[Peetwo]

 Xmas Entertainment: The Comardy hour followed by charades -   

To follow on from the P9 -  - sympathies for CASA on UAV/RPAs, perhaps the following Oz article highlights how we have only just breeched the tip of the iceberg when it come to drones:

Online shoppers need drones: Domino's boss

• Petrina Berry
  
• Australian Associated Press
  
• 10:02PM December 22, 2016
  

Domino's Pizza boss Don Meij says an impending surge in online shopping means Australia soon won't have enough delivery drivers to keep up with demand and drones - just like the ones his own company is trialling - are the inevitable answer.

Mr Meij, who runs one of the country's busiest and most tech-savvy delivery services, says the need for drone deliveries will only increase when online retail giant Amazon arrives in Australia next year.

Amazon is widely expected to launch its general merchandise and fresh food e-commerce business, starting with Melbourne, in September next year.

Mr Meij says Amazon's arrival will drive even greater uptake of online shopping in Australia, fuelling the need for autonomous drone deliveries - a service being trialled by big players such as Amazon, Google and Australia Post as well as Domino's.
"(Amazon) will be very good for Australia," Mr Meij told AAP.

"It will lift the profile of online shopping: more and more consumers will want to buy online and have it delivered to their home or office.

"It would absolutely drive demand for drones. There won't be enough humans to deliver items that people want to buy on the net."

Mr Meij said Domino's could face a shortage of delivery drivers within two years in Australia and New Zealand as more customers order via mobile app or website.

That change is part of the motivation for the company's trial of deliveries in New Zealand with drone maker Flirtey.

The service uses autonomous drones loaded with destination coordinates - as opposed to remote-controlled units - to fly pizzas from store to customer.

When it reaches the destination, the pizza box is lowered by cable while hovering 30 metres above ground - in line with Australian regulations that prohibit drones from coming within 30 metres of a person.

The drone is monitored remotely by a person and Domino's plans to eventually have one person overseeing a small number of drones.

The trial is ongoing and Mr Meij said he hopes to have a number of Domino's NZ stores making daily drone deliveries by the end of 2017.

He said safety, privacy and job loss fears around the commercialisation of drones were unwarranted.

"The safest place on the planet is between 150 feet and 400 feet above the ground - above 400 feet you've got helicopters and planes and on the ground you have all sorts of obstacles: people, cars and dogs," he said.

"We are not proposing to have drones near an airport or high rises."

Mr Meij also said cameras fitted to drones act like security cameras in stores and would not invade people's privacy.

"The content would only be looked at if there were any safety concerns and it's all coded and secure, like any data collected," he said.

"And if these drones ever fail they have parachutes onboard so they float to the ground."

He said drones would move jobs upstream, creating a need for people to build, repair, monitor and manage drones.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) spokesman Peter Gibson said drones were some time away from being able to safely deliver parcels in bustling cities.

"No one has a drone today that is reliable enough and clever enough, to fly autonomously from any shop, through city streets and to a home to drop a parcel off," he said.

"There's lot of technology challenges to be addressed but I'm not suggesting they won't be solved.

"There are plenty of companies doing trials and the regulations will have to keep up with the technology breakthroughs as they happen."

A Senate inquiry into remotely piloted aircraft systems is currently looking at retailers' use of drones and Domino's is among the organisations to have made a submission.

 
"K" said: You could and perhaps should, actually treat the whole situation as one of ‘public safety’, rather than purely a matter of ‘air safety’.

Personally I agree there has to be a delineation between 'air' & 'public' safety, which means drawing a line in the sky on where the Feds give way to State and local laws. Perhaps these issues will be examined in the course of the Senate inquiry...

Moving on and back to this intriguing "K" catch: 

61. One of the important ways in which CASA is empowered to conduct the safety regulation of Australian civil air operations is by ‘developing effective enforcement strategies to secure compliance with aviation safety standards’61.

62. CASA’s approach to enforcement is set out in its Enforcement Manual, which has been amended to better reflect the principles of CASA’s Regulatory Philosophy.62 In exercising its enforcement powers, the Enforcement Manual provides:

Okay just a quick check back to the latest version of the CASA EM - see HERE - still lists version 4.4 from January 2016 as the current amendment.

Now although that version did incorporate the supposedly newly adopted CASA Regulatory Philosophy...

2.4 CASA’s Enforcement Policy – High-Level Principles
 
In his Statement of Expectations for the CASA Board for the period 16 April 2015 to 30 June 2017, the Minister for Infrastructure and Regional Development re-emphasised the Government’s continuing focus on aviation safety as the highest priority, subject to a range of corollary considerations.

Further to the Minister’s Statement, in September 2015 CASA published its Regulatory Philosophy to guide and direct CASA’s approach to the performance of its regulatory functions and the exercise of its regulatory powers. The ten principles that comprise CASA’s Regulatory Philosophy are set out below...

...The policy set out in this Manual describes the way CASA uses its enforcement-related powers to regulate in a manner consistent with CASA’s Regulatory Philosophy, the Minister’s expectations and broader Government policy. While all of the principles of the Regulatory Philosophy are applicable to CASA’s actions, those set out below are highlighted in the specific context of this Manual.

    
...as was highlighted in the AP embuggerance thread - Attempted embuggerance & a Leopard's spots - & Ah yes; I remember it well....

..Until such time as all references to E&CC, plus the McCormick black-letter rule of embuggerance are erased from all CASA records, including the Director's preface of the Enforcement (embuggerance) manual the disbanding of the E&CC is merely an empty token gesture designed to once again temporarily placate an aggrieved industry..

..the above quoted section of the CASA submission (61 & 62), is really just a smoke'n'mirrors charade covering up the fact that CASA has had, under Skidmore and now Comardy, absolutely no intention of reforming itself or restoring trust (as per the Forsyth review)...

