[Kharon]

A whiter shade of pale.

Hitch – “Silence isn't always golden. I can think of at least two situations when it's a very deep shade of blue: when you're over tiger country and there's suddenly silence in the cockpit is one, and the other one is when you're waiting for Canberra to give the GA community some feedback on reforms.”

That ‘silence’ is down to a two party mutual agreement. There are levers being pulled, buttons being pushed and options being considered, ‘negotiations’. The deal goes something like this – “you call off your dogs and we will see what we can do to resolve ‘your’ problems”. Dead simple, no one is going to risk getting CASA off-side when an audit is due, or; an ‘approval’ is needed, or; an exemption is required, or; a new CP must be appointed or etc. Its a fairly wide selection of levers and buttons the CASA has to play with and once the ‘negotiations’ get rolling, nobody wants to disturb the goodwill being doled out as ‘privilege’ rather than a legal right.

Silence is only golden when it is purely voluntary; when a gun is held to your head and you get told to STFU – or else; you tend to sit very quietly indeed. Many of the Senators know this; those who do not, should ask the question – in camera – the answers will only surprise those of whom never dreamed such things happened. Alas, they always have and will continue, unless something gets done about it and soon.

"We skipped the light fandango
Turned cartwheels 'cross the floor
I was feeling kinda seasick". etc.

Toot toot.

[Peetwo]

Hitch's weekly wrap with a focus on Part 61 Tiger Team -

Background

"K" said...

 "..But, sure as eggs, soon or late, someone will decide that a CASA rule is a good case to prosecute – and win. Then there will be yet another, retrospective ‘knee-jerk’ reaction, the inevitable over kill and more draconian regulations produced – after the fact..."

If anyone doubts the veracity of which the Ferryman speaks, you only need visit the historical archive of Part 61 that spent a decade in gestation, only to be hatched as the single most diabolical regulation to be hung, like a festering cancerous millstone, around the neck of industry...  

In the latest sickening update to the Part 61 page count and rule by exemption bollocks, Wodger Weekes-as-piss and his 'Tiger team' has the audacity to state..

"..Taskforce managers are currently taking stock of the extensive range of work already delivered and working through the issues yet to be finalised before they commence the transition to business as usual.."

For those that have a strong stomach here is the rest of the latest update:19 September 2016

And this is where the current list of additional exemptions and amended instruments related to Part 61 is at:

Exemptions

• Exemption - flight examiner rating proficiency check (EPC) and professional development requirements (PDP): CASA EX133/16 and CASA EX134/16
  
• Exemption - flight examiner rating for holders of CAO 82.0 check pilot approvals: CASA 106/16
  
• Exemption - aerial application proficiency check and operator proficiency check (head of flight operations) - aeroplanes: CASA EX105/16
  
• Exemption - instrument proficiency checks for aircraft pilot type ratings: (CASA EX93/16)
  
• Exemption - CASR Part 61 aircraft flight reviews: (CASA EX97/16)
  
• Exemption - CASR Part 61 aeronautical knowledge examinations and two year completion period: CASA EX86/16
  
• Exemption - aeronautical experience for an NVIS rating or endorsement: CASA EX77/16
  
• Exemption - single-pilot turbojet aeroplane specific instrument proficiency check exemption: CASA EX41/16
  
• Exemption - from completion of an approved training course in multi-crew cooperation: CASA EX225/15
  
• Exemption - against ATPL flight test requirements: CASA EX222/15
  
• Exemption - English language proficiency assessments: CASA EX146/15
  
• Exemption - logging of time in flight for co-pilots on single-pilot certificated aircraft: CASA EX116/15
  
• Exemption - Parts 141 and 142 - CASA approval of kinds of aircraft: CASA EX126/15
  
• Exemption - from certain low-level rating requirements: CASA 92/15
  
• Exemption - dual flight checks before solo flights by student pilots: CASA EX 78/15
  
• Exemption - aeronautical experience requirements for grant of commercial pilot licences - aeroplane category: CASA EX22/15
  
• Exemption - foreign cadet pilots taking flight test for a commercial pilot licence - class 1 medical certificate (replacement exemption September 2015): CASA EX156/15
  
• Exemption - aerial application rating and firefighting endorsement (replacement exemption August 2015)
  

Conditions on authorisations - regulation 11.068
Part 61 Manual of Standards

• Part 61 Manual of Standards amendment instrument
  

Part 61 legislative instruments

• Prescription of aircraft and ratings - Part 61
  
• Prescribed qualification standards for flight simulation training devices (MCC training - aeroplane) (Edition1)
  
• Prescription of aircraft and rating - Agusta Westland AW169
  

Regulation 61.040 approvals

• Overview
  
• Approvals to conduct flight tests for issue of class and type ratings
  
• Approvals to conduct flight tests for training endorsements
  
• Approval to conduct flight tests for low-level ratings, low-level endorsements and mustering endorsements
  
• Approval to conduct flight tests and grant low level rating endorsements for sling operations and winch and rappelling operations
  

Part 141 and 142 legislative instruments

• Regulation 141.035 approval to conduct flight training for helicopter firefighting endorsement
  
• Regulation 142.045 - Prescription - type ratings for CASR Part 142 flight training (Edition 3)
  
• Regulation 141.035 - approval to conduct flight training for low-level ratings, low-level endorsements and mustering endorsements
  
• Approval under regulation 141.035 - for regulation 217 training and checking organisations to conduct certain Part 141 flight training AND approval under regulation 142.040 - for regulation 217 training and checking organisations to conduct certain Part 142 flight training
  
• Variation of AOCs - authorisation of regulation 217 training and checking organisations to conduct certain Part 142 flight training in aircraft
  

UDB...

While on 'Mythical Reform' note the following from the RAAA thread:

All quiet on the Western front, until..??

Quote from Mike Higgins - "..In the name of greater air safety, Civil Aviation Order 48.1 proposes tighter regulations, but are they unwarranted?.." 

What struck me, with the article and above quote, is realistically you could replace 'CAO 48.1' with your favourite bollocks, recently written, voluminous regulation and the article with few alterations would not lose context one iota...

Via Oz Flying today...

The Last Minute Hitch: 23 September 2016
23 September 2016

 
Once the Part 61 Solutions Taskforce winds up in October, CASA and the industry should grab the opportunity to take a walk in the Hall of Mirrors to look at what just happened. There are so many lessons to be learnt from Part 61 and its ignoble companions Parts 64, 141 and 142; starting with how the hell they ever came into existence in the first place! There are signs that we've already absorbed that one, most prominently when CASA canceled plans to introduce a under-prepared Part 66 that was already decried from all corners of the maintenance industry. It looked like CASA was keen not to repeat a Part 61 disaster. The other thing we can look at closely is how well CASA and the industry worked together over the 10 months the taskforce existed. An industry advisory council set the priorities for CASA to sort out, and no doubt there would have been some interesting meetings behind the glass windows of Aviation House as differences of opinion faced-off. But some things did get fixed, so clearly a lot was going right. We need to take what we did right, learn from it, and leverage it across new regulatory programs in the future, preferably as preventative medicine rather than as a cure.

Another thing we will stand to learn is whether or not the CASA leopard is really changing its spots. There are many tasks on the list that have yet to be completed, and CASA has stated they will take care of them post-taskforce in the course of normal CASA business.That is a thought to send shivers through the industry; it may have been normal CASA business that got us into this mess in the first place. Hopefully they will deal with the outstandings efficiently and promptly, which should be an indicator that change catalysts inserted into the regulator are at last working.

There are less than two weeks now before the aviation community gathers at Narromine for the re-named national fly-in. Although many are still not sold on the OzKosh name (me included), once the show is well and truly underway, what will it really matter? There's three whole days of talking flying, catching up with old mates, learning new stuff, refreshing old stuff  and generally marinating in aviation ahead of us. The OzKosh 2016 Program is now out to whet your whistle for this once-a-year opportunity. And for those looking to fly in, CASA has said they won't be ramp-checking ... but that doesn't mean they won't be keeping an eye out for blatant misbehaviour!

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-last-minute-hitch/the-last-minute-hitch-23-september-2016#73U8IiHJgUQyUUmA.99

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Oliver's last (yawn.. ) parting shot.

First via Oz Flying:

CASA DAS Mark Skidmore has been charged with implementing the recommendations handed down in the Forsyth Report. (CASA)

Parting Remarks zero in on Industry Co-operation
28 September 2016

Out-going Director of Aviation Safety Mark Skidmore has said he believes industry co-operation is the key to a better relationship with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Skidmore made the remarks in his final CASA Briefing Newsletter released yesterday.

"There are many great people across the aviation community with a strong commitment to aviation safety who have deep knowledge and expertise in aviation operations," he said.

"It was a priority of mine from day one to seek out these people and listen to their views and ideas to enrich our approach to aviation safety regulation and drive further improvements in the safety system.

"I put a lot of effort into making it clear CASA is not the sole source of expertise on aviation safety and collaboration with the aviation community is essential. I believe many of the changes I have driven at CASA will embed this collaborative and co-operative approach in the years ahead as the relationship between the regulator and the aviation community matures and strengthens."

Skidmore, who officially started as DAS in January 2015, resigned in late August after only 20 months in the role. During that time, he made many changes including the structure of the regulator and establishing the Part 61 Taskforce. He did fail, however, to get the aviation community completely on-side, due partly to his stands on the ADS-B mandate and resistance to adopting regulations more in-line with those of the USA and New Zealand.

" ... there will always be points of tension between the regulator and the regulated," Skidmore said in his newsletter. "This is normal and a sign of a healthy relationship.
"As the safety relationship matures we all need to recognise these points of tension and work to address our differences in a positive way. Genuinely listening to each other is critical and sometimes both sides will have to accept there is no magical middle solution that satisfies everyone. 

