[Peetwo]

By Dan Parsons, via his blog the runway centreline - 

Ref link: http://www.therunwaycentreline.com/blog/...r-mobility

JANUARY 29, 2019
What is Urban Air Mobility? An Airport Operator Primer

Dan Parsons

Just in case you’ve missed the news recently, drones are a big deal. Drones are a multi-billion dollar business, they are disrupting traditional business models and, most importantly for airport operators, they can literally just disrupt business. And, as you can imagine, just following the news doesn’t give you a necessarily clear or complete picture of our potential future with these things.

I’d like to jump in and look at one particular area (not even the cool flying part) of this phenomenon and it’s relationship to airports but before we do, I feel like it is necessary to scan the field and sort through some of the complexity.

We’ve Had UAVs, UASs, RPAS and now We’ve Got UAM?

There seem to be a million acronyms when it comes to drones. And a million mistakes when referring to them. I’ve already done it twice in this post and I’m only into my first sub-heading. Not all names and acronyms are really interchangeable.

Unmanned Aerial “something” seemed to be the early name adopted for these aircraft that lacked an on-board pilot. They were usually referred to as vehicles (UAVs) because they came in a vast array of configurations using different methods of producing lift. Then the purpose of the vehicles got in the way and they morphed into systems (UASs) or platforms (UAPs). And then sometimes, the “A” doesn’t even stay consistent with air, aircraft, airborne or autonomous all thrown into the mix.

The next complicating factor is control. If the device still has a human pilot manipulating controls in something close to real-time then this is a Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPA or RPAS). The opposite is a device which operates without direct control either through a preprogrammed list of instructions or through a set of responses to detected signals - this is a drone.

But this isn’t a discrete distinction. The device could be a little bit of both. In one system I was familiar with, the vehicle operates as a drone for over 90% of its operation. It flies a calculated path over an area defined by the user and then in the last phase of flight, it became a piloted aircraft for the landing. A pilot could also intervene at any point but the aerial mission will be lost at that point.

Urban Air Mobility (UAM) is a different term altogether. This is all about a potential application of these technologies and even some existing aircraft technologies - such as piloted helicopters. Concepts being put forward tend to involve drones but not unmanned drones. This concept is all about getting people around our land-vehicle-congested cities.

Flying Cars

For me, the dream started in the final minutes of “Back to the Future” - “where we’re going, we don’t need roads”. For plenty of other people, it’s been longer and more than just dreaming. But so far, truly sustainable personal flying vehicles for movement within a city have not eventuated.

Perhaps the drone has been the key. Traditional pilot standards, traffic patterns, take-off landing infrastructure requirements and aeronautical technology have been roadblocks (if you’ll pardon the pun) to realising this dream. But the development of drones has overcome a lot of these issues - no pilot, vertical take-off and landing plus light-weight materials, electric motors, telemetry and lots of other cool things. On the small scale side, we’ve seen deliveries by drones, search and rescue with drones and swarms of drones create pictures in the sky. All these developments have become lessons learned for the Urban Air Mobility proponents.

Air Taxis

This term has been used in aviation before to mean on-demand, small aircraft charter. This small sector of the industry looks about to be taken over by UAM which has a lot more in common with its land-based namesake.

The UAM vision involves some form of airborne vehicle moving people around a city on-demand. The vagueness of this definition is due to the variety of solutions on the table or, even, in play. Airbus-company, Voom has introduced a helicopter-based service in two “mega” cities which appears similar to Uber. Using an app, customers can book a flight and be in the air within minutes, apparently.

The glamourous version of this service involves a pilotless rotor-based aircraft seating two passengers taking off vertically, zooming off to where they need to go by the most direct route possible. Uber, in particular, is looking for close integration with it existing business to make up the distance between door and UAM-base.


From left - Airbus’ Voom & Vahana, Uber’s Elevate Partners Karem & Embraer, and Volocopter (there are lots more)

Issues Galore

Obviously, there is still work to do. Technology work on the aircraft, interactions between such aircraft and existing airspace users and getting the travelling public used to pilotless rotor-based aircraft will be focus for most of the industry over the next few years.  Some of these issues get bigger as we get closer to the airport but airport-downtown travel is likely to be a big part of this future market - it already is for Voom.

In this series of posts, I’m going to look at considerations airport operators should have on their radar now when thinking about the future of their “landside” business. I’m going to come at it from the point of view that we want to harness this industry in advance rather than have air taxis landing on the apron in a couple of years and no way of transitioning those passengers through into traditional aircraft and vice versa.

Exploring Airport Operator Impacts & Opportunities

First, I’m going to have a look at potential physical requirements for accommodating these aircraft. We’ll have a look at currently international standards of helicopters and vertical take-off and landing aircraft as well as mock-ups of what the operators are thinking off. 

After this, I’ll be taking a Lean Six Sigma view off passenger management. This technology is truly disruptive as it will also have us reconsidering our labels of airside and landside and so on.  Lastly, I’d like to look into the off-airport opportunities and challenges that are not particularly new but interesting, nonetheless. 

 
MTF...P2 

[Gobbledock]

BANG BANG

“Police have started an investigation after a commercial drone understood to be worth almost $500,000 was shot down in a rural part of the ACT”.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/act/c...50y58.html

P7 - Alas, not the Purdy - but I applaud the shot. Straight shooting is a lost art in the ACT, nice to see it back.....