To put that into context with CASA UAV/RPA enforcement, this leaves the door open for black letter law embuggerance by any less than honest, sociopathic CASA Officer (FOI/AWI/Investigator). An unscrupulous individual that may just have a discriminatory dislike for a UAV operator, who has possibly contravened some overly prescriptive and impossible to define regulation (for example read: Bellamy and  Civil Aviation Safety Authority  [2016] AATA 956 29 November 2016).

Meanwhile the true cowboys of the industry, on becoming aware of this double-standard, will go underground and proceed to covertly operate illegally and with little chance of being busted by a completely disengaged, law unto themselves big "R" regulator -

Update 23/12/2016: Now 69 submissions - WOW!

21 Civil Air Operations Officers Association of Australia (PDF 145 KB) 

22 Maurice Blackburn Lawyers (PDF 2941 KB) 

23 Helistar Aviation (PDF 578 KB) 

24 Thiess Pty Ltd (PDF 225 KB) 

25 Air Sport Australia Confederation (PDF 2315 KB) 

26 Mr Jason Tepper (PDF 201 KB) 

27 Department of the Environment and Energy (PDF 681 KB) 

28 Parrot ANZ Pty Ltd (PDF 219 KB) 

29 Airservices Australia (PDF 1783 KB) 

30 Australia Post (PDF 220 KB) 

31 Intel (PDF 378 KB) 

32 Australian Pork (PDF 110 KB)

33 National Farmers' Federation (PDF 298 KB) 

34 Qantas Group (PDF 275 KB) 

35 Australasian Fire & Emergency Service Authorities Council and National Aerial Firefighting Centre (PDF 180 KB) 

36 Telstra Corporation (PDF 190 KB) 

37 Australian Industry Group (PDF 611 KB) 

38 Victorian Farmers Federation (PDF 322 KB) 

39 Australian Airline Pilots' Association (PDF 79 KB) 

40 Domino's Pizza Enterprises Ltd (PDF 611 KB) 

41 Aeroeye (PDF 523 KB) 

42 JT Aviation Consulting Pty Ltd (PDF 166 KB) 

43 Unmanned Research Aircraft Facility, University of Adelaide (PDF 87 KB) 

44 Department of Defence (PDF 35 KB) 

45 NSW Farmers (PDF 326 KB) 

46 Australian Association for Unmanned Systems (PDF 510 KB) 

47 CanberraUAV (PDF 140 KB) 

48 NSW Ambulance (PDF 526 KB) 

49 Aerial Application Association of Australia Ltd (PDF 152 KB) 

50 Model Aeronautical Association of Australia (PDF 1068 KB) 

51 Mr Ashley Fairfield (PDF 115 KB) 

52 Mr Chris Bird (PDF 608 KB) 

53 Mr Graham Giles (PDF 111 KB) 

54 RelmaTech Ltd (PDF 658 KB) 

55 Mr Ged Griffin (PDF 49 KB)  Attachment 1 (PDF 547 KB) 

56 Institute of Public Affairs (PDF 294 KB)  Attachment 1 (PDF 1645 KB) 

57 Australian Strategic Air Traffic Management Group (PDF 291 KB) 

58 Regional Aviation Association of Australia (PDF 436 KB) 

59 Insurance Council of Australia (PDF 96 KB) 

60 DJI (PDF 80 KB) 

61 CSIRO (PDF 416 KB) 

62 Australian Transport Safety Bureau (PDF 2159 KB) 

63 Drone Solutions Pty Ltd (PDF 547 KB) 

64 QBE (PDF 316 KB)

65 Piper Alderman (PDF 42 KB) 

66 UAS International (PDF 66 KB) 

67 Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services (PDF 11005 KB) 

68 Asia-Pacific RPAS Consortium (PDF 563 KB) 

69 NSW Government (PDF 319 KB) 

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

CASA on drones - All care no responsibility.

Over on DDDD_MNFI's thread P7 said:

I don’t expect many of the CASA crew in the ‘drone’ department have noticed it, but the UK CAA have had a very clever UAV ‘operational’ awareness campaign running up the Christmas break, anticipating the increase in ‘traffic’. The information presented is easily understood and well distributed. The part I really like is the clever idea to run a photographic competition, pictures taken by UAV from 400 feet. What a proactive, sensible approach. Bravo UK CAA.

Meanwhile, in Australia, where, provided you don’t live too close to an airport, you can still drink the water; what do we get – pages of dribble about drone pizza delivery. What a load of old bollocks. In the first place, particularly around built up areas, as any chopper pilot will tell you, the wind shear and mechanical turbulence even in light wind conditions can be lethal.  It takes a great deal of skill to ‘operate’ at low level. Now this pizza delivery service want to start using ‘self guided’ drones to deliver their dreadful product - at the end of a 30 meter ‘rope’. It is a silly idea, but, IMO, even sillier are those who take a publicity stunt seriously and even respond in the press. Automatic, self guiding drones doing sling loads on GPS, in all weather conditions – Bwah hah hah.

UK CAA sane proactivity starkly contrasts the moronic, half baked CASA do nuthin approach.

Minister, the help you need is not available from CASA; get some before there is an incident.

Fantasy v reality:

40 Domino's Pizza Enterprises Ltd (PDF 611 KB) 

Note the alarming disconnection and false assumptions in the following Domino's submission quote - UDB :

...For commercial users, we have every expectation a regulatory system will allow for the unique nature of drone deliveries, specifically their low cost and low risk nature, owing to the short distances and low altitudes of standard flights. The existing regulations, particularly the requirement to conduct flights within line of sight, and associated requirements regarding the lodgement of flight plans, were understandable given the technology and safety environment in which they were established. However, Domino’s submits these rules will require careful examination, and relaxation, should commercial drone deliveries be viable in this country...

 
Now compare that to the AAAA submission - see HERE.  Without a doubt the AAAA are representing the most at risk sector of the industry from unregulated recreational or poorly regulated commercial UAV/RPA use:

..The members’ operations require them to work at low level - often a few metres above a crop or higher when sowing, fertilising or firebombing. Almost all operations will be conducted below 400’ - creating a direct conflict with drone use in the same airspace...