"What CASA and the aviation community must strive for are the right safety outcomes, reached through proper processes, real consultation and transparent decision making. We then must all respect the decisions that are taken in the best interests of the safety of the aviation and wider communities."

Skidmore is currently in the process of handing the reins of CASA to Acting Director of Aviation Safety, Shane Carmody, who will take over the role next month whilst the CASA board searches for a new DAS.

The full text of the September 2016 CASA Briefing Newsletter is available on the CASA website.

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

 
In a basic rehash here is the Oz Aviation version:

Skidmore says tensions between CASA and industry “normal” and sign of a healthy relationship

September 27, 2016 by australianaviation.com.au
CASA Director of Aviation Safety Mark Skidmore AM (CASA)

 
There is one major difference in the two articles...

Oz Flying: "..Skidmore is currently in the process of handing the reins of CASA to Acting Director of Aviation Safety, Shane Carmody, who will take over the role next month whilst the CASA board searches for a new DAS.."

Oz Aviation: "..On September 1, CASA chairman Jeff Boyd said Shane Carmody had been appointed as acting chief executive and director of aviation safety (DAS) while the global search for Skidmore’s replacement was underway.." 

Has he or hasn't he..?? If the AA version is correct then why was the September DAS missive coming from Skidmore?? If I was Boyd & the Board I would have changed the locks on Aviation House and told Oliver not to let the rotating door hit him on the arse - "Hasta la vista baby!"

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

BOLLOCKS OLIVER
Piss off and don't slam the door on the way out.....


Oliver and the IOS endeth the marriage;

[Peetwo]

This week from Hitch's weekly wrap...

The Last Minute Hitch: 30 September 2016
30 September 2016

Even in his twilight weeks as Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore has stayed on message, reiterating his belief that industry reform is possible only through genuine co-operation between CASA and the aviation community. As he says in his final CASA Briefing Newsletter, there is a lot of expertise in the aviation community and CASA is not the oracle in all things safety regardless of their name. It's pretty clear the industry can't brook CASA stumbling along Part 61-fashion anymore, but if we don't share with them the expertise that Skidmore has rightly pointed out we have, we may really be condemning both CASA and ourselves to repeat mistakes of the past.

"There are some councils that would do well to take note..."

The news that Central Coast Airport is to be home to an aviation manufacturer is very refreshing indeed! It's also astounding that the company has been lured from the bosom of general aviation in the USA. Amphibian Aircraft Group upgrades the old Grumman Albatross series with turbo-prop engines and glass cockpits, and they have decided the best place to do it is at Warnervale. There are so many good stories around this, perhaps the most heart-warming is that a council saw their airport as an asset rather than a millstone and it's paid off for them in development, investment and jobs. There are some other councils that would do well to take note.

CASA's new drone laws came into effect yesterday. They've caused quite a stir, especially among professional organisations such as the airline pilots, commercial drone operators and even QBE. Most interesting is the silence coming from general aviation bodies such as AOPA, TAAAF and RFACA. Do we not have a problem with non-certifed drones in airspace we're using? To find out, we've set-up a simple survey question. Please take the time to go in and answer the one question that's in there. Next week, we'll let you know what the general consensus is (if there is one!).

BendixKing might just be the sleeping giant of the avionics industry. I had coffee with Asia Pacific Sales Manager Stuart Hills during the week, and we spoke at length about the company's product offerings and their attempts to take on the might of Garmin. With navigators like the KSN 770 already to market, the company is turning its attention to the daddy of all cockpit systems. Of course, BK is reluctant to talk about it until the FAA has certified it. I am finding that's not unusual nowadays, as too many companies have fallen face-first into a plate of Eggs Benedict when they've been unable to deliver the product they promised. Think Cessna JT-A. But whatever it is that BK has under wraps, it has had plenty of brewing time and should enter the market bolstered by lessons learned from companies that came before. So when is all this happening? "Soon."

The next Last Minute Hitch will be typed from the Australian Flying stand at OzKosh, and I have to say I am looking forward to this. Industry gatherings are so rare in this country, and I relish every opportunity to meet other aviators, find out what they reckon and swap ideas about everything to do with flying. If you get a chance, please drop by and have a good long chat.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...uohjVOX.99

[Peetwo]

This week from Hitch's weekly wrap...

The Last Minute Hitch: 30 September 2016
30 September 2016

Even in his twilight weeks as Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore has stayed on message, reiterating his belief that industry reform is possible only through genuine co-operation between CASA and the aviation community. As he says in his final CASA Briefing Newsletter, there is a lot of expertise in the aviation community and CASA is not the oracle in all things safety regardless of their name. It's pretty clear the industry can't brook CASA stumbling along Part 61-fashion anymore, but if we don't share with them the expertise that Skidmore has rightly pointed out we have, we may really be condemning both CASA and ourselves to repeat mistakes of the past...

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...uohjVOX.99

P2 - Not sure Gobbles but I think this is where you intended to post...  

Skiddies intent - pure?

I'm actually reasonably confident that Mr Skidmore's intentions when he took on the DAS poison chalice were somewhat pure and genuine. The bloke is known to be a reasonable sort of chap, unlike his sociopathic predecessor, however the black hats reign supreme.

Mark, you can't turn back 3 decades of malfeasance, bullying and pineappling in 20 months, probably not even in 20 years with the amount of destruction that has and still is being inflicted on our industry. When you finally acknowledge, even understand that a large part of the root cause has been, and still is allowed to flourish for decades and still remains firmly entrenched and empowered to unleash the same level of bullshit on us you will get where we are coming from.

And yes, this shit gets personal, very personal - businesses, families, careers, finances, health and futures have been destroyed out of spite, vindictiveness, ego and apathy towards fairness and respect.

Skiddies replacement should he/she have genuine good intent and actually be allowed to flex their testicles, could earn some quick wins and grasp some low hanging fruit for starters. Everyone knows where to begin, how to really restructure/clean up CAsA - who to axe, what regs and laws to repeal, white private Parts to scrap or at least 'get them right'.

A fare playing field Brother Skates, that's all we've ever asked for....

Tick tock mate

[Peetwo]

This week from Hitch's weekly wrap...

The Last Minute Hitch: 30 September 2016
30 September 2016

Even in his twilight weeks as Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore has stayed on message, reiterating his belief that industry reform is possible only through genuine co-operation between CASA and the aviation community. As he says in his final CASA Briefing Newsletter, there is a lot of expertise in the aviation community and CASA is not the oracle in all things safety regardless of their name. It's pretty clear the industry can't brook CASA stumbling along Part 61-fashion anymore, but if we don't share with them the expertise that Skidmore has rightly pointed out we have, we may really be condemning both CASA and ourselves to repeat mistakes of the past...

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...uohjVOX.99

P2 - Not sure Gobbles but I think this is where you intended to post...  

Skiddies intent - pure?

I'm actually reasonably confident that Mr Skidmore's intentions when he took on the DAS poison chalice were somewhat pure and genuine. The bloke is known to be a reasonable sort of chap, unlike his sociopathic predecessor, however the black hats reign supreme.

Mark, you can't turn back 3 decades of malfeasance, bullying and pineappling in 20 months, probably not even in 20 years with the amount of destruction that has and still is being inflicted on our industry. When you finally acknowledge, even understand that a large part of the root cause has been, and still is allowed to flourish for decades and still remains firmly entrenched and empowered to unleash the same level of bullshit on us you will get where we are coming from.

And yes, this shit gets personal, very personal - businesses, families, careers, finances, health and futures have been destroyed out of spite, vindictiveness, ego and apathy towards fairness and respect.

Skiddies replacement should he/she have genuine good intent and actually be allowed to flex their testicles, could earn some quick wins and grasp some low hanging fruit for starters. Everyone knows where to begin, how to really restructure/clean up CAsA - who to axe, what regs and laws to repeal, white private Parts to scrap or at least 'get them right'.

A fare playing field Brother Skates, that's all we've ever asked for....

Tick tock mate

[Kharon]

Bugger - lost it; again.

Hitch – “Even in his twilight weeks as Director of Aviation Safety, Mark Skidmore has stayed on message, reiterating his belief that industry reform is possible only through genuine co-operation between CASA and the aviation community. As he says in his final CASA Briefing Newsletter, there is a lot of expertise in the aviation community and CASA is not the oracle in all things safety regardless of their name.”

FDS – Not Hitch’s fault – he just gets to repeat this twaddle. But I am sick, to the vomiting stage, of hearing this puling, pitiful, gutless, useless, arrogant statement. It is BOLLOCKS in it’s purest form; worse yet, it is CASA generated, self excusing BOLLOCKS.

Oi – thick head – CASA ducked it up; not industry.  CASA get paid to sort it out; not industry.  CASA have time, money and government support to fix the mess; not industry. We work for a living and yet you expect the same industry to step in, cooperate and assist the very same inutile, purblind clots who created the expense and suffering inflicted; then toddle off and allow ‘CASA’ the credit.  Duck off idiot.  Hells bells, I have listened to some really stuffed up logic over the years; but this touchy-feely bullshit beats the band

If they (CASA) are going to continue not only supporting the halfwits they employ; but backing them through expensive legal cases where deliberate lies are manipulated into ‘fact’; where a simple error in a log book or training record can be turned into ‘fraud’; when a ‘heavy’ aircraft can be artificially brought to an overweight; where a business, reputation or career can be utterly destroyed on unsupported ‘hearsay evidence’, where on a self deluded whim the ‘practices’ demanded by some moron FOI are clearly dangerous; where an extreme interpretation of part of a rule can be used to achieve a pre-determined outcome; then it is time to examine just who CASA actually is.  CASA does not need industry help – indeed, they have for many years denigrated industry efforts, all sacrificed at the altars of inflated ego and self promotion and delusions of expertise.