[Peetwo]

Drone Wars Update.

Via ABC News:

Drone 'flyer's licence' to be launched in time for Google's world-first delivery service in Canberra

By Jake Evans

Updated Wed at 4:12pm

Video: A burrito is delivered to a Canberra home as part of the drone delivery trial. (ABC News)

Australia's aviation safety authority will establish a "flyer's licence" and mandatory registration for drones from July this year, coinciding with a world-first drone food delivery business to be run out of Canberra.

Key points:

• Drone flyer data will be kept in a database to track users
  
• Those with drones of more than 250g will have to pass an online education course
  
• A drone delivery service is set to begin operation in Canberra once CASA approves it
  

For the first time, anyone in Australia who wants to fly a drone will have to be accredited by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, making it easier for police to track down miscreants.

"It will certainly give us big advantages in terms of complaints or reports of drones being flown improperly or against the safety rules," CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said.

"We'll have a starting point to know who flies drones in that area, what sort of drone they fly."

Prospective flyers of drones weighing more than 250 grams will need to pass an online education course and register their drone, according to policy documents prepared by CASA.

Video: CASA's Peter Gibson says a "flyer's licence" will be required for drone pilots from July. (ABC News)

Flyer data would be kept in a database, finally allowing Australian authorities to get a picture of how many drones are flown in Australia, who is flying them and where.

"For the first time we'll have an overall picture of the drone sector … probably there are tens of thousands, possibly even 100,000, but at this point we don't know," Mr Gibson said.

CASA said the cost of registration would vary for different types of drones and whether they were used for fun or profit.
It estimated it would cost $20 annually per person for recreational drones and for some model aircraft operators.
The annual fee for each commercial drone would likely range from $100 to $160.

World-first delivery service to begin in Canberra


Photo: James Ryan Burgess is the CEO of Project Wing. (ABC News: Jake Evans)

CASA is still developing a full real-time network that can track drones like it does aircraft.

But it said, with operators like Google preparing to launch skyward in Australia, it needed to be ready for a complicated network of drones flying above Australia's cities.

Google's parent company Alphabet last year began trialling the use of drones to deliver burritos, coffee and medication in a suburb on the fringes of Canberra.

It has now built a permanent warehouse headquarters in the more central suburb of Mitchell, under the name Project Wing, where it plans to begin its first ongoing commercial operation — once CASA approves it.

Like any commercial operator, Google is already licenced to fly by the safety authority.

But as the drone industry rapidly grows, CASA said it needed to develop a system to manage all flyers, including those doing it just for fun.

"Clearly the unmanned traffic system is the key to safe and efficient drone operations, and all the players that are working in these areas are developing their own systems," Mr Gibson said.

"We are working on that already … it's not simple."

In an inquiry into drone delivery in the ACT, community groups have strongly objected to the technologies, saying their noise moved locals to tears.

That inquiry continues today.

&..

Eyes Turned Skyward: CASA’s New Drone Registration Requirements


From July 2019, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) will require mandatory registration for all commercial drones regardless of weight and recreational drones weighing more than 250 grams.

Key changes include:
1.Registration will be on an annual basis and cost
approximately $20 for recreational drones and between $100 to $160 for each
commercial drone.
2.All drone operators without a current remote
pilot licence must pass an online accreditation course.
3.All drones must be registered by 1 November
2019.

These changes will be in addition to the current drone regulations which require any ‘commercial’ drone operator to be licensed and certified by CASA. A drone is deemed ‘commercial’ if any form of remuneration (for hire or reward) is provided in exchange for flying the drone.



Farmers operating drones (under 25kg) on their property have been previously exempt from CASA’s licencing requirements, but will now need to register and be accredited before 1 November 2019.

CASA’s new requirements seeks to address the ongoing drone disruptions in regulated airspaces such as airports and military bases.

Flyer data would assist Australian authorities to more effectively track drone usage in Australia and identify unauthorised drone operations.

The use of commercial drones is on the rise in Australia, notably with Google’s first food delivery service launching in Canberra.

While the current implications for the agriculture industry is limited to registrations and accreditation, the future of drone airspace regulation is likely to increase in the coming years.

/Public Release. View in full here.

MTF...P2  

[Peetwo]

DW I update: 1 Oct 2019.

Via the 730 report:

https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/crackdown-on...wsource=cl

Crackdown on drone use

Posted Wed 2 Oct 2019, 4:44pm

Australians have always been enthusiastic adopters of new technology. Hundreds of thousands of us now use drones. They let you take incredible photos and videos. But their widespread use has raced ahead of safety and privacy regulations, and now there's a crackdown.

Transcript
minus
LEIGH SALES, PRESENTER:  Australians have always been enthusiastic adopters of new technology from colour TVs to iPhones.
 
Hundreds of thousands of us now use drones. They let you take incredible photos and videos, you would have seen some in that story but their widespread use has raced ahead of safety and privacy regulations and now there's a crackdown.
 
Angelique Donnellan reports.
 
ANGELIQUE DONNELLAN, REPORTER:  Drones have revolutionised the way we see the world - from stunning aerial photography to surveying and search and rescue.
 