  
Therefore this is one submission the good Senators should particularly take note of for a 'real world' purview of the safety risks and possible recommendations for mitigating these risks:

..AAAA believes that the key risk that CASA has failed to address is separation between legitimate and legal low level airspace users and drones.

Airspace users affected include aircraft used for aerial application, survey, mustering, pest control, slinging, fire observation, emergency rescue and other aerial work activities.

In addition, all other aircraft approaching, landing, taking off and departing from private, agricultural or other airstrips are not protected by current laws.

In addressing this primary risk of a breakdown of separation - which AAAA has raised with CASA many times - it would not be unreasonable to expect CASA to have established a real time system of communication between drone users and existing low-level airspace users to allow them to make local arrangements for adequate self-separation.

No such communication system is in place and consequently this primary risk remains unmitigated.

AAAA believes that the current CASA approach of deregulating drones up to 2 kg generally and up to 25 kg when used on farm - without a commensurate system to facilitate notification and communication - is fundamentally flawed from an aviation safety perspective.

It is not the low kinetic energy of the drone that is at issue - it is the kinetic energy of the low level aircraft weighing several tonnes, travelling at approximately 250 km/h and with a vulnerable pilot at the controls protected by a thin sheet of Perspex and powered by an engine that would be highly likely to fail should a drone be ingested or hit a control surface. The consequence of such an event could be significant, especially for the pilot.

Again, AAAA has raised these issues with CASA and been consistently ignored, as demonstrated by the current regulations that ignore this very real risk.
A number of safety reports made to ATSB involving conflict between drones and other aircraft clearly demonstrate that this risk is not theoretical and not able to be managed given the current lack of a coherent notification/communication system.

There are many examples of GIS based apps that already perform this type of function in other areas. One example is the BeeConnected app - http://beeconnected.org.au/ - developed by Croplife and the Australian Honey Bee Council and of which AAAA is a strong supporter. This app allows spray contractors and apiarists to work together to manage a range of risks and is based on the principles of notification and communication.

The technology is obviously available and being successfully used in other sectors.

CASA - or the management of AirServices - has simply not considered the potential of such an approach to improve safety in this area. GIS technology combined with smart phones or other devices would lend itself to improving safety across a wide range of low level airspace issues.

This could include, for example, better and more timely notification of wind monitoring towers, wind farms, radio towers, powerline marking etc - information that is critical to low-level aviation but which is simply not made available through existing charts in a timely manner for operations that are highly seasonal, highly mobile and require constant variation and rescheduling due to weather and other operational considerations.

Clearly, such an approach would be a win-win scenario for drone operators, low-level operators, the regulator CASA and the airspace service provider AirServices - but unfortunately appears to be beyond the imagination or knowledge of those determining current drone regulations and responses to the clear primary risk of separation....

---

Regulation of commercial drone operations - Commercial drone operations should be required to have systems of management that provide a commensurate level of safety as all other commercial aviation operators.

AAAA supports the following regime for all drones used in a commercial setting to ensure systems are in place to manage the relevant challenges including safety:

• All business owners must operate under the requirements of an AOC or similar and be licensed by the Dept in charge at the State/Territory level for chemical control of use purposes if involved with application of agricultural chemicals.
  
• All business owners must comply with the full requirements of an operations manual.All operations manuals must detail how the operation will manage the risk of airspace sharing, especially with aerial application and other low level users.
  
• All business owners must have operational control of their personnel.
  
• All drone operators must be competent and licensed by CASA and the Dept in charge at the State/Territory for chemical control of use if involved with application of agricultural chemicals.
  
• All drone businesses and operators must comply with similar competence requirements for all other commercial aviation businesses conducting similar operations.
  

Much, much MTF...P2

[Cap'n Wannabe]

On the subject of drones, I came across this Popular Mechanics article about what *really* happens when drone meets aircraft.
I always figured they'd be nothing like birds..

[Peetwo]

On the subject of drones, I came across this Popular Mechanics article about what *really* happens when drone meets aircraft.
I always figured they'd be nothing like birds..

Drones strikes are not like bird strikes—they're much, much worse.
[/url]
GIF

Author Copy Created with Sketch.    

By David Hambling
Dec 22, 2016

The skies are getting crowded.

The FAA says that reports of near-misses between drones and planes have surged since 2014, with as many as 650 cases as of August 2016. Last month an airliner narrowly avoided hitting a drone near London's tallest skyscraper. Dubai airport has been repeatedly shut down by drone activity, and low-flying drones are increasingly disrupting firefighting aircraft in the western U.S.

Sooner or later, those near-messes are going to become hits. So experts from the U.S. and U.K. are recreating these deadly scenarios before they wreck real-world consequences, hoping to nip this 21st century problem in the bud. New studies by the FAA and its European counterpart, the EASA, are looking at computer simulations and running physical tests to understand the problem and prevent disaster.

Mechanical Geese From Hell

What actually happens when an aircraft runs into drone? While some continue to believe drones are no more of a danger than one stray goose, new studies are showing that drones are more like mechanical geese from hell when it comes to commercial and low-altitude helicopters.

"Impacts from drones are not the same as impact of birds," says Javid Bayandor, associate professor and director of the Crashworthiness for Aerospace Structures and Hybrids (CRASH) Lab at Virginia Tech.

Drones are more like mechanical geese from hell when it comes to commercial and low-altitude helicopters.

Bayandor's simulations show exactly what happens when drones and birds meet a choppy death by jet engine. An airliner's engine would dice up the smallest commercial drones without much of a problem. But as these mechanical birds grow bigger, things get more dangerous.

Drones are made of materials much denser and stiffer than soft tissues and muscles of geese and other airborne animals. Simulations show that when a bird goes into an engine, it's essentially liquidized by spinning blades, like a macabre episode of "Will It Blend." Not so with a drone.