There is a pile – sitting at the corner of my desk – just over 300 mm (one foot) high which, in one page summaries, clearly define the lunacy of some CASA edicts; the words from the individuals affected.  There are 84 ‘Arch files’ on one bookshelf, to do with ‘cases’ CASA have manipulated, to enforce ‘their’ version of ‘safety’ on operators; I have a large portable hard drive, almost full, containing the real anecdotal ‘complaints’ against; the almost daily acts of embuggerance; and gross stupidity doled out and enforced by CASA ‘experts’.

Few are honest, let alone ‘expert’ and yet we pay them ‘expert’ wages.  Few are of any value whatsoever and yet Skidmore departs the fix beseeching industry to assist repair the damage this collection of horse’s arses have inflicted on the ‘relationship’, the damage to the spirit and intent of the law and the destruction of sound operational procedure.  Here – you’re supposed to be a hot shot ‘test pilot’; try this – stall a Metro with the SAS disabled; if you survive, try and teach a junior to do the same and survive.  No? not game? Well one of your experts insisted on it; then said the FAA handbook procedure for Vmca approach demonstration was foolishly dangerous. Not true? Don’t bet the house on it, not on one of your defended ‘experts’.

BOLLOCKS; just take the money and bugger off Skidmore; take your infantile, fluffy, pathetic, apologist attitude away and join a knitting circle.  Then you too can knit bollock warmers for the poor little helpless, hapless idiots you defend out there in the cold world.

Oh yes; yes, indeed the CASA troops are expert.  Skilled at making a pigs ear of anything they attempt.  Take the bloody ear muffs off, leave the rose tinted glasses behind, get off your arse and listen to what the real experts and victims will say to another industry person. That which they would not dream of saying to the new shiny DAS, come to visit. Although as a deaf fraud, a blind seer and a dumb player, I expect even then you will continue to live in cloud cuckoo land.

Aye, I’ll cooperate – 50 yards head start before I turns the dogs loose; and, that’s 30 more than rightfully deserved.

No more apologist twaddle; no more poor CASA; enough with the ‘help us’ plea.  CASA is a basket case, now 20 months behind in being cured; all down to one muff with a dodgy moustache a bleeding heart and a bleating habit.  Rightfully known by the well deserved title  Oliver-Skidmore-Twist; the lost, helpless, hapless little  boy who wanted more. Well the real one got a hiding for asking for 'more', there is a moral there; somewhere.

Toot-toot; your ferry awaits; first stop, Perdition, then it gets interesting.

[Peetwo]

CASA and the UAV media spotlight continues -

First a re-hash:

Amended CASR 101 D-DAY finally arrives -  

New UAV regulations, a lawyers banquet -

Reference - 'Closing the safety loop' thread:

CAsA & ATsB out of the loop on RPA/UAV safety -

Remember this??

Australia leads the way in drone regulation
21 September 2016 Lara Bullock

New drone regulations, to be introduced by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority next week, will impact lawyers in a wide array of practice areas, including insurance, intellectual property and privacy.

The regulator for the use of aircraft in Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), has developed new drone regulations, which will take effect on 29 September...

 

There has been much media coverage in recent days in the lead up to today's official promulgation of amended UAV/RPA CASR Part 101...

1st example via the ABC:

New drone laws 'could lead to mid-air collisions', pilots and air traffic controllers warn
By political reporter Alexandra Beech
Updated yesterday at 1:49pmWed 28 Sep 2016, 1:49pm

Photo: The new laws are aimed to cut the cost and red tape around operating drones that weigh less than two kilograms. (ABC News: Giulio Saggin)

Pilots and air traffic controllers have called for new regulations over the use of drones to be scrapped, warning they could lead to catastrophic mid-air collisions.
The new laws are aimed to cut the cost and red tape around operating drones that weigh less than two kilograms.

The changes will come into effect from tomorrow.

Under the new legislation, small commercial drone operators would not have to pay the current $1,400 in regulatory fees and landholders could operate drones of up to 25 kilograms on their properties without the need for approvals.

Aviation special counsel for Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, Joseph Wheeler, said the move towards deregulation would significantly increase the risk of a crash between a drone and a plane or a helicopter.

Photo: Aviation Lawyer Joseph Wheeler warns that drone deregulation would "raise collision risk". (ABC News: David McMeekin)

He called on the Senate to disallow the legislation at its next sitting and flagged a possible High Court appeal if the laws were not amended.

"If we had greater safeguards to enforce the regulations when things go wrong, that would go a long way towards ensuring with the injuries that inevitably would happen, the ability for people on the ground who are injured to access compensation," he said.

"At the moment, someone could be injured by a drone on the ground with no ability to identify the owner of that drone.

"They have absolutely no capacity to access any insurance or access any compensation for their losses."

'Potential of impact fire' with drone

Australian Federation of Air Pilots president David Booth said rogue drones flying near Australia's airports were a growing concern.

"Sydney Airport in the last four weeks have shut down their airspace or had issues with their airspace on two occasions," Captain Booth said.

"I've been airborne at 12,000 feet over the Hawkesbury River to have air traffic control tell me, flying a 737: 'Hazard alert, unidentified drone flight level 120 in your vicinity'.

"I'll tell you right now, it's not a nice feeling knowing that this drone is in your airspace."

Captain Booth said drones could cause a huge amount of damage if they hit a helicopter's tail rotor or flew into a plane's engine.

"Birds are soft, they might destroy the engine, but with a drone there is the potential of impact fire and they're reinforced with kevlar composite," he said.

"Two kilos at 250 kilometres an hour, or potentially 400 kilometres an hour — there's a lot of energy in that impact."

Drone wars: The definition dogfight

What exactly is a drone? It is a deceptively simple question with a highly contentious answer, writes Mark Corcoran.

But Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said there was a system in place to mitigate the risks.

"We looked at the risks from the various size of drones and we worked out that the safety risks of these very small drones can be managed through a set of standard operating conditions, a notification system and by marking the drones with an identification number," Mr Gibson said.

"It's certainly not a drone free-for-all."

Mr Gibson said penalties of up to $9,000 could be issued for breaches of the regulations.
CASA said there was also a requirement for operators to complete an online notification process so the authority had a record of operators' details.

Next example gets, an obviously Murky prepared, comment from the NFI miniscule Dazzling Dazza's office and a simply hilarious ( ) comment from CASA mouthpiece Pinocchio Gobson: 

• September 28 2016 - 6:38PM
  

'It may be catastrophic': Pilots issue stark warning over relaxed drone laws

• [/url]Michael Koziol
  
  

The Turnbull government has rejected a call from pilots to overturn a relaxation of regulations on unmanned drones, despite warnings they risk catastrophic collisions with commercial aircraft and helicopters.

The liberalised laws, set by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, allow anyone to fly lightweight, remotely-controlled drones without a licence - even for commercial purposes - in a bid to "cut red tape".
   

Video duration01:24

New drone rules to cut red tape

Update: Joseph Wheeler via the Oz today

Relaxing drone regulations makes national skies more dangerous

• Joseph Wheeler
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM September 30, 2016
  

Australia’s position in aviation safety has officially taken one step — some would say several steps — backwards in the past 24 hours through amendments to relax drone regulations.

These changes mean almost anyone can enter the world of commercial drone operation as long as they stay within certain airspace boundaries and heights, and avoid “controlled” aerodromes, but how will they appreciate the restrictions and comply with them when there is no training required?

Aviators and those who practically and silently assure the safety of Australian air passengers each and every day, whether they be domestic or international, are fed up.

It is one thing to cheekily fly a little above the 400-foot (legal maximum height) ceiling in one’s own back yard, where the danger remains isolated to your own property and family. It is quite another to power up your vehicle to push upwards of 4000ft above ground level a few kilometres along the approach path to the runways of Australia’s major international airports in cloud.

Make no mistake: these things are happening now, and they have been on an alarmingly more frequent basis since the Civil Aviation Safety Authority promulgated the drone amendment regulations in March that came into effect yesterday. Put simply, it seems as if certain operators, who never intended to follow rules, decided that the new CASA legislation was their ticket to a kind of freedom of the skies that is wholly incompatible with common sense and safety.

The problem with opening up commercial drone operations of even “very small” (under 2kg) drones is that without appropriate forethought and an understanding of why drone operators misuse drones, one cannot instil the requisite level of social responsibility into them.

Rigorous standards of risk mitigation are ingrained into operators through aviation training. In short, certified remote pilots come to respect their abilities and their own and their vehicles’ shortcomings and practical limitations, and are equipped to prevent accidents.

The untrained child who can now make pocket money on the internet doing video pranks and dares with dangerous equipment that has the capacity to bring down your average Melbourne to Sydney flight does not. It takes good law and education to foster that.

Decision-makers in the Senate have been briefed on all sides of this policy question and there remain four sitting days for a stand to be made by way of disallowance to repeal this problematic legislation before too many take advantage of its leniency and the confusing and illogical patchwork of non-legally binding guidance material that has sprung up in the past few weeks to try to explain the inadequate law.

Can you read a VTC chart, identify an RA3 area using ERSA or identify exclusion zones for the HLS instrument approach for YWST? The CASA guidance implies you should, but there is no legal requirement that you be trained to know those terms.

Therefore, CASA has no way of figuring out if your failure to gain such aeronautical knowledge presents a danger until your shiny new Christmas present drone strays into dangerous airspace trafficked by professional pilots and causes a safety issue.

Now, in the week this law comes into force, even more organisations have come forward to stand in support of Australia’s foundational commercial drone operators association, Australian Certified UAV Operators, in rolling back the laws.