DOC BALDWIN, COMMERCIAL OPERATOR:  There's that much beauty out there that we can't see from the ground. Why not have a look at it from the air?
 
ANGELIQUE DONNELLAN:  Over the past decade numbers in Australia have grown exponentially.
 
PETER GIBSON, CASA:  The figures show us that there's up to a million drones out there, possibly even slightly more.
 
ANGELIQUE DONNELLAN:  There are strict safety laws governing their use.
 
You can't fly over people, near airports or at night but those rules aren't always followed.
 
STEVE WILSON, PROTECTIVE GROUP:  I think technology is designed for good and, but I think in the hands of the wrong person it can be used for evil obviously.
 
PETER GIBSON:  There was a famous one at a hardware store where someone flew a drone to get a sausage sizzle. The risk there was that people in the car park could have been hit by the drone.
 
So we issued a penalty in that case. That cost that person almost $1,000.
 
Do the wrong thing with your drone and you'll get a big hole in your pock.
 
ANGELIQUE DONNELLAN:  The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is cracking down on unsafe behaviour.
 
This equipment can detect drones being flown where they shouldn't be.
 
CASA OPERATOR:  So the system is listening for any drones in our area of surveillance.
 
PETER GIBSON:  We do see people flying too close to other people, flying over, around crowds or groups of people and very commonly flying too close to airports.
 
ANGELIQUE DONNELLAN:  In June a Port Kembla man was fined almost $8,000 for flying too close to his neighbours.
 
They recorded the incident.
 
PETER GIBSON:  We issued 63 infringement notices last year. We've issued 43 so far this year and a number of others in train.
 
ANGELIQUE DONNELLAN:  But unless people are caught in the act or post their exploits online, it can be impossible to identify who owns the drone.
 
Starting next year, CASA is introducing compulsory registration of all drones over 250 grams.
 
PETER GIBSON:  We'll be commencing that with people flying commercial drones, large commercial drones.
 
Then moving on to the smaller commercial drones.
 
When we've got that bedded down we'll then move on to recreational drones. That's, at this point, looking like being more like 2022.
 
ANGELIQUE DONNELLAN:  While CASA struggles with the logistics of such a huge undertaking, it's also facing a backlash from commercial drone pilots.
 
DOC BALDWIN:  Unjustified, unneeded and totally unfair. It's like an extra tax.
 
ANGELIQUE DONNELLAN:  Doc Baldwin owns a $6,000 drone and has spent thousands on training for his aerial photography business.
 
He argues the 17,000 commercial drone operators are not the problem.
 
DOC BALDWIN:  That means the safe pilots, the pilots that have done their courses, done their training, spent thousands of dollars getting to where they're at, have to spend more money again.
 
Already registered, already licensed, already have all their details with CASA, registrations and serial numbers, the works. Now we've got to do it again.
 
ANGELIQUE DONNELLAN:  While CASA hasn't settled on the registration fee, there's widespread speculation commercial users will cop a $160 annual charge per drone, while hobby users will pay much less.
 
PETER GIBSON:  Obviously we've got to make it accessible for everybody who is flying a drone for fun.
 
If we make it too difficult or too daunting people simply will avoid it.
 
ANGELIQUE DONNELLAN:  Registration will make it easier to enforce the rules but CASA can't stop people spying with a drone if there's no safety risk.
 
PETER GIBSON:  Look, there are no specific privacy rules for drones.
 
The simple fact is drones, the technology was never thought of when the privacy laws were written.
 
So you don't own the air space above your property, so you can't stop aircraft, or drones for that matter, flying over it.
 
STEVE WILSON:  This drone was found at a lady's property, being used by her former partner to be able to stalk her. He was actually taking photos through this drone while she was in her bedroom.
 
ANGELIQUE DONNELLAN:  Steve Wilson knows the challenges of getting a successful prosecution for an invasion of privacy.
 
He's a former police detective who now runs a security firm helping domestic violence victims better protect themselves.
 
STEVE WILSON:  I probably expected it was going to be only a matter of time before someone would use a drone in such a pervasive way, yes.
 
ANGELIQUE DONNELLAN:  Privacy laws vary from state to state.
 
Queensland is currently looking at how its laws can be tightened to stop drone misuse.
 
STEVE WILSON:  The Federal Government needs to take a leadership role. Having legislation across the country that differs from state to state is absurd.
 
ANGELIQUE DONNELLAN:  In Canberra, concerns about privacy have led to a backlash against a CASA-approved drone delivery service run by Wing, a company owned by Google's parent, Alphabet.
 
NEV SHEATHER:  People are very upset about the intrusiveness and invasion of a drone flying over the top of our heads especially when they have got cameras.
 
JAMES RYAN BURGESS, WING CEO:  Our camera is pointed straight down, you can't emit it around, it's low resolution, in black and white and it is just used for navigation.
 
ANGELIQUE DONNELLAN:  Residents are also complaining about the noise.
 
NEV SHEATHER:  The noise of a drone has been compared to an F1 racer or an out of control whipper snipper.
 
The negatives definitely outweigh the positives.
 
ANGELIQUE DONNELLAN:  But it seems we'll all have to get used to more unmanned aircraft in Australian skies.
 
Uber is planning to trial an air taxi in Melbourne from next year and Wing is expanding its deliveries to Queensland using quieter drones.
 