"Birds can disintegrate relatively easily...you get something like a very viscous bulk of fluid on the other side" says Bayandor. "A drone can be like a rock going through the engine."

That can mean immediate damage, leaving an engine blade deformed, broken, or completely fragmented, as shown in the above animation. Even where there is no initial damage, the sheer momentum of a larger drone can cause the engine to become unbalanced. This unbalance can escalate, and the blades may start hitting the casing that contains them. The engine ricochets back and forth inside its casing and the damage grows into a real problem.

Luckily, engines are designed to withstand some damage from stray objects, and the high-speed fragments thrown out by such events would likely be contained within the engine. "In general, the casing is designed so that it can also act as a shield between fuselage and engine," says Bayandor.

However this protection is not a given. Modern engines are not designed to gobble up drones, and models have already shown some unexpected results, such as the dramatic difference that the location and angle of impact can make.
But it's not just engines we need to worry about.

Break on Through

Across the Atlantic at Cranfield University in the U.K., Professor Ian Horsfall spends a lot of time "throwing things at other things" using different kinds of exotic cannons. He leads the Impact and Armor Group, and recently began simulating the aerial battle of drones versus aircraft.

• 
  

Impact and Armor Group testing facility at Cranfield University with specialized cannon, left, and mock nose cone.
Cranfield University

To test a drone impact with an airliner during take-off or landing—the most likely times for such a disaster, since it's when planes are closest to the ground—Horsfall developed a 4-inch-caliber cannon with a ten-foot barrel, powered by compressed air and capable of firing projectiles at 200 mph. While some other tests fired real dead birds–leading to an aviation urban myth all its own–Horsfall's project used blocks of gelatin as stand-ins, like the ballistic gelatin used to test the effect of gunshots on flesh.

To simulate drone impact, Horsfall created a projectile which mimics the physical properties of a drone, with components of the same size and weight (as seen in the top GIF). There are four grape-sized steel cylinders instead of motors, nylon blocks standing in for circuit boards, a camera, and drone batteries. These components were then encased in a Styrofoam block to recreate the similar weight and structure of an average commercial drone.

Tests showed that mock drones won't damage an airliner's windshield. However, the radome, the circular cover over the radar at the aircraft's nose, isn't so lucky. While simulated birds of the same weight just bounce off, a drone can become embedded or even tear right through the radome. It is the hardness of some of the components rather than the weight that matters.

Fire Danger

• 
  

Cranfield University

The other big issue is a battery's annoying tendency to burst into flames when damaged. To recreate this effect, Horsfall used a gun designed to fired a chisel blade at a drone battery. After a few seconds the damaged battery heated up and soon started burning fiercely. If the battery was lodged inside a radome or embedded in a plane, a fire could be the catastrophic icing on a tragic cake.

While most attention remains focused on airliners, thanks to the dramatic near-misses at the airport, other aircraft are in greater danger of drone strikes. Horsfall says helicopters and light aircraft have far more to fear from drones because their windshields are not as strong and are more likely to be flying at the same altitude as drones, especially when fighting fires. While airliner windshields are unlikely to be broken by bird impact, there have been cases where helicopters have been lost because of a run-in with a flock of geese. Drones will only make matters worse.

• 
  

Aftermath of a 200mph drone strike.
Cranfield University

Bayandor and his CRASH Team will be presenting two papers giving the full results of their research – including a detailed study based on their review of a hundred and fifty different types of commercial drones – at the [url=https://www.aiaa.org/EventsLanding.aspx?id=79]AIAA in January. Meanwhile, Horsfall is planning to upgrade his laboratory set-up, including a dedicated range for testing drone and bird strikes full time.

Many new measures, such as flight regulations, restrictions on drones, and sense-and-avoid systems are needed to ensure safety of shared airspace. But accidents will happen, and Bayandor says that drone impacts will need to be a part of future engine design, just like bird and hail strikes.

"Drones are here to stay," says Bayandor. "This is just the beginning."

Excellent catch Wannabe, choc frog is in the mail...

A rather more 'independent' approach to UAV/RPA safety issue research, than that of CASA with their fully funded interned boffin's reports - see Drone deaf and bone idle. - which they apparently based their whole 'safety case' for the amended CASR Part 101..
 
Reference CASA submission pg 8 & 9:

The Part 101 amendments consultation process

38. CASA consulted with the public and industry on the amendments that are now in effect between 14 May 2014 and 16 June 2014. Revisions to the draft regulations were endorsed by the UAS Standards Sub-committee (UASSC), which includes representatives from the RPAS industry as well as CASA, Airservices Australia and major Australian airlines.50 In developing the amendments to Part 101, CASA commissioned two research studies by Monash University—

(a) Potential damage assessment of a mid-air collision with a small UAV.51 This report analysed the damage potential to manned aircraft from a mid-air collision with a small unmanned aircraft. The scenarios of engine ingestion and impacts into fuselage and cockpit windscreen were considered.

(b) Human injury model for small unmanned aircraft impacts.52 This report described an injury prediction model for the impact of small Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) into a person on the ground. The model provides estimates of injury severity as a function of the RPA’s mass and impact velocity.

39. CASA took studies such as these into account in developing the amendment regulations including the Standard RPA Operating Conditions. CASA considers the regulations, supported by published guidance and safety educational material, assist in minimising the likelihood of a person or another aircraft being hit by an unmanned aircraft.

---

51 https://www.casa.gov.au/files/potential-...all-rpapdf

52 https://www.casa.gov.au/files/human-inju...impactspdf

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Fantastic article and great research by the Cranfield crew. It's just a pity that the inept, incompetent and incapable CAsA won't have their eye on the ball when it comes to this issue as they are always 10 years behind the rest of the world!

And shhhhhh, don't tell Hoody about this study, he will be thinking that Drone impact upon aircraft is just a 'light touch', a 'gentle caress'.