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots, Australia’s largest professional pilot association and union, together with Civil Air Australia, Australia’s professional association and union of air traffic controllers, have stood side-by-side in denouncing the new laws and in supporting their repeal because of the way they jeopardise safety.

Members of both organisations are aware of frightening unexpected encounters with drones and civil passenger jets and helicopters in Australia.

When they talk, we should listen. Enough is enough.

Joseph Wheeler is the principal of International Aerospace Law & Policy Group, aviation legal counsel to the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and special counsel (aviation) to Maurice Blackburn Lawyers. He acts for Australian Certified UAV Operators in its pursuit of disallowance.

And now thru Insurance Biz magazine, multi-national insurance giant QBE voices it's concerns on the possible negative impact of the amended CASR Part 101...

[url=http://www.insurancebusinessonline.com.au/au/news/breaking-news/drones-could-cost-businesses-millions-224333.aspx]Drones could cost businesses millions

by Mina Martin 04 Oct 2016

QBE, Australia’s largest aviation insurer, has warned that the implementation of new drone regulations, which took effect last week, could cost Australian businesses millions of dollars for property damage and injury.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has relaxed its regulations around drones or remotely piloted aircrafts (RPAs), allowing very small RPAs, or those weighing less than 2kg, to be used for commercial purposes as long as it’s compliant with standard RPA operating conditions. 

Whereas the previous law required drone operators to hold both a Remote Operators Certificate (ReOC) and a Remote Pilot License before they can use drones for commercial purposes; the new regulations only require operators to register with CASA five days in advance and adhere to existing safety rules.

Simon Hooper, specialist aviation underwriter at QBE and Australia’s first RPA underwriter, said that while the move presented Australian businesses with exciting opportunities, it also has its implications. 

“We’re expecting to see a steep rise in the number of RPAs in use as businesses realise the potential of using them, but there is a worrying lack of understanding that there are still major risks associated with drones,” Hooper said.

Should something go wrong, Hooper said that strict liability for any injury or damage caused may be imposed on operators, irrespective of whether there is negligence or intent.

“Given many operators won’t have had extensive training, if any, this presents a genuine risk, which could leave operators exposed. The cost associated with an injury or property damage could go into the millions – in the worst case, they could lose everything.

“This type of cover typically won’t fall under standard business policies, so we’d advise them to ask their broker to ensure they have a specialist policy.

“In less serious incidents, it can still prove costly to repair damage caused to the aircraft itself, or caused by any accidents. We’ve already seen a number of incidents amongst our existing customers where poor flight planning has resulted in collisions with trees, buildings, or even birds. 

“So whilst the relaxing of regulations will make RPAs more accessible, we’d urge operators to ensure they have adequate protection.”

Lee Carseldine, chief pilot of Droneit, said hobbyists planning to use drones in the workplace should be aware of the risks.

“While the new rules and regulations might be exciting for all drone users especially for hobbyists who can use commercially now, you need to define how you want to use them,” Carseldine said. 

“Small activity is obviously lower risk, but for anything external then it’s highly recommended you get covered.

“Trust me, when it comes to drones they are fickle machines and gravity does not discriminate. Two kilos might seem small, but they can still do a lot of damage.”

 
So is QBE truly concerned that start up drone operators may face serious 'strict liability' fines when they pinged for illegally flying a drone in contravention of Part 101; or are they simply concerned that they miss out on their slice of the UAV pie??  


MTF...P2  

[Gobbledock]

Well one thing is certain - Murky and his large headed mandarins will be massaging and reviewing laws and maybe even writing new ones to ensure that the Guv'mint is not liable to pay out if a drone takes down an A380 or decapitates a 3 year old kid riding his bicycle in Grandpa Joe's backyard! Everyone else has to just suck it and see.

On a lighter note Big Jo Wheeler would look a formidable sight in court wearing that suit and shades and ready to snap in half a little Jo Featherweight like Doc Voodoo, Flyingfiend or Murky! Certainly looks more the part in his suit than Electric Blue Harfwit, a bumbling Beaker or a lanky Sir An(g)us.

'Safe Mafia suits for all'

[Peetwo]

CASA and the UAV media spotlight continues -

Relaxing drone regulations makes national skies more dangerous

• Joseph Wheeler
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM September 30, 2016
  

[/url]
Australia’s position in aviation safety has officially taken one step — some would say several steps — backwards in the past 24 hours through amendments to relax drone regulations.

These changes mean almost anyone can enter the world of commercial drone operation as long as they stay within certain airspace boundaries and heights, and avoid “controlled” aerodromes, but how will they appreciate the restrictions and comply with them when there is no training required?

Aviators and those who practically and silently assure the safety of Australian air passengers each and every day, whether they be domestic or international, are fed up.

It is one thing to cheekily fly a little above the 400-foot (legal maximum height) ceiling in one’s own back yard, where the danger remains isolated to your own property and family. It is quite another to power up your vehicle to push upwards of 4000ft above ground level a few kilometres along the approach path to the runways of Australia’s major international airports in cloud.

Make no mistake: these things are happening now, and they have been on an alarmingly more frequent basis since the Civil Aviation Safety Authority promulgated the drone amendment regulations in March that came into effect yesterday. Put simply, it seems as if certain operators, who never intended to follow rules, decided that the new CASA legislation was their ticket to a kind of freedom of the skies that is wholly incompatible with common sense and safety.

The problem with opening up commercial drone operations of even “very small” (under 2kg) drones is that without appropriate forethought and an understanding of why drone operators misuse drones, one cannot instil the requisite level of social responsibility into them.

Rigorous standards of risk mitigation are ingrained into operators through aviation training. In short, certified remote pilots come to respect their abilities and their own and their vehicles’ shortcomings and practical limitations, and are equipped to prevent accidents.

The untrained child who can now make pocket money on the internet doing video pranks and dares with dangerous equipment that has the capacity to bring down your average Melbourne to Sydney flight does not. It takes good law and education to foster that.

Decision-makers in the Senate have been briefed on all sides of this policy question and there remain four sitting days for a stand to be made by way of disallowance to repeal this problematic legislation before too many take advantage of its leniency and the confusing and illogical patchwork of non-legally binding guidance material that has sprung up in the past few weeks to try to explain the inadequate law.

Can you read a VTC chart, identify an RA3 area using ERSA or identify exclusion zones for the HLS instrument approach for YWST? The CASA guidance implies you should, but there is no legal requirement that you be trained to know those terms.

Therefore, CASA has no way of figuring out if your failure to gain such aeronautical knowledge presents a danger until your shiny new Christmas present drone strays into dangerous airspace trafficked by professional pilots and causes a safety issue.

Now, in the week this law comes into force, even more organisations have come forward to stand in support of Australia’s foundational commercial drone operators association, Australian Certified UAV Operators, in rolling back the laws.

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots, Australia’s largest professional pilot association and union, together with Civil Air Australia, Australia’s professional association and union of air traffic controllers, have stood side-by-side in denouncing the new laws and in supporting their repeal because of the way they jeopardise safety.

Members of both organisations are aware of frightening unexpected encounters with drones and civil passenger jets and helicopters in Australia.

When they talk, we should listen. Enough is enough.

Joseph Wheeler is the principal of International Aerospace Law & Policy Group, aviation legal counsel to the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and special counsel (aviation) to Maurice Blackburn Lawyers. He acts for Australian Certified UAV Operators in its pursuit of disallowance.

And now thru Insurance Biz magazine, multi-national insurance giant QBE voices it's concerns on the possible negative impact of the amended CASR Part 101...

[url=http://www.insurancebusinessonline.com.au/au/news/breaking-news/drones-could-cost-businesses-millions-224333.aspx]Drones could cost businesses millions

by Mina Martin 04 Oct 2016

QBE, Australia’s largest aviation insurer, has warned that the implementation of new drone regulations, which took effect last week, could cost Australian businesses millions of dollars for property damage and injury.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has relaxed its regulations around drones or remotely piloted aircrafts (RPAs), allowing very small RPAs, or those weighing less than 2kg, to be used for commercial purposes as long as it’s compliant with standard RPA operating conditions. 

Whereas the previous law required drone operators to hold both a Remote Operators Certificate (ReOC) and a Remote Pilot License before they can use drones for commercial purposes; the new regulations only require operators to register with CASA five days in advance and adhere to existing safety rules.

Simon Hooper, specialist aviation underwriter at QBE and Australia’s first RPA underwriter, said that while the move presented Australian businesses with exciting opportunities, it also has its implications. 

“We’re expecting to see a steep rise in the number of RPAs in use as businesses realise the potential of using them, but there is a worrying lack of understanding that there are still major risks associated with drones,” Hooper said.

Should something go wrong, Hooper said that strict liability for any injury or damage caused may be imposed on operators, irrespective of whether there is negligence or intent.

“Given many operators won’t have had extensive training, if any, this presents a genuine risk, which could leave operators exposed. The cost associated with an injury or property damage could go into the millions – in the worst case, they could lose everything.

“This type of cover typically won’t fall under standard business policies, so we’d advise them to ask their broker to ensure they have a specialist policy.

“In less serious incidents, it can still prove costly to repair damage caused to the aircraft itself, or caused by any accidents. We’ve already seen a number of incidents amongst our existing customers where poor flight planning has resulted in collisions with trees, buildings, or even birds. 

“So whilst the relaxing of regulations will make RPAs more accessible, we’d urge operators to ensure they have adequate protection.”

Lee Carseldine, chief pilot of Droneit, said hobbyists planning to use drones in the workplace should be aware of the risks.

“While the new rules and regulations might be exciting for all drone users especially for hobbyists who can use commercially now, you need to define how you want to use them,” Carseldine said. 

“Small activity is obviously lower risk, but for anything external then it’s highly recommended you get covered.

