exclude drones from certain areas.

The ATSB says the number of drones could double this year from last year.

So far, there have been no midair collisions between drones and piloted aircraft. But the new research points to recent work for the British Department of Transport and Military Aviation Authority that found even a 400g quadcopter could cause critical damage to a helicopter tail rotor.

That study found a standard plane windscreens could tolerate being struck by a drone at typical landing speeds.

At higher speeds, being hit by a 4kg quadcopter would cause complete structural failure of the windscreen.

&.. yesterday:

Drone reforms needed to protect privacy

Drones pose a threat to privacy.

• David Hodgkinson, Rebecca Johnston
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM August 17, 2017
  

[url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/drone-reforms-needed-to-protect-privacy/news-story/eb161ab7d08e8af72faeeaea8a8b2740#comments][/url]
Rapid technological developments have made drones far more accessible and widely used recreationally and commercially. As a result, drones pose a serious threat to personal privacy.

Serious invasions of privacy range from inadvertent surveillance and collection of personal information through photographs to criminal conduct such as stalking. The Australian Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim, has said that the community is becoming more aware and concerned about drone use and its associated privacy risks.

The Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority is Australia’s aviation safety regulator but its responsibility is limited to aviation safety; drone privacy issues do not fall within its purview. It will not investigate breaches of privacy.

The Office of the Australian Information Commission is the Australian government agency primarily responsible for privacy. Individuals covered by the Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988 can make complaints to the OAIC.

However, drone privacy is only protected to a limited extent at the federal, state and territory levels. The Privacy Act is the primary statute that regulates privacy in Australia. However, there are issues in terms of its application to the regulation of drones.

First, it predominantly focuses on protecting the appropriate handling of ‘‘personal information’’ contained in a record rather than behavioural privacy protection. This has been acknowledged by Dr Roger Clark from the Australian Privacy Foundation. The Privacy Act only applies where drones collect footage containing identifying information.

More significantly, the Privacy Act only regulates Australian government agencies and some private sector organisations. Commissioner Pilgrim has recognised that drones operated by individuals are not subject to privacy laws. Small businesses with an annual turnover of less than $3 million are also largely unregulated, which poses serious problems.

The increasing availability of low-cost drones means that in practice, drones are, and will be, largely operated by individuals and small businesses. Current privacy laws do not provide overarching protection to Australians; there is no avenue of redress if harm occurs in these circumstances.

Some states and territories have enacted privacy laws. However, these also generally apply only to government agency activities.

Further, anti-stalking laws only apply in limited circumstances. For example, in Queensland, it is illegal to record someone without their consent if they are in a private place or conducting a private act.

Tort law provides limited protection where drones trespass or injure a person or property.
Some states and territories regulate the public use of surveillance devices. The scope of these laws, and their application to drones, varies considerably between jurisdictions. In Western Australia, inadvertent recording of private behaviour that occurs through lawful aerial photography is exempt.

Tasmanian and Queensland legislation only protects against devices that make audio recordings. Other states’ laws are also concerned with visual recordings.

Privacy laws in Australia are deficient in protecting against the invasive use of drones. Surveillance and tort laws do not aid in addressing this deficiency.

There have been persistent calls for privacy law reform, and change is required. In the 2014 Eyes in the Sky report, the Commonwealth House of Representatives standing committee warned that drones have the potential to pose a serious threat to the privacy of Australians by intruding — intentionally or inadvertently — on private personal or business activities.

The standing committee recommended — as did the Australian Law Reform Commission that same year — the reform of laws on harassment and stalking by introducing a tort of privacy for unreasonable interference in private spaces. This would address interruption of privacy and misuse of personal information.

The Law Reform Commission proposed that this tort of privacy should only apply to serious invasions of privacy in order to balance the right to privacy with freedom of expression, open justice, and national security. Commissioner Pilgrim said this should be achieved by extending the existing privacy complaint framework to actions by individuals where there are serious invasions of privacy.

Commissioner Pilgrim additionally suggested developing Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) with respect to drone use. Registered APP codes are binding and provide industries already covered by the Privacy Act with additional rules for handling personal information. Where there is non-compliance, entities covered by APP codes are subject to all regulatory powers available in the Privacy Act.

In 2014, the standing committee recognised that it is imperative to amend privacy laws to more adequately address drone privacy issues. To date, however, there has been no such amendment.

In December last year, the Australian government rejected the standing committee’s suggestion of a new tort of privacy. The government considered that it would increase the regulatory burden and that it is sufficient for individuals covered by the Privacy Act to report to the OAIC.

Developments in technology and the vastly increasing use of drones present serious privacy issues. Without more comprehensive regulation, Australia’s privacy protections will remain insufficient to balance drone use and the privacy of citizens.

David Hodgkinson and Rebecca Johnston are partners with aviation and aerospace law firm HodgkinsonJohnston.

MTF...P2