TICK TOCK

[Peetwo]

Hoodlum disassociates the ATSB from drones -

Fantastic article and great research by the Cranfield crew. It's just a pity that the inept, incompetent and incapable CAsA won't have their eye on the ball when it comes to this issue as they are always 10 years behind the rest of the world!

And shhhhhh, don't tell Hoody about this study, he will be thinking that Drone impact upon aircraft is just a 'light touch', a 'gentle caress'.

TICK TOCK

To late mate, Hoody already has his head up his own proverbial. Here he is in his own words courtesy of the ATSB submission... :

ATSB investigation of RPAS accidents and incidents

The ATSB is currently resourced to investigate around 140 aviation accidents and incidents per year from about 5,500 occurrences reported.

In determining which occurrences to investigate, in accordance with section 12AE of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (the TSI Act), the ATSB must have regard to the Government’s strategic direction set out in the Minister’s Statement of Expectations, including “to give priority to transport safety investigations that have the potential to deliver the best safety outcomes for the travelling public.”

As Australia is a member of the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the ATSB must also take into account its international obligations. Standards and recommendations from Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Aircraft accident and incident investigation) specify:

5.1 The State of Occurrence shall institute an investigation into the circumstances of the accident and be responsible for the conduct of the investigation.

5.1.1 Recommendation. The State of Occurrence should institute an investigation into the circumstances of a serious incident.

5.1.2 The State of Occurrence shall institute an investigation into the circumstances of a serious incident when the aircraft is of a maximum mass of over 2 250 kg.
Note 3: In the case of investigation of an unmanned aircraft system, only aircraft with a design and/or operational approval are to be considered.

In Australia’s context, Note 3 would require investigation of all accidents where the remotely piloted aircraft was either above 2 kg or operated under CASA approval.
Australia has lodged exceptions with ICAO for Annex 13 standards 5.1 and 5.1.2 as historically, the ATSB has not had sufficient resources to investigate all accidents and serious incidents.

The ATSB can only investigate transport safety matters as defined by Section 23 of the TSI Act. These matters include accidents and incidents, as well as “something that occurred that affected, is affecting, or might affect, transport safety”.
As a result, the ATSB has published its investigation priority policy as follows:

1. Passenger transport—large aircraft
2. Passenger transport—small aircraft
3. Commercial (fare paying) recreation (for example, joy flights)
4. Aerial work with participating passengers (for example, news reporters, geological surveys)
5. Flying training
6. Other aerial work
7. High-risk personal recreation/sports aviation/experimental aircraft operations.
The ATSB will generally investigate accidents and incidents involving RPAS when there is:

• a third-party (person on the ground) injury or risk of injury, or third-party property damage; or Regulatory requirements that impact on the safe use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems, Unmanned Aerial Systems and
associated systems.
• damage or the potential to damage another (manned) aircraft.

---

&..


Consequence risk of a collision with a manned aircraft

While the exposure risk to manned aircraft is increasing, the consequence risk for a collision with an RPAS is unclear.

As previously mentioned, there have been no mid-air collisions in Australia involving RPAS reported to the ATSB. World-wide, there have been five known collisions and one suspected collision. Three of these resulted in no damage beyond scratches, including the suspected collision with an Airbus A320 at Heathrow Airport in April 2016. However, one collision with a sport bi-plane (Shpakow SA 750) in the US in 2010 resulted in a crushed wing. Fortunately, the aircraft landed safely. Less fortunately, a Grob G 109B motor glider had a wing broken by an RPAS collision in 1997, resulting in fatal injury to the two people on board (see Appendix C).

Due to the rarity of actual collisions, and very minimal actual testing, mathematical models have been used to predict damage expected from RPAS strikes. These are informed by abundant birdstrike data with about 2,000 birdstrikes recorded in Australia for 2015.

ATSB birdstrike analyses shows that 7.7 per cent of high capacity aircraft birdstrikes result in engine ingestions (20 per cent of which led to engine damage), with smaller aircraft having lower ingestion rates.

Aircraft damage from birdstrike analysis shows engines are most likely to be damaged in high capacity aircraft, followed by wings. For low capacity air transport aircraft, wings are most likely to be damaged, and to a much lesser extent, engines and propellers. For general aviation aircraft, again damage to wings is most likely, and to a much lesser extent, windscreens.

It should be noted that while only 6 per cent of high capacity aircraft birdstrikes result in damage, 25 per cent of birdstrikes to general aviation aircraft result in damage. This is a result of more fragile parts in general aviation aircraft including wings and windscreens.

As remotely piloted aircraft are rigid and generally heavier than most birds, the overall proportion of collisions resulting in aircraft damage is expected to be higher than for birdstrikes, and the distribution of damage across an airframe will probably also differ.

Without more information, it is difficult to thoroughly asses the risk of occurrence and the severity of the outcome for an RPAS collision. However, some observations based on the current literature and the ATSB analysis presented in Appendix C, include:

• While research has been done looking at birdstrikes, and collisions with rocket and satellite debris, it is unclear what the consequences would be for a collision between an RPAS and an air transport aircraft. Although the probability is likely to be low, RPAS components could conceivably penetrate the wing or fuselage of an air transport aircraft.

• Engine ingestion in high capacity air transport aircraft (mostly with large turbofan engines) can be expected for about eight per cent of RPAS collisions based on birdstrike data. The proportion of RPAS ingestions expected to cause engine damage and engine shutdown will be higher than for bird ingestion. However, loss of a single engine should have minimal consequence to the safety of the aircraft.

• RPAS collisions with a general aviation aircraft’s windscreen poses a high risk of penetration. The risk is considerably lower for an air transport aircraft, but the possibility of windscreen penetration is uncertain.

• RPAS have the potential to damage a general aviation aircraft’s flight surfaces (wings and tail), which could result in a loss of control.

• For a single engine (general aviation) aircraft, an engine ingestion could cause an engine failure, requiring a forced landing. However, the probability of ingestion is very low due to small engine intakes.