“Trust me, when it comes to drones they are fickle machines and gravity does not discriminate. Two kilos might seem small, but they can still do a lot of damage.”

 

Further update - Aviation Alphabet groups ramp up rhetoric on CASR Part 101

Via Avbiz magazine online:  

First:


Industry bodies condemn relaxation of small drone rules
6 October 2016

Australia’s peak professional bodies for pilots and certified drone operators have joined forces to warn the travelling public is being put at risk of catastrophic collisions if new drone laws that came in to force last week are not scrapped.
The Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP), Civil Air Australia and Australian Certified UAV Operators (ACUO), with the assistance of Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, are considering a High Court appeal if the relaxed regulations are not disallowed by Parliament at its next sitting.
 
“There is a growing problem of rogue drones violating controlled airspace at primary airports,” said AFAP President Captain David Booth. “In the last month alone we have had at least two instances of drones being on approach paths to runways in Sydney. I personally have flown in airspace that has been violated by drones during the last 12 months.”
 
“In one incident a drone was sighted at 12,000 feet (FL120) north of Sydney which led to the broadcast of a hazard alert by ATC and deviation off the planned flight path. Another pilot I know had a near miss with a drone at 1,000 feet at the Gold Coast airport. How many other events have occurred that we don’t know about?” said Capt Booth.
 
The union representing Virgin Australia Group pilots, VIPA, has also expressed serious concern at the relaxation of drone regulations, saying the risk of an aircraft hitting a drone has increased considerably.

VIPA President, Captain John Lyons, himself a fully licensed UAV operator, says “CASA has been forced to lift the licensing restriction on UAV as a result of the explosion in small low-cost drones available to the public and its [CASA’s] lack of resources to monitor illegal use”.

 “Small drones in unqualified hands equate to a potentially lethal weapon. They are prone to loss of control, battery and structural failure. Even a small UAV falling out of the sky over a public area can cause lethal injury and serious damage” said Captain Lyons.

VIPA’s concern is for the safety of its members and the travelling public. “A drone inadvertently or deliberately flown into the path of an airline on approach to or departing an airport could easily cause a disaster” says Capt Lyons.

Before the changes were promulgated the ACUO warned that they were based on a two-year-old consultation and research that was out of step with modern technology, as well as industry law in both the United States and Europe.

“This amendment allows people to fly drones up to 2kg in weight without any training, insurance, registration or certification,” said ACUO President Joe Urli. “It will open a Pandora’s Box in terms of new dangers for airlines and the general public

Read more at http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/lates...r5Q0zDZ.99

---

& from Avbiz Editor Phil Smart's weekly wrap:



Editor's Insights - why lack of small drone regulation scares industry
6 October 2016

The best illustration I know of why regulation for small drones is a good idea is one where a professional, experienced commercial unmanned aerial system operator with an aviation background used that knowledge to avert a potentially dangerous situation.
The commercial UAS operator, also a highly-experienced helicopter operator, was conducting aerial UAS operations near an airport in Australia's outback, when the weather changed for the worse. Lowering cloud base and changing winds presaged a storm.
Nothing said the unmanned aerial system operator had to stop flying. But with the "gut feel" of the experienced pilot, he visualised a map of the nearby airport and surrounds and thought of what he would be doing if he was a pilot operating locally and trying to make the airport before the approaching storm either closed it or forced a diversion. Most of the answers included flying right through his pre-assigned box of sky.

He was right. Within minutes of landing the UAS as a precaution aircraft and helicopters began shuttling through his area of operations. That aviation background and situational awareness may not have actually saved lives that day, but it probably at least saved some unnecessary heartache.

This is the problem aviators see with allowing members of the public to operate even small drones without any form of licensing, test or environmental indoctrination. It's not just about technical skill and airframe reliability, it's about attitude and understanding.
Until now anyone flying an airframe could be expected to have had some formal training, laced with a thorough indoctrination in to the culture of safety. That culture includes implicit safety ground rules, such as knowledge that anyone in the sky is part of a system, that the actions of one can affect others, and that having two airframes in one piece of sky is a situation to be avoided wherever possible.

But most private drone operators won't see the world through the eyes of an aviator. They will see it through the eyes of friends who marvel at the vision they produced by flying so high or getting so close, or even through those of internet stars who tape GoPro video cameras to their helmets before jumping off buildings. For some of these people the knowledge that they're doing something daring, risky and even against the rules, can be part of the thrill.

The implicit pursuit of safety above all else will not necessarily be part of their understanding. And that means airframes may enter an air traffic system while being flown by people who don't see themselves as part of that system, who "don't know what they don't know". And that is never a precursor for sake skies.

Read more at http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/lates...thyCz2p.99

 
This is beginning to get interesting...


MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

"CASA Wars - Attack of the Drones", a George Lucas production coming soon to some airspace near you.

Is it just me or does it seem odd that CAsA, an organisation that claims to be solely in existence to ensure that the 'fare paying public' remains safe at all times, would allow a set of rules and regulations to come into effect that actually endanger the fare paying public? Surely somebody else out there in Australia is musing over this perplexing issue and asking the same question? No?

Oh of course, that's right, I forgot. Because CAsA are years behind the technology and are quite simply not capable of handling the issue they just put their hands in the air and say 'it's too big for us, just go for it boys'. And as I said, it won't affect the Guv'mint because those shysters will change the laws (always remember folks that the game is rigged, and it's not rigged by us) and make sure that no financial liability in the event that something terrible goes down can be compensatable by the Guv'mint. Remember, they the Guv'mint take money not give out money.

The entire situation is bullshit. CAsA know it, the government knows it, security experts know it and the airlines and drone rogues know it. CAsA, the supposed font of all aviation knowledge, the supposed champion and world leader in safety, CAsA the regulatory body filled with geriatrics, has-beens and rejects who haven't experienced a day in decades outside of their sheltered workshop and Wonderland apparently know best!

CAsA, Skidmore, Aleck, Carmody, old mother Hubbard and the Bin Laden family are all about as useful as a punctured blowup doll. This Drone saga will continue to play out until it all ends in tears, you mark my words.

TICK TOCK Barnaby piss boy TICK TOCK 'Darren of the immaculate'!

[Peetwo]

Off the Yaffa 14/10/16: Hitch weekly wrap & Avbiz on CAO 48.1

..The organisers of OzKosh 2016 rolled the dice when they re-formatted the event to resemble an exhibition rather than an air show. They could easily have cut the heart out of the show by not staging the rollicking air displays that had come to be a trademark of Ausfly. Would ground displays, an exhibition and an exhausting seminar program be enough to draw people to Narromine. The answer so far has been "yes"; OzKosh was an outstanding success by Ausfly standards. Although the Friday was a bit quiet, the Saturday was as busy as a bull ant, and at many of the seminars latecomers were forced to stand up the back through a lack of chairs. The Unicom reported around 470 movements for the weekend, more than Ausfly ever recorded. Consequently, the OzKosh team has gone into preparations for the 2017 event (yes, already) in a bouyant mood, determined to make the next one even better. There are kinks that need to be straightened out, but that's par for any new flying event. Congrats to the team of hard workers at OzKosh.

... there'll be a battle royal needed just to get that on the ballot paper.

The value of Class 2 medical in a safety context has been contentious for years, and even with the blessing of three consecutive Directors of Aviation Safety, nothing has been done to shed aviation of this burden. Now, it seems, there is real potential for progress. Moves by the SAAA and AOPA have painted CASA into a bit of a corner, resulting in a discussion paper (DP) to be released before this year is out.

CLASS 2 REFORM[/url]
A STEP CLOSER TO REALITY.


Valued AOPA Members & Industry Supporters,

Class 2 private pilot medical certification reform is now a step closer, following a meeting between the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), Sport Aircraft Association of Australia (SAAA) and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) on 5th October 2016. 

The safety regulator has confirmed to AOPA and SAAA that it will move to public consultation for Class 2 reform before the close of the year, with a view towards regulatory introduction by March of 2017.

Mr Rob Walker, Industry Stakeholder Group Manager CASA, went on the record to state that the AOPA and SAAA call for reform had been clearly heard from within the regulator and that CASA was now working to see Class 2 reform delivered as soon as possible.

AOPA and SAAA reinforced that over the last 10 years, some 8,000+ general aviation pilots have exited Australia’s aviation industry (a 34% decline) and that the large reduction in pilots flying was contributing to large declines in Australia’s general aviation economy.  Making clear that the AOPA proposed policy on Class 2 private pilot medical certification aims to reconnect thousands of general aviation pilots with flying, the policy is supported by moves by the US FAA, UK CAA and NZ CAA, highlighting that there is no safety case to be made by the regulator for continuing to unfairly discriminate and prematurely ground pilots based.

Now that the regulator has committed to moving forward with public consultation, the challenge will be to keep CASA on track and to ensure that the Class 2 reform is not turned into an unusable or ineffective regulation.

Very shortly the Australian aviation industry will have the opportunity to respond directly on Class 2 reform, both the AOPA and SAAA will be working hard to encourage the industry to do so en-masse and will make available resources to help individuals do so in the coming weeks.

In the meantime our associations are continuing the push and are determined to see Class 2 reform a reality.

Best regards,

BENJAMIN MORGAN
Executive Director - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association

Both associations have pointed out, however, that Class 2 reform is not a Monty, and that real pressure needs to be kept on CASA to maintain momentum. We'll know more about where we stand when the DP is released. If convention is followed, it will contain a series of options for discussion. One of those is likely to be "Do Nothing" and one option will be labelled as CASA's Preferred Option. There is nothing to say those two options won't be the same thing. Already there are vibes from Aviation House that they aren't happy with the number of passengers (five) that the AOPA policy would allow under the self-certification regime they have put forward, so there'll be a battle royal needed just to get that on the ballot paper. Still, medical reform is back on the agenda, and all noise right now is good noise.