PETER GIBSON:  Like any technology there is going to be challenges along the way.
 
JAMES RYAN BURGESS:  We think that this is a really high potential technology, especially as our cities grow and become more congested.
 
Drones can help alleviate some of that congestion on the ground while providing a great service.

"..That means the safe pilots, the pilots that have done their courses, done their training, spent thousands of dollars getting to where they're at, have to spend more money again.

 
Already registered, already licensed, already have all their details with CASA, registrations and serial numbers, the works. Now we've got to do it again..." 

Hmm...I suggest the UAV commercial industry better get used to it, as it'll all be downhill from here. Next we'll have Dr Hoodoo Voodoo Aleck ensuring that all UAV rules and regs fall under strict liability legal requirements, so that all responsible commercial operators are effectively criminals until they can prove otherwise...

Ref: Strictly liable, fairly enforced & https://auntypru.com/forum/showthread.ph...6#pid10356

---

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

DW1 update: 29/11/2019 

Via the Oz:

---

CASA drone registration plan held up by fee fight


ROBYN IRONSIDE
Follow @ironsider

12:00AM NOVEMBER 29, 2019

Plans to register all commercial and recreational drones in Australia have been delayed due to disagreement over an appropriate fee.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority confirmed plans for commercial drone registration had been pushed back to mid-2020 while a recreational drones register was not expected to be established until 2022.

The issue with recreational drones related to the sheer numbers of the devices, believed to be as high as 200,000.

But fees were the sticking point in regards to commercial drone registration, with CASA proposing an annual fee of between $120 and $160 per drone.

The charge was considered necessary for “cost recovery” in relation to the registration scheme but drone operators were opposed to paying a significant fee when currently none existed.

A consultation paper published by CASA acknowledged that “only a small section of respondents agreed with charging a registration fee” and “most did not see any benefit or return on investment to paying a fee”.

Australian Association for Unmanned Systems executive director Greg Tyrrell said fees should be low enough to ensure 100 per cent participation rate in the registration scheme.

“If they’re really looking at this for safety, then participation should be the main concern,” Mr Tyrrell said.

He was encouraged by the establishment of an expert advisory panel on the issue, and remained confident a good outcome could be reached.

There are currently 1628 certified commercial drone operators in Australia, and another 7000 drones of less than 2kg being used for commercial purposes.

Once the commercial drone registration scheme had been finalised, CASA was expected to tackle the matter of a recreational drone registration fee, previously proposed at $20.

The reason for registration was to help better monitor drone operations and easily identify “rogue” operators by the remotely piloted system’s serial number.

In the last year, CASA received almost 3000 complaints related to drones.

As debate rages over fees, CASA, Airservices Australia and the Department of Defence have pushed ahead with “drone detection systems” at sensitive sites such as airports.

In a speech to the Australian Airports Association conference on the Gold Coast this month, Airservices’ executive general manager of aviation rescue Michelle Bennetts revealed the detection systems were being installed and commissioned at 29 airports with air traffic control.

“Given this scale, we believe this is a world-first operation that provides a national drone-detection capability across the country,” Ms Bennetts said.

“This will allow active monitoring of drones and see us refine protocols in response to a drone detection, in collaboration with the regulator, the airports and law enforcement.”

---

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

The Empire Strikes Back on UAV oversight - 

I noted yesterday that on the RRAT committee webpage there is a New Legislative committee inquiry...

Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020 and Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020 [Provisions]

On 3 September 2020, the provisions of the Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020, and the Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020 were referred to the committee for inquiry and report by 4 November 2020.

The Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020 establishes the legal mechanism that will be utilised to impose a levy for future cost recovery arrangements for regulatory services for remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) operators.

The Civil Aviation Amendment (Unmanned Aircraft Levy Collection and Payment) Bill 2020 amends the Civil Aviation Act 1998 to establish arrangements for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to collect the levy.

Submissions are due by 30 September 2020.

Hmm...butter up UAV industry because here comes the carrot (shaggy end first) - 



MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

This is the trajectory by the independent corporate bureaucratic government of the Commonwealth, it must put a variety of taxes (wouldn’t ‘levy’ sound much nicer?) on particular activities in order to afford to devise, promulgate and police the various provisions, many of which will be part of the criminal code.

Logically the next step will be to tax certain classes of people or individuals, such as drug addicts or hypochondriacs for the illegal over use of health care. A particular levy, the Defence Force Augmentation Levy, would also be appropriate for those who stand to gain most by being protected from military invasion. Such as last Tuesday an unannounced visit to our farm by two ADF soldiers accompanied by one Vic Health Department Officer. Their mission was to ascertain that my wife is home, apparently a mix up because she had already been told by Vic Health specifically that she was not required to self isolate (already tested negative and no direct CV contacts). As an aside but definitely related to the veritable collapse of prudent Commonwealth governance, the Defence Department employs 17,000 directly and a further 26,000 private contractors, imagine the cost. A number of these contractors work side by side with their counterparts and are known as ‘Private Servants.’ The obvious avenues for revolving door employment, rorting and corruption are evident. Furthermore this is the Canberra style, money no object and the set up may not be legal.

Off topic even more so, but the general growth of bureaucratic control, off budget taxation and lack of Ministerial control have become notable.