Of interest, a major RPAS collision study is currently underway in the UK. The study is a joint venture between UK Military Aviation Authority (MAA), Department of Transport (DoT), and British Airline Pilots Association (BALPA). Through testing and analysis, this research will provide a better understanding of the maximum remotely piloted aircraft mass that would result in minimal to no risk to manned aircraft. It will also assess the severity of impact of remotely piloted aircraft of masses of up to 4 kg against safety critical areas on selected civil and military aircraft. The project will include actual testing on representative windshields and modelling of tail rotor blades.

I think it is safe to assume from that and from this waffle piece...

...that Hoodlum and the ATSB have absolutely no idea about the real life safety implications of the interaction between drones and mainstream aviation - FDS...


MTF...P2  

[Gobbledock]

"Drone Wars 3 - Eve of Destruction". Coming soon to a sky cinema near you!

P2;

...that Hoodlum and the ATSB have absolutely no idea about the real life safety implications of the interaction between drones and mainstream aviation - FDS..

That is correct. Hoody and friends are too busy counting dollars on a spreadsheet, fluffing around and whinging about how many incidents that they have on the books, blah blah blah. They are using the 'don't have enough data on file' copout to avoid the issue. However as much as the ATsB are avoiding the issue it does NOT remove the risk. In fact every additional toy drone that is purchased by the public and then added to the daily expanding drone fleet traversing the skies is a drone closer to a catastrophe.

So my question is this; if Hoody is so understaffed and underfunded and can't meet ICAO's mantra that then means he is putting his most precious boss, NFI Darren, and his Government in a very risky position. Not a good place to be Mr Turnbull, not adequately funding your government agencies whom operate under the Montreal convention. Tsk tsk tsk. A couple of glossy brochures which no 14 year old acne faced kid will ever read when he has Hustler 'on hand', and a few interviews by that bearded wally Peter Gobson will deliver jack shit.

Hoody, NFI Chester, Barn'boy and Goldman Turnbull - your clock is ticking. Regardless of your political spin on this issue, these drones have hit aircraft, these drones have had near misses with countless aircraft, these drones have been found smashed at airports, and sooner than later these drones WILL collide with a passenger aircraft and cause a catastrophe, the question is when not if. I just hope for the sake of the NFI Minister that when it does finally happen it doesn't happen on Australian soil. However I have no doubt the Australian Guv'mint, CAsA and the ATsB will then view drones in a different light.

Tick Tock goes the drone clock

[Kharon]

Ducks; all in a row then?

The bit that concerns me is the lack of Australian interest; ‘she’ll be right’ attitude, the pay lip service approach and the ‘just cover your arse’ mentality.  Take a look at what the Brits have done and are doing, they have tackled the situation with energy and action, in a very clever manner. Potential problems are acknowledged, have been promptly addressed and proactively. But then the UK actually has a lot of air traffic and not quite the ‘space’ Australia has, large populations close to the many busy airports would focus the concerns of any sensible regulator.

The USA has not done too shabby a job either, slightly different approach to the Brits – superficially – but not in the essentials.  Risk mitigation rules.

That’s how the grown up agencies have responsibly tackled the potential for accident or injury.  I expect Australia will, as will most of the rest of the ‘developing’ countries, follow the leaders example. This is acceptable. It is however, unacceptable that the Australian agencies pose, preen, pretend and spend a lot of money selling the notion that they are ‘world class’. There has never been a better example of this than the stark, black and white difference between what the ‘real’ safety agencies do and the Australian aping of them. It has so far been; and, probably will remain, a disgraceful, expensive exercise demonstrating how truly inept the second rate service provided to a nation really is. Thank the gods we have a caring, intelligent, knowledgeable, proactive minister to take charge and sort out the mess. (ROFLMAO). I wonder, how long will it be before a loud shout of “DUCK” is regularly heard: not as an expletive you understand; but a genuine warning, as a pizza delivery box doing 15 knots at the end of a 30 meter, CASA approved, ATSB sanctioned wire, being ‘monitored’ by some kid in a back room somewhere, screams down the High St.

Aye; the new, officially sanctioned catch phrase for 2017 - "DUCK".




Toot toot

[thorn bird]

Wont be long K.

Victim lying on gurney.
" I wos minding me business when out of nowhere I wos hit in the mush by a 'UFP"
Constable Plod note book in hand, rocking up on his toes.
" Hallo hallo hallo, another unidentified flying Pizza wot dunnit then"

[Peetwo]

Binger on Submission 11 VIPA (PDF 251 KB) & 34 Qantas Group (PDF 275 KB) -

Via the Oz today:

Drone law ‘may spur collisions’
12:00amMITCHELL BINGEMANN
Pilots from Qantas and Virgin say easing the rules around drones could lead to collisions with passenger jets.

Pilots from Qantas and Virgin Australia have hit out at laws that deregulate the commercial operation of remotely piloted aircraft, saying the rule relaxation could lead to a collision between drones and passenger planes.

The warnings come as a Senate committee investigating the safety implications of the new rules — allowing commercial operators to fly without a licence drones weighing less than 2kg — received close to 70 submissions.

In its submission, Qantas chief pilot Richard Tobiano said the airline feared increasing numbers of untrained and uneducated drone pilots could jeopardise the airline’s operations.

“The Qantas group remains concerned by the prospect of a collision between an RPA (remotely piloted aircraft) … and an aircraft, particularly within the vicinity of airports. Against this context, it would be opportune for the airline industry to confirm best-practice processes in managing the ramifications of an ­incident ahead of time,” he said.

Mr Tobiano, as well as chief ­pilots from Jetstar and QantasLink, said it was imperative that law enforcement agencies and regulators collaborate to identify and prosecute rogue pilots who flout regulations and put aircraft and people’s safety at risk.

“As with lasers and model rockets, this regime should involve education of — and strategic and tactical co-ordination between — state and federal law enforcement agencies, local ­government and CASA (Civil Aviation Safety Authority).