Flightplan 2030 was Mark Skidmore's pet project; an attempt to get CASA to look well into the future and start preparing early for the challenges ahead. According to CASA, [url=http://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/casa-to-keep-flightplan-2030-on-track]the project outcome will be released next year after further work. I will be genuinely surprised if Flightplan 2030 actually brings anything concrete and valuable. The regulator doesn't have a reputation for being forward-looking (which, admittedly, Skidmore was trying to change) and it is also strapped for resources to drag itself out of the regulatory reform quagmire that it plunged itself into. So who's going to make Flightplan 2030 a priority? Add to that the uncomfortable truth that right now no-one at CASA has the expertise to deal with many of the challenges identified by the aviation community and we are left wondering what level of integrity the outcome could possibly have. Under Skidmore, the plan would have been prioritised and championed; right now it is really a poor cousin who someone dumped on CASA and ran away. I hope I'm wrong about this. Like many others in the aviation community, I traveled many nautical miles and sacrificed time out of my life to contribute because I thought it was a step forward in aviation regulation in Australia. Should it meet its fate in the bottom drawer, I will be annoyed at best.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...Bb6VsXL.99

Meanwhile the other side of the Yaffa is catching up on the CAO 48.1 - Fort Fumble (rule 101) 'Divide & Conquer' bun fight :

CASA delays fatigue reg changes for a year
13 October 2016

Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has extended the implementation period for new CAO48.1 fatigue regulations by one year.

Air operators will now have until 1 May 2018 to transition to the new regulations, and will be required to submit their draft operations manual changes, or an application for a fatigue risk management system (FRMS), to CASA by October 31, 2017.

CASA has put the delay down to extensive feedback from the aviation community that the most recent amendment in July 2016 provided insufficient time to transition and that air operators also wanted more time to consider their options under CAO 48.1 and a number wanted extra time to develop and implement fatigue risk management systems.

CASA has also stated a need to provide more support through education, information and support tools on the new fatigue rules. CASA will use the extended transition period to conduct an independent review of fatigue limits.

Pilot groups such as the Australian Airline Pilots’ Association (AusALPA) have criticised the delay as a tactic on the part of airline operators to avoid the more restrictive requirements of the new regulations, saying that existing regulations are out of step with recent scientific approaches to fatigue.

“AusALPA is deeply concerned that the further delay only serves the commercial interests of industry bodies, such as the Regional Aviation Association of Australia, instead of an improved, more scientific approach to pilot fatigue risk management,” said AusALPA President and Qantas 737 pilot Nathan Safe.

“The implementation date was delayed by 12 months until May 2016 and has now been delayed by a further year without any reasonable explanation. AusALPA is concerned that CASA’s proposed ‘independent’ review may well recommend further delays.”

Regional Aviation Association of Australia chair Greg Russell said operators requested the delay because more time was needed to gauge the long term effects of the new CAO48.1.

“We believe some of the wording in the new regulation was not appropriate and that the full ramifications of its introduction were not fully understood,” he said.

“We campaigned to have another year and we believe that is the best way to go.”

Read more at http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/lates...PE203HL.99

..Regional Aviation Association of Australia chair Greg Russell said operators requested the delay because more time was needed to gauge the long term effects of the new CAO48.1...

P2 - Hey Max think that's meant to be the honorary chair of The Australian Aviation Associations' Forum (TAAAF )


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Carmody at RAAA convention -

 Via Oz Aviation:

Carmody promises a “a firm, fair and balanced” CASA
October 21, 2016 by Jordan Chong
Acting CASA director of aviation safety and chief executive Shane Carmody. (Seth Jaworski)

Rather than merely keeping the seat warm until a permanent replacement is named, Shane Carmody says he intends to exercise the full authority of his office to maintain the pace of reform at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

In his first public speech to industry since starting as acting director of aviation safety and chief executive earlier in October, Carmody said the “acting” in his job title had little bearing on how he would conduct affairs at CASA.

“Don’t be fooled by the acting title. I don’t act real well,” Carmody told delegates at the Regional Aviation Association of Australia (RAAA) National Convention at the NSW Hunter Valley on Friday.

“My appointment was agreed by the board and it was agreed by Cabinet.
“As far as I’m concerned I’ve got full authority, which I will use, and I have got full accountability, which I will wear for the decisions that I make and the decisions that go with the position.

“Over the next few months I intend to meet with anyone who is interested in improving aviation safety and I would really welcome [that] opportunity.”

Carmody has replaced Mark Skidmore, who resigned less than two years into his five-year term as CASA director of aviation safety and chief executive, citing personal reasons.
During Skidmore’s tenure as chief he undertook an organisational overhaul of CASA’s structure, forming three main groups – a stakeholder engagement group, an aviation group and a sustainability group – as part of the aviation safety regulator’s response to the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR).

The retired RAAF air vice-marshal has also sought to respond to the views of industry, including issuing a new timetable for regulatory changes, including those covering general operating rules, air transport operations, aerial work, continuing airworthiness and maintenance for small aircraft, small aircraft maintenance licensing, sport and recreational operations and unmanned aircraft.

A new timeline on the implementation of the new regulations was also announced.
Nonetheless, there remained frustration within the aviation industry at the slow pace of change at CASA.

Carmody said CASA was still working its way through the recommendations from the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review (ASRR), which he described as a priority.

“My focus is on delivering a firm, fair and balanced aviation safety regulation system, promoting a positive and collaborative approach,” Carmody said.

“Many would argue that CASA doesn’t always get this right and I agree absolutely. But the industry doesn’t always get it right either and a lot of you would agree with that.”
“So somewhere in between is the reality.”

Carmody said a decision on a permanent replacement to Mark Skidmore was “not expected until well into the new year”.

“Noting that the last appointment took about six months, so this one could take a while,” Carmody said.

The new CASA head also used his speech to address the contentious issues of new regulations covering the commercial use of drones and pilot fatigue.

Federal Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester has recently announced a review of new rules covering the operation of remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs).
The new rules have drawn criticism from pilot groups and independent Senator Nick Xenophon, who aims to strike down the regulations in federal parliament.

Carmody said initial figures showed 1,350 operators had notified CASA they were commercially operating RPAs of less than two kilograms since the new rules came into effect on September 29.

Separately, Carmody said CASA would conduct an independent and comprehensive review on fatigue limits. CASA has extended the deadline for implementing Civil Aviation Order 48.1 covering fatigue risk management by a further 12 months.

Next Hitch in his weekly wrap also touches on Carmody -   

Acting CASA DAS Shane Carmody touched-off a bit of gunpowder in the senate this week when he told NXT's Nick Xenophon that he didn't think the cost of ADS-B technology would decrease after the US mandate deadline in 2020. That volume efficiencies would reduce costs has been the bulwark reason why sections of the Australian aviation community

“The noise coming out of the US is that ADS-B unit prices have hit the bottom of the curve now”

have been lobbying ferociously to have the Australian deadline pushed out past the US one. Although we'd probably rather chew on a bucket of nails that be forced to admit it, Mr Carmody could be right. The noise coming out of the US is that ADS-B unit prices have hit the bottom of the curve now, and are likely to plateau from here on. If they're right, then moving the mandate deadline won't deliver cheaper ADS-B to Australian aircraft owners. AOPA Australia in particular has a different opinion, steadfastly maintaining a case for a deadline after the US one, based on the fear that installation prices will go up if the Australian deadline remains in place. Who's right? We'll tell you in 2022.

AOPA has also started a campaign to tackle First State Super over the existing conditions at Bankstown. First State and Altis Property Partners bought the lease for both Bankstown and Camden in December, and clearly AOPA sees this as an opportunity to improve general aviation's position within the airport. Just about every attempt to talk aviation sense into the previous lease owners Mirvac and Colonial First State failed, and this is no small mountain AOPA is looking to climb. The case put forward hinges on AOPA collaborating with First State on better business practices, something First State and partner Altis Property Partners might feel they don't need any help with. It is, however, one point of approach, and far better than AOPA sitting down and watching the world crumble around them.

The burning sensation felt by too many Samsung Galaxy Notebook 7 owners as their device burst into flame has prompted CASA to ban people taking them on planes. Yes, that means us! General aviation is included in that ban, so you'll have to re-think if your plans included taking your phone with you.

The Bureau of Meteorology is changing the way low-level ARFORs (area forcasts), SIGMETs and AIRMETs are presented. From 10 November, you may start to see some things that look a bit unfamiliar on your usual WX forecasts. To prevent confusion, check out the explanations on the BOM website.

2016's Red Bull Air Race season came to a whimpering end in Las Vegas last weekend, as high winds put paid to any chance of big finish to the year. Matt Hall never got to the grid; the MXS-R suffering a failure in one wing that put the safety of the plane in question. Consequently, the Australian had to watch as his rivals struggled with 30+ knot winds that scuppered the race day program and ruined any chance Nigel Lamb had of entering retirement on a high note. The year saw Matthias Dolderer win his first championship, but also saw the tragic death of Hannes Arch in a helicopter crash. Hall scored two race wins, but was dogged by a bad back in some races, and was simply off the pace in others. Some race experts have already penciled in Hall for next year's title, but as 2016 showed, anything can happen.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...fvfmVAJ.99

 
MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Friday night walk home with Kipling.

Thoughts, on the way home: solo flight.

You can talk of gin and beers
But when you’ve got great big ears
A mouth to match and All-the–shot-it.
But when it comes to slaughter; you do your work on water,
An’ you’ll lick the bloomin’ boots of ‘im what’s got it.

Kipling – slightly paraphrased (mea culpa).  But it all fits rather neatly; don’t it?