Another example of Canberra’s business prowess and it’s realities; just had an NBN contractor install satellite internet. I upbraided the two workmen for clomping through our house in their work boots as they made their preliminary inspection. “Its a safety requirement (wearing boots)” says the leading hand, “but we will take them off if they are dirty.”
Canvassing the inside installation options for the black box equipment, he reluctantly agreed in my office which would entail lifting a couple of roofing sheets. He couldn’t place the NBN box high on my office wall because my desk is in the way and he couldn’t reach up there. I moved the desk and provided a ladder, then it was possible after all. Outside now he places his ladder to reach the roof and puts four plastic ‘witches hats’ around the base of his ladder, presumably to delineate a safety caution area. Up he goes, unscrews a couple of roofing sheets and declares its not possible to place the cable through the roof where I want it to go. I fetch my ladder, go up on the roof (even though I’m too old, probably senile and don’t know what I’m doing) and persuade him that it is possible and hold up the iron roofing sheet so he can drill through. His young apprentice can’t go up on the roof because he’s not allowed.

What the hell are we coming to?

[thorn bird]

Ah Sandy,
twas ever thus.

Connecting my NBN required the digging of a shallow ditch from a central box to my house, ten meters or so.
Three workmen turned up around 2 PM on Friday and by 4PM managed to dig about eight meters across the lawn, then packed up and I was told they would have to come back on Saturday morning to finish it. After they left I snuck out and completed the trench in about ten minutes.
Had that smug satisfying feeling the next morning listening to the argument outside my window between the foreman and the workers.....Time and a half for Saturday work dontchaknow!!

[Peetwo]

Follow up to last - worthy choc frog submissions...



Nominees for the Ol'Tom AP choc frog award? 

To Whom It May Concern,

I write to you with my comments and concerns regarding the recent 2 Bills relating to the “Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy) Bill 2020” and the upper limit of $300 stated in that Bill.

I believe the people proposing, drafting and entering this Bill for consideration are not in touch with the subject, are not experts on the matter and have no idea of the effects such a levy would impose.

I am a hobbyist. I fly fixed wing remote controlled aircraft. It is not uncommon for people such as myself to have 10, 20, 30 or even more models. By definition, these are toys which are flown at safe locations (Remote Controlled Aircraft Model Clubs). You are proposing that we need to pay a levy of $300 per aircraft which has been flown for years at no cost to the government nor CASA and has been done so safely without a single recorded safety issue.

There is no justification for this exorbitant amount which could easily run into thousands of dollars and put many out of the hobby.

It is my humble opinion that hobbyists and their aircraft should be kept and treated completely separate to
commercial activities. If the commercial sector wants to fly Remotely Piloted Aircraft for the purpose of profit then I have no qualms about a levy being charged against them. But I do have an issue with a levy and or registration fee being charged against a person who is simply conducting a hobby. As a hobbyist, what is my cost to the government or the Australian people? My cost to the government or people of Australia should be reflected in the charges issued to me by the government.

Prior to CASA wanting to register every RPA in the country for “safety” reasons, hobbyists were self regulating. Why has this changed? Where is the body of evidence that demonstrates that our hobby is dangerous and requires additional legislation and regulation. Again, there has not a been a single recorded fatality in Australia associated with our hobby.

Assign whatever levy you want to commercial interests, but implore you to keep our safe hobby affordable.

Best Regards,

Greg Butler

And nominee No.2:

...I object to this bill in the strongest possible terms particular with it's ramifications to the flying of recreational model aircraft. Not only is this legislation vague there are no protections to stop a recreational aircraft being charged $300 for registration. Such a move would kill the hobby.

However this goes to much deeper question of the attempts to regulate model aviation out of existence.
I'm curious where is the peer reviewed risk assessment this is based on? Also do we have dash cams from
actual aircraft showing drone sightings? Those of us in the hobby knows that these claims are dubious at
best. Currently the only assessment that this is based on is clearing out the 0 ‐ 400 ft airspace for
commercial gain.

Also it will be worth your while considering what is at risk here. Model aviation is a key aviation and
engineering nursery. However don't take my word for it, here it from the horses mouth of who this will
impact the most,

Is this something that you really want to throw under the bus for uncertain short term commercial gain...

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Report and recommendation to continue with delegated legislation?? -   

Via the APH website I note that the RRAT Legislative committee has effectively 'tick and flicked' the UAV/Drone levy amendment bill: Report
   

2.43 The committee recommends the Senate pass the bills.

Senator Susan McDonald
Chair

Before we move on I note perhaps a significant point in time (even though it comes from the Greens) - 

Additional Comments - Australian Greens

Additional Comments - Australian Greens


The Australian Greens support a drone registration levy, to fund and support appropriate regulation of a rapidly expanding and changing sector. However the reliance of delegated legislation for this framework reflects a concerning pattern. As the main Committee report notes, the Scrutiny of Bills Committee has highlighted questions around “the appropriateness of leaving virtually all of the details of the operation of the proposed unmanned aircraft levy scheme to delegated legislation.”

The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation is currently undertaking an inquiry into the Exemption of delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight. In a submission to that inquiry, the Centre for Public Integrity stated that: 

Accountability measures that ensure policy decisions made via delegated legislation are in the public interest and follow proper process are limited. These decisions are not given detailed deliberation in Parliament and are not transparent to public scrutiny.