“Critically, it must also include a comprehensive suite of offence provisions and penalties to ­ensure general and specific deterrence,” said Mr Tobiano.

Qantas provided computer simulations with its submission showing that while significant damage to an engine would occur following a drone collision, such an ingestion would be unlikely to result in a serious incident. However, the airline said a drone collision would still pose a “significant source of risk to aircraft operations.” “Given the combustibility of some batteries and the ingestion of the device itself, the ­damage that such an impact would cause to a turbine engine and/or to an aircraft full of ­passengers and fuel could be very significant,” Qantas said.

Under the recently relaxed rules, from September 29, commercial operators flying drones under 2kg no longer need approvals. The amendments still will ­require operators to obey standard flight rules, which are not to fly within 5.5km of an airport, not above 400 feet, not within 30m of buildings, railways or vehicles, and to always have visual line of sight of the drone.

But the amended rules mean drone operators can fly into controlled airspace as long as they are 5.5km away from airports.

Pilots from Virgin Australia’s union, VIPA, also warned of the risk that deregulating the commercial operation of drones weighing less than 2kg could pose to passenger jets.

“Launching a drone close to an airport, particularly in proximity to an uncontrolled aerodrome, exposes aircraft (which are often jet powered) to the risk of collision which could result in substantial damage, loss of control and potentially, loss of life,” said VIPA president John Lyons.

“Collision with an UAV could be considerably more dangerous than striking a bird.”

According to the Australian Airline Pilots’ Association — which represents more than 5000 professional pilots — there have been more than 160 sightings in the past year of drones in airspace that should be free of any collision risk. “By way of illustration of what we might expect in the future, albeit from the admittedly much larger US market, the FAA now receives about 100 reports a month from pilots who say they’ve seen drones flying near aircraft and airports, compared with only a few sightings per month last year,” the association said.

“It allows virtually uncontrolled recreational operation and minimal control of commercial operations of the sub-2kg category and, while there are rules in place, there is no requirement for training, licensing or registration of these RPAs, many of which are capable of operation at high speed and at considerable height.”

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Control or not to control, that is the question? -

In a parallel hemisphere the FAA in the past year has apparently struggled to strike a balance on regulating drones. The Daily Signal (which stands up for the 'conservative perspective'...
 

 ..which should strike a chord with most if not all the IOS) published the following :

How the FAA’s War on Drones Is Killing a Popular Pastime

One year ago, the Federal Aviation Administration issued onerous new rules requiring owners of recreational drones to register with the government before launching their first flight. (Photo: iStock Photos)

Commentary By

Jason Snead/ @jasonwsnead

Jason Snead is a policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. Read his research.

One year ago, officials at the Federal Aviation Administration rang in the holidays as only bureaucrats can: writing new regulations forcing drone owners to register themselves with the federal government before their first flight.

And because nothing says “Christmas” quite like criminal fines and jail time, the agency promised $277,500 in civil and criminal penalties and three years’ imprisonment to any overeager youngster who rushed out to play without first thinking about the wishes of a distant bureaucracy.

The FAA’s recreational registry was, and remains, one of the most egregious acts of regulatory overcriminalization in recent memory. Even the agency’s own registration task force reported that the criminal penalties drone owners would face were disproportionate in the hobby drone context. Nevertheless, the FAA charged ahead, releasing its interim final rule to the public just three weeks after the task force report, and a scant seven days before going into effect.

Before it could regulate, though, the agency first had to get around the Congress. In 2012, legislators passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act, plainly stating that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation regarding model aircraft” flown for recreational purposes.

The agency responded that the registry is not really a regulation, and that drones are not really model aircraft; they are “aircraft” for the purposes of federal law, so the agency always had the authority to require registration. Never mind that this claim contradicted all prior agency guidance on drone regulation.

Once it twisted itself in a knot to get around Congress’ prohibitions, the FAA then had to figure a means to bypass the public notice and comment process mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act, as well.

That standard rulemaking process can take months or years. It is designed to give the public a chance to review proposed rules and to ensure that administrative agencies are responsive to public concerns. Notice and comment brings at least a modicum of accountability and transparency to the regulatory process.

It also serves to ensure that citizens are not caught unaware by new rules that are promulgated suddenly and without warning—an especially grave concern when, as with the drone owners’ registry, they contain criminal penalties.

But the FAA got around these restrictions by using the narrow “good cause” exemption. If agencies can show that the normal process is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” it can skip public participation and issue a final rule.

In this case, the FAA claimed America’s skies were about to be overrun by hoards of drones that, like a modern take on a Hitchcock classic, would wreak havoc and endanger the national airspace. Because of this exigent threat, officials claimed, public safety demanded swift regulatory action.

There were some flaws to this line of reasoning. First, the FAA could not, and still cannot, point to a single collision between a drone and a civilian airliner.

Officials frequently cite figures that they claim demonstrate a rising incidence of near-collisions, but analysis has concluded that in only a tiny fraction of these purported instances did the pilot feel the need to take evasive action. In fact, in many cases, the object originally identified as a drone turned out to be something else altogether.

The FAA’s exigency argument fails because the skyrocketing popularity of drones was hardly surprising. Congress legislated on the subject three years before the FAA announced its registry. It seems reasonable enough that an agency specializing in aviation safety should have been able to anticipate the issue. Somehow, the “failure justifies fiat” argument worked—subject to a lawsuit pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, over whether the drone registration is illegal.

Finally, despite claiming that exigent threats to the national airspace required prompt action, the registry does nothing to deter or prevent bad actors from using drones to commit crimes or acts of terror, similar to how gun rights restrictions generally haven’t stopped bad actors from committing gun violence. Drone owners are not registered automatically at the point of sale, but instead are supposed to register at home before sending their drones on their first flight.

Someone buying a drone to use it for illicit purposes can also easily evade the registry requirement with little risk of penalty after the fact, because if the drone is crashed into an aircraft, explodes, burns, or otherwise evades capture, tracing the unmarked drone back to its owner will be virtually impossible.