The question is, just who is Carmody – now?  You can, I hope, see my problem. Where does this man fit?  Back in the day, he was a loyal lieutenant of a reform DAS who did not do too bad a job, gods know, he tried. However, when the unseen push came to shove, where was this then 2IC; this now great new advocate for aviation? Did he monitor the drums, feel the vibes – of course he did. Did he warn the reformist DAS that there was a serious move, by the Blackhats, to un-seat the Reformist?  That question has never, ever, been answered.  Carmody prospered and flourished – within government circles; that is beyond reasonable doubt. But what of his ‘fearless leader’? Did he manage to ‘prosper’ and gain weight at the government tit or was he forced to rely on his own native wit, courage, qualification and ingenuity to earn an equivalent crust?

For me, the poignancy in the Kipling ‘song’ of Gunga Din speaks of loyalty, honesty, a diligence to duty – as tasked: and, despite the battle going on; the ability of one, insignificant man to make a difference to another.

'E carried me away
To where a dooli lay,
An' a bullet come an' drilled the beggar clean.  70
'E put me safe inside,
An' just before 'e died:
"I 'ope you liked your drink," sez Gunga Din.
So I'll meet 'im later on
In the place where 'e is gone—  75
Where it's always double drill and no canteen;
'E'll be squattin' on the coals
Givin' drink to pore damned souls,
An' I'll get a swig in Hell from Gunga Din!

Now, the reformist DAS is gone, victim of the dark forces.  Who is Carmody, what is he?

No doubt time, as always, will tell the tale.  Will ‘aviation’ “get a swig in hell”; or just swing? Must we once again go through the try and test motions – only to be bitterly disappointed; once again.  Lets face it; McComic was a total, irredeemable duck up. The flash, two faced  jet jock was a total disaster. Now we have, without consultation or consent ‘Wing-nut’ running our lives; without a shadow of apology, a soupcon of remorse; or, even a reason we may yet be persuaded to believe, as to why he was ‘elevated’. Actions have always spoken more than words. Talk is cheap; in fact, there is so much of it about, even at the right price, it is almost valueless: without action supporting the words. Caretaker does not DAS make.  There are many wrongs to make right in the kingdom of Wingnut. 

Aye, ‘tis indeed a 'Genius' fueled twiddle (blame P7); I may have even got a little lost between bar and keyboard. But; and make no mistake about it. If this bugger wants the job and is ‘fair-dinkum’ and wants to continue the great work his ‘boss’ began; now is as good a time as ever. In fact, it may be the only time available to undo the wrongs, before the aviation clock simply runs out of time.  I’ll walk with Kipling a while longer, in the hope that ‘Wingnut’ fully understands the last stanzas of Kipling’s song

   Din! Din! Din!  80
   You Lazarushian-leather Gunga Din!
   Tho' I've belted you an' flayed you,
   By the livin' Gawd that made you,
   You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!

Selah.

[Peetwo]

Courtesy Hitch off the Yaffa -  

Minister for Infrastructure and Transport Darren Chester with CASA Acting Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody. (Department of Infrastructure and Transport)

ASRR Reforms still the Priority: Carmody
24 October 2016

Acting Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody has said that implementing the accepted recommendations of the Aviation Safety Regulation Review (ASRR)  is still a priority for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Carmody, who started in the role earlier this month, said in the October CASA Briefing Newsletter that the Federal Government is expecting reforms to be complete by the start of 2017.

"The Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, Darren Chester, has made it clear to me the implementation of the reforms contained in the Government’s response to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review remains the highest priority," Carmody said.

"The Government expects CASA to finish implementing required reforms by the end of this year, except where CASA and the aviation community have agreed that implementation should be deferred. A majority of the changes flowing from the Aviation Safety Regulation Review have already been put in place and work on the remaining reforms is progressing well."

Carmody also stated that he intended to continue changes at the regulator and the consultation program started under former DAS Mark Skidmore.

"I will continue Mark Skidmore’s commitment to regularly meeting people and organisations across the aviation community to listen to ideas, issues and concerns. Over almost two years Mark implemented a wide range of important changes in CASA, including the renewing CASA program, the restructuring of numerous positions and engaging a new management team. I intend to continue to implement his key reforms."

Carmody also announced among others two new appointments at CASA: Andrew Tiede as manager Air Navigation, Airspace and Aerodromes and Mark Sullivan as Client Services Manager. 

Tiede worked for Airservices Australia in senior management roles before joining CASA, and Sullivan has a background in project planning and delivery, along with process and service reform, having worked for Price Waterhouse Coopers Australia.

Penny drops on the inestimable Mr Tiede.. - NFI about the 2nd bloke but we did get a sneak preview of the quietly spoken, seemingly efficient & professional Mr Tiede at Senate Estimates, from 06:40 here: 

Certainly sounds like Mr Tiede might know where the odd skeleton is buried over at ASA HQ -

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...Ck22M1h.99

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Another giant headed mutant resigns....

Well Fort Fumble Brisbane is looking for a new regional manager, Fanta Pants has pulled the pin.

The Skull brought Fanta Pants into CAsA, and he always felt he was entitled to more than he was given (even though it was a plum role and good coin). An interesting replacement for that little rodent Peter Johns. Anyway, Herr Fanta Pants was very very disgruntled when Eight Ball Campbell of FNQ fame jagged Hoodlum's old job. The giant headed Ranga felt that he should've been gifted the position. He never really recovered from that.

Oh well too bad so sad. Perhaps Fanta Pants has finally accepted the loss of Herr Skull from CASA and finally feels exposed? Who knows and who gives a shit. Fanta will probably end up at CX with the angry man on $400k working the SIM.

So Fanta Pants, as your chapter closes at Fort Fumble we humbly request that you quickly leave the building and DONT BANG THE EFFING DOOR ON THE WAY OUT!

P_666

[Peetwo]

The LMH is a doozy this week - Cheers Hitch

Via Oz Flying off the Yaffa:

The Last Minute Hitch: 28 October 2016
28 October 2016

The general aviation community could be excused for hearing the sound of Sonny and Cher's I Got You, Babe going around in their heads. It was the song that Bill Murray's time-beaten character wakes up to every morning in the movie Groundhog Day that tells him nothing has changed and he has to do everything again. Right now that's the predicament that GA finds itself in with the announcement today of a study into the state of the industry. We went through all of this with Anthony Albanese in 2009, which resulted in the pulp fiction they called the Aviation White Paper. All the data and industry input should still be with the department, yet here we are doing another study. The data from that study was good, it just got put to bad use. Add to that the Aviation Safety Regulation Review, the TAAAF policy and Project Eureka and the federal government already has in their hands pretty much everything they need to know to throw GA a lifeline.

..We went through all of this with Anthony Albanese in 2009, which resulted in the pulp fiction they called the Aviation White Paper...

And there's another worry; a problem that has plagued aviation in Australia for years: how do you define what is and isn't "general aviation"? According to most authorities, GA is anything that isn't regular public transport or military. That definition is too wide because it captures recreational aviation, and BITRE has a history of folding RAAus activity in with GA, which inevitably shows growth in GA when you do it that way. By all means have a look at recreational aviation, but report the data separately from VH-registered GA and plan accordingly.

However, you have to applaud the General Aviation Action Group being used as a reference for BITRE. Hopefully they will be able to keep the study on the straight-and-level and help produce a result that finally convinces the government that action is the only answer. And we, the GA community, need to leap unto the breach once more and give BITRE all the feedback they need to get a decent job done.

To our generation has fallen the lot of watching the last of the great aviation pioneers move on. Those who stretched the limits of the airframes and themselves as aviation began to flourish after WWII are reaching the end of their lives. This week, one of the truly great ones, Bob Hoover, died at the age of 94. It is to the like of Hoover that we owe the aviation environment in which we live and work today. In short, pilots like Hoover went to the edge of danger so pilots like us would never have to. He and his colleagues didn't push envelopes, they created new ones. But Hoover was more than a pilot; he was a great philosopher of aviation. When he spoke, people listened and people learnt. You get the feeling that teaching was inherent in the nature of the man. It is a pity many of us will remember Bob only for his entertainment value, swooping through the skies in a Shrike Commander with the engines shut down and not coming within an inch of disaster. Yes, Bob Hoover entertained, but it really was education in disguise. Vale, Bob Hoover. Well flown, Sir.

AOPA has extracted a promise from First State Super to sit down and parley over the future of Bankstown. This is a great win to get even this far, as attempts to talk reason with the lease-holder BAC Holdco haven't produced any concrete improvements thus far. AOPA has gone to the top; First State is a co-owner of BAC Holdco and bought the company no doubt for its investment potential. They'll be looking for solid returns, and somehow AOPA is going to have to convince them that general aviation is a good investment. Yes, there are certain things they are required to do as a minimum under the terms of the lease, but so much energy and potential has been lost from BK that maintaining the minimum probably isn't going to be enough anymore. AOPA's task is a tough one, but the current management has shown they aren't afraid of taking up the cudgels when needed, despite the size and power of their opponent.

As I write this, a powerful cold front is storming into Tasmania from the west. It's going to bring snow to the high country and Mount Wellington, low cloud, rain and severe turbulence. Guess where our annual aero club fly-away is headed? Straight into all of that! To get a better idea of what we were going to be playing against, I rang the aviation met office and asked for an expanded idea beyond the public forecasts that you get on the news. There is a specific number to ring, which you'll find on the bottom of your latest ARFOR, and they'll give you the good (or bad) oil straight up in aviation sense about the weather beyond the validity of the current ARFORs and TAFs. It's a great service that we should all use more often if there's any question over the weather. It could, literally, be a life-saver ... especially if you're thinking of flying around Tassie this weekend.

May your gauges always be in the green,

Hitch

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...vtrhVLB.99

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

That boy Bingers on the ball again.....