… the increasing use of delegated legislation puts individual power in the hands of Ministers who do not face independent accountability outside of Parliamentary scrutiny.

We are concerned that the increasing exemption of delegated legislation from disallowance threatens democratic decision making and the constitutional role of Parliament.1

We welcome the Government’s decision to use disallowable instruments for this scheme, rather than exempting them from disallowance. However the Australian Greens share the concerns of the Centre for Public Integrity at the expanding use of delegated legislation. 

Senator Janet Rice
Participating Member

"The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation is currently undertaking an inquiry into the Exemption of delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight.."

Hmmm...now that is interesting    - over to the 'Scrutiny of delegated legislation thread me thinks??

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

The Infrastructure Duck UP Fairies ask for public comment on delivery drones??

Courtesy of the Conversation:

When it comes to delivery drones, the government is selling us a pipe dream. Experts explain the real costs

Published: November 29, 2022 6.04am AEDT



In early November, the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure invited public comment on proposed Australia-wide “drone delivery guidelines” it has been quietly developing with industry stakeholders. A slick new website – drones.gov.au – boasts of the supposed benefits of delivery drones. It claims they will create jobs, provide cost-efficiency and be environmentally sustainable.

The draft guidelines focus on minimal technical considerations concerning land-use planning (suggesting no special accommodations need to be made for drones), and safety and noise issues. These issues matter, but they entirely overlook the stakes of permitting delivery drones to dominate our skies.

---

Read more: Privatising the sky: drone delivery promises comfort and speed, but at a cost to workers and communities

---

Then there’s the question of whether the purported benefits stand up to scrutiny. Our team at the University of Western Australia’s Minderoo Tech & Policy Lab has stress-tested the claims made in the department’s guidelines. This is what you need to know.

Delivery drone networks would be a huge deal

Drones hold a lot of promise in being able to substitute humans in dangerous or otherwise difficult (but important) work, such as emergency relief, aerial mustering and shark patrol. Commercial delivery drones, however, are an entirely different proposition.

The key player behind them is Wing Aviation, a subsidiary of Google’s holding company Alphabet Inc. Wing has selected Australia as its lead test-site for on-demand deliveries of coffee, roast chicken, Coke and chips. This is a public health and environmental catastrophe waiting to happen – not to mention a visceral (even violent) imposition on public space.

Wing has operated in select parts of the ACT since September 2017 and in Logan, Queensland, since September 2019. Despite subsidising every aspect of the operations, creating zero cost for both merchants and consumers, it has not escaped complaints. Concerns have ranged from noise and safety complaints, to impacts on wildlife, pets and privacy.

Wing had to cease operations in Bonython after extensive protest from residents. Residents in Logan have reported being unsettled by neighbours receiving up to eight noisy deliveries per hour.

Cities around the world are seeking alternatives to freeways – acknowledging how road infrastructure contributes to social inequality, pollution and reduced quality of life. Do we want to replicate these problems in our skies?


Are we willing to give up our clear blue skies for ten minute food deliveries? Shutterstock

The benefits of delivery drones are unproven

The guidelines emphasise the economic and eco-promise of a drone-filled future. A projected A$14.5 billion added to Australia’s GDP and 10,000 jobs over the next 20 years is undeniably attractive. But does the evidence add up to this rosy vision?

The numbers cited in the guidelines actually come from an October 2020 report prepared by Deloitte Access Economics for the Department of Infrastructure.

Crucially, the report aggregates multiple markets for drone use, well beyond just delivery. In the Deloitte report, the segment of the drone market for military and industrial applications is estimated to grow to more than $5.5 billion, while the food delivery market, at $0.26 billion, is at best 20 times smaller. It appears military and industrial applications drive the bold economic estimates found in the guidelines – yet the department doesn’t mention them.

Also, the 2020 report caveats if its predictions of market expansion change, so too will its economic analysis. Australia’s highest inflation rate in more than 30 years, coupled with a global economic slowdown, and worsening business confidence suggests Deloitte’s predictions are perhaps on shaky grounds.

The fragility of the economic promise is matched by equally shallow claims of environmental sustainability. There is a shrewd focus on “last-mile delivery emissions” to demonstrate drones’ green credentials. But this ignores the emissions generated along the entire logistics chain of this complex, technology-heavy system.

There are compounding emissions created by additional warehousing and the power needs of drones – and that’s before we even consider the explosion in single-use packaging, as reusable coffee cups and containers languish at the back of the cupboard.

Drones of indulgence, not necessity

The guidelines state drones deliver “on-demand supplies”. This raises the question: demanded by whom? Barely a fortnight ago Deliveroo went into voluntary administration in Australia, citing “challenging economic conditions”.

“On-demand supplies” is a loaded description that conflates necessity with desire – blurring essential medication with donuts. This descriptive sleight of hand casts drones as an all-or-nothing offering, which is of course untrue.

One can support Australia’s only other approved delivery drone operator, the regional medical supplier Swoop Aero, without having to tolerate repeat junk-food deliveries whizzing by to the neighbours down the street.

Citizens’ approval should be essential

In 2002, Australia became the first country to regulate civilian drone use. The intervening 20 years have afforded the drone industry multiple opportunities to influence the regulatory process, mostly beyond the public eye. Delivery drones necessitate an entirely different conversation.