CASA finally clears pilot medical backlog:

"The aviation regulator has cleared a massive logjam in its online medical portal that was putting hundreds of pilots at risk of being grounded due to delays in getting their medical certificates".

More of Bingers winsome words to be read here;

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business...cb8e392f6a

Perhaps that's what was happening at Tamworth; Chester and Barmybaby were at the piss trough not comparing willy sizes, they were providing piss tests for their AVMED medicals? Just a thought.

[Peetwo]

"CASA Wars - Attack of the Drones", a George Lucas production coming soon to some airspace near you.

Is it just me or does it seem odd that CAsA, an organisation that claims to be solely in existence to ensure that the 'fare paying public' remains safe at all times, would allow a set of rules and regulations to come into effect that actually endanger the fare paying public? Surely somebody else out there in Australia is musing over this perplexing issue and asking the same question? No?

Oh of course, that's right, I forgot. Because CAsA are years behind the technology and are quite simply not capable of handling the issue they just put their hands in the air and say 'it's too big for us, just go for it boys'. And as I said, it won't affect the Guv'mint because those shysters will change the laws (always remember folks that the game is rigged, and it's not rigged by us) and make sure that no financial liability in the event that something terrible goes down can be compensatable by the Guv'mint. Remember, they the Guv'mint take money not give out money.

The entire situation is bullshit. CAsA know it, the government knows it, security experts know it and the airlines and drone rogues know it. CAsA, the supposed font of all aviation knowledge, the supposed champion and world leader in safety, CAsA the regulatory body filled with geriatrics, has-beens and rejects who haven't experienced a day in decades outside of their sheltered workshop and Wonderland apparently know best!

CAsA, Skidmore, Aleck, Carmody, old mother Hubbard and the Bin Laden family are all about as useful as a punctured blowup doll. This Drone saga will continue to play out until it all ends in tears, you mark my words.

TICK TOCK Barnaby piss boy TICK TOCK 'Darren of the immaculate'!

Latest on CASA CASR 101 UAV issues -  

Pinocchio Gobson gets his snag in a knot...

Read how PG tries desperately to spin the light fantastic and get the RPA/UAV genie back in the bottle..

Via Junkee:

An Aussie Hero Is Facing A Huge Fine For Using A Drone To Order A Bunnings Sausage
By Matilda Dixon-Smith, 9/11/2016

Let’s talk about our justice system, folks. Specifically: what is happening to the world if a bonafide Aussie Legend is fined $9,000 just for being the first genius to collect a Bunnings sausage using a drone instead of his own two feet? Has the world gone mad?

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is investigating after a video was uploaded to YouTube of a man piloting a drone from his home to the Sunbury Bunnings carpark to pick up a sanga from the weekend sausage sizzle. The CASA has said the drone trip violates a bunch of drone regulations, including use out of line of sight and use over a populated area.

CASA spokesperson Peter Gibson has said the drone can be seen in the video (which has since been deleted from YouTube) travelling over a housing estate, over a four-lane road and then hovering over the sausage sizzle. “You can clearly see people walking to and from their cars,” he told The Age. “You can clearly see people around the sausage sizzle.”

In an anonymous interview with tech mag EFTM, the drone operator defended the video, saying, “we shot it in parts, never going over homes or people”. The operator also claimed to have permission from those running the sausage sizzle.

The Bunnings sausage is, of course, an age-old Australian tradition. It’s at least as sacred as the Democracy Sausage on election day. So vital to Australian life is the Bunnings sausage that there is an entire Facebook page of memes devoted to it: the disturbingly entertaining Bunnings Memes. The page has just responded to the news, calling it “fucking bullshit”. “$9000 snag probably worth it though.”

Know this: we love a sausage, with onion and sauce, in white bread. We love it a whole lot.

Let’s be honest for a second here: would you like a Bunnings snag delivered to you via drone while you sit in a hot tub in your backyard? Yes. Of course you would. However, take this as a hefty warning: despite claims they did nothing wrong, the drone operator now faces a fine of $9,000 for the illegal flight.

That’s a heck of a lot of dosh to lay down for a Woolies sausage in bread.
–

Read more at http://junkee.com/aussie-hero-facing-hug...3Oro8qQ.99

Hmm...maybe there's a reason the USA's FAA are a little more conservative on the oversight & regulation of RPA/UAVs with the 'Rise of the Drones'...

With opportunity comes liability

Perhaps the following Legal eagle blogpiece (via Mondaq) will help explain - or not??  :

Australia: Rise of the drones: Opportunity and liability for businesses
Last Updated: 8 November 2016
Norton Rose Fulbright Australia

Introduction
In April 2016 CNN reported that a drone hit a British Airways aircraft as it was preparing to land at Heathrow Airport. A quick search of the internet will reveal that incidents involving the risky use of drones occur almost daily. It is no surprise then, that the use of drones is regulated around the world. Australia was the first country to regulate the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), now referred to as Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPAs) or more commonly, drones in 2002. The use of drones is now overseen by legislatures around the world, and there is some regulation at an international level. This article is written from an Australian perspective, however the basic principles – regulation by a state safety authority and overlapping liability under the general law – are in place in many jurisdictions.

Opportunity
Since 2002, the technological development of drones has rapidly accelerated and businesses continuously find new innovative ways for their use. Drones are used in various industries for many purposes, such as monitoring, the inspection of infrastructure, delivery of goods and photography. The possibility of unmanned cargo freighters is also being explored, with the online Platform Unmanned Cargo Aircraft founded in 2011 and currently chaired by Dr. Hans Heerkens of the University of Twente, Netherlands. Legalflyer has also reported on the potential in this space. Recent Goldman Sachs research has valued global drone sales for commercial purposes at $20 billion per year. Legislating for the regulation of drones is far from simple and it has been suggested by Lev Grossman in Time that UAVs are evolving faster than "our ability to understand how, legally and ethically, to use them".

Recent amendments in Australia and the United States
That being said, the issue for aviation regulators around the world is becoming the balance between ensuring safety and preventing overregulation of an industry that is so full of commercial potential. For example, in Australia amendments have just commenced that significantly deregulate the use of RPAs commercially. The use of drones under 2 kilograms for hire or reward no longer requires any licence – notice must simply be given to the regulator of that use. Further, drones weighing from 2 kilograms to 25 kilograms can now be used by or on behalf of the owner of the drone, on land owned by the drone's owner without any qualification or license. This use is restricted to purposes listed in the legislation – or those similar – which include aerial spotting, aerial photography, agricultural operations, aerial communications retransmission and the carriage of cargo. Underlying the legislative regime in Australia are standards of operations which apply to all usage of drones, including operating the drone within the visual line of sight of the operator, operating height and not flying within 30 meters of a person. Prior to the new amendments, operating drones up to 25 kilograms in such circumstances – and using any sized drone for hire or reward – required certifications similar to that of a pilot's licence.

This creates immense opportunity for businesses in Australia to use drones as part of their everyday operations. More information concerning the regulation of drones in Australia can be found in Part 101 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 or the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA) website.

The United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has also recently introduced regulatory amendments for the operation of drones weighing up to 25 kilograms (55 pounds) for commercial purposes. The 'Small Unmanned Aircraft Rule' contemplates commercial use beyond private property, but the Rule requires the pilot to hold a 'remote pilot airman certificate' or be under the direct supervision of someone who does. Acquiring a licence requires a knowledge test or holding another type of pilot certificate for a certain amount of time, along with other requirements and obligations to the FAA.

Please see the FAA's website for further information. Underlying these recent amendments and the regulation of the use of RPAs around the world is the work of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). ICAO's role in this space is to provide strategic guidance to countries globally and serve as a focal point for global harmonization. ICAO has issued two guidance documents and in 2012, amended Annex 2 through introducing Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) relating to the use of drones. Further, and more extensive, SARPs regarding drones are expected in 2018. These SARPs are intended to guide member states in setting their own regulations on a national level.

Other sources of regulation and liability
While regulators around the world may be reducing the obligations and restrictions they impose on drone operators, the fact is that businesses choosing to utilise drones will face statutory duties that mandate the safe operation of any RPA, far broader than any that could be imposed by a national regulator. Many legislative regimes and common law principles step in to regulate operation of RPAs – the communications and media regulatory framework, manufacturing standards, operational health and safety legislation, privacy law, and a considerable potential for damage to person and property. The consequences of failing to comply include significant terms of imprisonment, large fines and a successful claim for damages. There is also potential for directors of a company to be held personally liable. An example of how liability might arise is that the remote operation of drones is effected through the radio frequency spectrum. Radio frequency spectrums are regulated by governments around the world and operating the drone in the correct frequency is imperative, as failing to do so may attract heavy penalties and interfere with vital services. Adding another layer of complexity is the process and consideration of obtaining insurance coverage for the use of drones.

Protecting your interests
With the rapid increase in the use of drones, another cause for consideration is the rights of individuals and business against drones intruding upon property or privacy are uncertain and indeed, limited. While an act of trespass is not restricted to the surface of the land, it does not 'extend to the heavens'. For example in the United Kingdom case of Bernstein v Skyviews& General Ltd [1978] QB 479, an aircraft flying over a property and taking a photograph was not trespass. In Australia, there is limited legislative recourse, with the privacy legislation having restricted application and the tort of invasion of privacy having not developed. The vulnerability of drones to cyber-attacks must also be considered.

Conclusion
While there may be less red tape, which certainly presents an opportunity, those looking to establish the use of drones within their own businesses are still subject to many important responsibilities. Legal expertise in navigating this emerging space and mitigating risk requires experience across broad practice areas and is essential for any business looking to take advantage of this new technology. In this field, with opportunity comes liability

Ahh...its a happy Lawyers picnic...

MTF...P2