In 2019, some unsuspecting Canberrans only discovered they were guinea pigs in a food delivery drone trial when the drones began to appear on their neighbour’s doorsteps. They then found out the company responsible, Google Wing, also runs the public feedback process on behalf of the government. Such events do not deliver the transparency and impartiality demanded of government decision-making.

Drones demand an open and expansive discussion about the vital, living habitat above our heads. We must resist empty promises and indulgence, and centre the much broader needs of all living things.

Google has an ambition to use Australia as its laboratory to develop the future of drone deliveries, before exporting it abroad. Australians have a chance to turn this plan on its head. Submissions for feedback on the draft guidelines close on December 2. After that, you can have your say here.

---

Read more: Drone delivery is a thing now. But how feasible is having it everywhere, and would we even want it?

---

Plus via Oz Aviation:

Why hasn’t Australia’s eVTOL market taken off yet?

AUTHOR: Isabella Richards




While Australia is famous for its blazing sun, brilliant beaches and hopping kangaroos, it’s also been a breeding ground for many global groundbreaking innovations. Every commercial aircraft in the world now has a black box flight recorder installed to document pilot conversations in case of crashes. Every person who owns a smartphone can access Google Maps, all because Australia made it happen. But if the nation can pioneer some of the most critical inventions we use in our daily lives, why hasn’t it spearheaded creating electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft (eVTOLs) – or colloquially known as flying cars?

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

Su_Spence AC on vertiports?? - 

Via Fort Fumble HQ:

Have your say on the future of vertiport design

A new frontier in aviation is coming and planning is already underway for the aircraft and infrastructure where they will take-off and land.



Vertiports are the futuristic new transport terminals or launch pads being planned for ‘air taxi’ type aircraft which are known in the industry as electric vertical take-off and landing aircraft (eVTOLs). Vertiports will be the place where passengers are picked up and dropped off, and where the electric aircraft will recharge and be stationed when not in the air.

With these aircraft already under development and looking to be rolled out in the coming years, we have prepared the design guidance needed to build our future vertiports.

The guidance material, also known as an advisory circular, provides a flexible framework for developers to create a vertiport that can be built in different locations and be used by different types of emerging aircraft.

However, before the advisory circular is finalised, we’re seeking industry feedback through a public consultation.

We want to hear from you through our Consultation Hub. Consultation is open until 31 March 2023.

To have your say, visit the consultation today.

---

Plus via LMH:

CASA releases Draft Vertiport AC

1 December 2022



CASA today published a draft Advisory Circular (AC) on the design of vertiports to service the emerging urban air mobility (UAM) industry.

UAM envisages fleets of electric vertical take-off and landing (eVTOL) aircraft shuttling passengers around Australia's major cities, requiring new infrastructure for points of departure and destinations.

The CASA AC aims to provide a flexible framework for developers to enable vertiports to be built with safe approach and departure paths, taking into account the types of aircraft that may be introduced in the future.

Joe Hain, CASA Team Leader Future Aerodromes says Australia is at the forefront of the global effort to introduce vertiports.
"We’ve started the ball rolling by examining and outlining what vertiports could look like, where and how they might operate, as well as the safety requirements needed," he said.

"The aim is that vertiports can be built where they are needed, whether it’s on top of a skyscraper in a high-density city, or in an open space in a regional town."

The draft AC is for piloted aircraft only and covers the fundamental aspects of vertiports, including:

• obstacle clearance
  
• downwash
  
• final approach and take-off (FATO) areas
  
• touch-down and lift-off areas (TLOF)
  
• VTOL-capable aircraft (VCA) taxiways
  
• transitional surfaces
  
• markings
  
• allowable weights
  
• lighting including VASI.
  

As part of the consulation process, CASA has scheduled four webinars to provide more information, beginning on 8 December. The seminars will cover the introduction to vertiports, physical characterisitics, obstacle limitation surfaces and visual aids.

As this is the very first AC on vertiports, CASA is seeking industry feedback on whether the content and structure of the guidance is clear and sufficient, and whether the AC is fit for the purpose of supporting the development of infrastructure necessary for vertiports.

CASA will hold the consultation open for four months, closing it on 31 March 2023. The AC and webinar details are on the CASA Consultation Hub.

And from this week's LMH:

Urban air mobility (UAM) and eVTOLs are certain to dominate the lower flight levels in Australia by the end of the decade. Despite some resistance from within the GA community, the revolution is coming and we're better off being prepared for it than sticking buckets on our heads and hoping it all magically goes away. There is a whole new industry coming: new rules, new infrastructure companies, new investment, new pilot qualifications and a lot of stuff we can't accurately predict yet. This week Eve Air Mobility tackled some questions I sent them about how they see eVTOL operations and the design of vertiports. At the same time, CASA released its first draft Advisory Circular (AC) on vertiport design guidelines. The AC is open for four months, a period of time usually not extended to CASA consultations, which shows the aviation community they're determined to get this right and aren't pretending to have all the answers. But there is something I can't get over: the general public needs to embrace this as well or the commercial aspect will fail. The general public is always very slow to trust big leaps in technology and look askant at stuff that doesn't look right no matter how good the engineering (Beech Starship). Are they going to flock to these new machines that represent large drones moreso that any existing successful aircraft? It is also likely the necessary network of vertiports to support UAM will give rise to a whole new breed of NIMBY. The whole concept is so advanced and so different that we don't even know what all the teething problems are going to be yet. None of that will stop UAM; the birth may be difficult, but the baby is coming.

MTF...P2 

[Sandy Reith]

“ Despite some resistance from within the GA community, the revolution is coming and we're better off being prepared for it than sticking buckets on our heads and hoping it all magically goes away.”

And who is resisting? CASA is playing with fanciful terminology for heliports and spending lots of time reinventing the wheel regarding same when there’s extreme necessity for General Aviation reforms.

Within the decade? Not even close, yes some very limited applications might be on the horizon but your Luke Starwalker chariot buzzing around the CBD by the hundred in 2030? Pull the other one.

[Peetwo]

Chief Commissioner Popinjay to the rescue on drone swarm event?? - 



Via PJ HQ:

Docklands drone swarm accident

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has commenced a transport safety investigation into the control issues and collision with water of a swarm of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS, or drones) overhead Docklands, Melbourne on Friday evening.

During a drone light show over water, multiple aircraft within a swarm of 500 RPAS experienced un-commanded movement. This resulted in multiple errors presenting on the ground control station, failsafe mode activations and collisions between RPAS and with water. One RPAS briefly escaped the defined geo-fence area, before control was taken by the operator. Approximately 440 RPAS were destroyed.

These aircraft and displays have multiple defences in place to limit risk to operators, spectators and bystanders. In this case, several of these defences were used.

Nonetheless, the ATSB is aware of the increased frequency and scale of ‘drone swarm’ operations in Australia, primarily for entertainment purposes. As such, it is important we take the opportunity to review the factors involved in this accident, to ensure these operations remain safe.

The ATSB asks anyone who may have video footage of the swarm display on Friday night to make contact via witness@atsb.gov.au at their earliest opportunity.

The ATSB will publish a final report, detailing contributing factors and any identified safety issues, at the conclusion of the investigation.

However, should any critical safety issues be identified at any stage during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify relevant parties so appropriate safety action can be taken.

And from 7News:

Wonder if Popinjay and crew were there taking statements and examining the 400 hundred individual drones?? 

MTF...P2 

[Peetwo]

TICK TOCK goes the drone collision clock?? - 

Via the Oz: 

100 drones a day detected in Sydney Airport no fly zone



New data has revealed there were more than 100 drones a day detected in the no-fly zone at Sydney Airport in the year to June 30, up 22 per cent on the previous 12 months.

An Airservices Australia report on aviation activity showed more than 40,000 drone flights were picked up by detection equipment – more than double that of any other airport.

The report showed just over 5000 individual drones were responsible for the flights but the data did not distinguish between approved and illegal operations.

Adelaide was next, with 17,000 detections in the no-fly zone, followed by Brisbane Airport with more than 15,000.

No-fly zones refer to the area within 5.5km of airport runways.

Australian and International Pilots Association president Tony Lucas said the increase reported by Airservices was “significant cause for concern for airlines, their passengers and crew”.

“Drone use within the vicinity of airports can present a clear and present danger to commercial aviation,” Mr Lucas said.

“For pilots it’s very difficult to see something as small as a drone from the flight when we are on approach for landing.

“The impact of a collision between a drone and an aircraft has the potential to be catastrophic and all opportunities to mitigate this risk must be explored by the regulator.”



The report noted that December 2022 had the largest number of drone detections near airports on record, with 5258.

In the 12 months, the number of remote pilot licences issued climbed 187 per cent and average daily drone flights rose 16 per cent.

A Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman said where data indicated a high number of drone flights within the no-fly zone, education campaigns were undertaken including drone safety signage in local parks.

“It is important to note that most drone flyers try to do the right thing but sometimes are not aware that some parks or recreational areas which appear safe, are within 5.5km of an airport,” he said.

“We encourage users to find a location where they can safely fly by using one of the CASA-verified drone safety apps.”

Mr Lucas said the continuation of education by CASA on the risk drones posed to aviation safety was welcome.

“AIPA supports any further initiatives by CASA,” he said.

Australian Association for Uncrewed Systems executive director Greg Tyrrell said many of the drones operating in no fly-zones would have had approval from CASA.

“Drones are able to legally operate in the no-fly zones and they go through a process to get approvals,” Mr Tyrell said.

“That process has been automated which has been really good for industry, and has probably contributed to the increase.”

The more complex or “high risk” the drone activity, the more regulation operators faced, which Mr Tyrell said was how it should be.

“The regulations are proportional to the risk so for operators who want to fly bigger drones and in more complex situations – say out of the line of sight or at very high altitudes – the regulatory framework makes you jump through more hoops,” he said.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau data showed there were about 100 “accidents” involving drones last year and under 50 “near encounters” between drones and other aircraft.

The rate of accidents will skyrocket in the 2023 data, due to a single event in Melbourne on July 14 when 440 drones were destroyed.

The “swarm event” involved about 500 drones which were conducting a light show when a number experienced control issues in collisions with water and each other. The ATSB was investigating.

 
Hmm...time to dust off the old Purdey...

MTF...P2