Even for those who do comply, FAA-assigned unique personal ID numbers can be placed inside the drone, making remote identification impossible. Ultimately, the drone would have to crash, largely intact and in an area where it could not be retrieved by its owner, for the registry to be useful in tracking down responsible parties.

Certainly, for those who already want to fly responsibly, a registry may be a means of discouraging reckless conduct and reinforcing safety. But for those who want to use drones for ill purposes, the deterrent value is nil.

Fortunately, the FAA’s lawless actions have not escaped notice and scrutiny. Aside from the legal challenge to the registry requirement, the House Freedom Caucus recently identified the recreational rule as one of over 200 Obama-era regulations that should be repealed when the incoming Trump administration takes office in January.

Concerns about safety, whether to aircraft in the national airspace or to people and property on the ground, are not invalid, and should not to be taken lightly. Fortunately, a wide array of technology-agnostic criminal, tort, and property laws exist that address many of the harms and risks of drones. For example, it is already a federal crime to damage, destroy, or interfere with an aircraft.

The FAA should reconsider how it might work with partners in critical military and civil infrastructure, long-standing and self-regulating hobbyist communities, and technology groups to fashion sensible rules to address drone-specific harms or drone-related conduct that existing laws and regulations do not reach.

And of course, any restrictions on recreational drone activities must be authorized by Congress.

A year ago, the FAA began the process of overcriminalizing and over-regulating drones—a process that continues beyond just the recreational registry. Its redefinition of the term “aircraft” has exposed children to 20-year prison sentences for crashing toys. Its burdensome and restrictive commercial drone regulations have driven innovation and development abroad.

Clearly, the FAA won’t be stopping itself anytime soon. It’s time to rein them in.

As can be seen drone regulation is posing some real conundrums and striking the right balance is going to be hard to achieve unless some sanity prevails and jurisdictional responsibility (a line in the sky) is properly defined.

The following article gives a perfect example of where a local government is quite prepared to take jurisdictional responsibility and set the rules on drones in the interest of local public safety... : 

Francis King, owner of Elk Fish Robotics, with one of the drones his Fremantle shop sells. Picture: Steve Ferrier

Perth council clamps down on public drone use

Liam Croy, PerthNow
December 29, 2016 1:38pm

PERTH'S biggest council has restricted recreational drone use on public property to two reserves, effectively banning them from beaches as local governments grapple with their booming popularity.

The City of Stirling’s moves to regulate drone use come as the WA Local Government Association vows to work with its members to establish a common position early next year.

The concept of drones used to be confined mostly to science fiction before they became a cog in the modern military machine.

But the suddenness of their jump into the recreational and commercial sectors has caught local governments off guard.

All drone users are required to comply with rules set out by the Federal Civil Aviation Safety Authority, but some councils are getting proactive in the face of safety and privacy concerns.

The popularity of drones has exploded but councils are struggling to deal with them.

Stirling council voted in August to amend local law to provide clarity as drones become more accessible.

Recreational use on public property is now limited to Yokine Reserve and Hertha Road Reserve if the pilot has the right permit.

Acting recreation and leisure services manager Simone Pastor said no one had been penalised under the amended laws because the city was taking an education-first approach.

“From time to time, the City reviews its Local Laws to take into account any emerging trends, such as what we are seeing with recreational drone users taking place at parks, reserves and other open spaces,” Ms Pastor said.

Ms Pastor called on WALGA to provide leadership and legislative guidelines for its members.

“It is important that there is a consistent approach to the use of drones in public spaces across all government municipalities,” she said.

WALGA president Lynne Craigie said the association recognised the importance of the issue and was working towards a sector-wide approach.

CASA issued a national safety and privacy warning on Tuesday after thousands of drones were given as Christmas gifts.

Their warning singled out Cottesloe beach as an example of a “populous area” that is a no-go zone for recreational pilots.

CASA said penalties included fines of up to $9000.

Francis King, the founder of Elk Fish Robotics in Fremantle, said Australia was quick to act on drone regulation and he believed most owners had the common sense to follow the rules.

He described Stirling council as “fuddy-duddies” for going above and beyond CASA rules.
Flying a drone for fun does not require CASA approval, as long as you follow some simple safety rules, according to an article on the website The Conversation.

But not all recreational drone users know the law – or if they do, they don’t appear to be following it. There has been a string of near misses between drones and other aircraft, and other cases of irresponsible use.

Only last month, a recreational drone user was investigated by Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) after evidently flying a drone over a crowded Bunnings carpark to pick up a sausage at a sausage sizzle.
Know the law before taking to the skies

Restrictions
Only fly within visual line of sight and in visual meteorological conditions (ie no night flights)

Only fly up to a maximum altitude of 120 metres - any higher needs CASA approval

Prohibited
Flying a drone in a way that creates a hazard to another aircraft, person or property
Do not record or taking photos of people without their consent
Drones cannot be flown for money or economic reward without a specific licence.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Telstra submission 36.


Today in the Oz Binger focuses on Telstra submission 36..  :

Lift curbs on drones: Telstra
12:00amMITCHELL BINGEMANN
Telstra wants drones to fly beyond a pilot’s line of sight with the aid of the telco’s mobile towers.

Telstra has argued its vast network of mobile towers could play a role in keeping tabs on remotely piloted drones, with the telecommunications major calling for the regulatory restrictions that prohibit drones from flying beyond a pilot’s line of sight to be dumped.

Pilots must keep drones within sight but Telstra reckons those rules could be scrapped if its ­network of 8500 mobile towers was used to make drones contextually aware, in near real-time, of civil aircraft and other drones when flying in common airspace.

“Mobile networks can be used to extend the control range of drones to wherever there is coverage — beyond visual line of sight,” Telstra’s head of regulatory affairs Jane van Beelen wrote to a Senate inquiry investigating how new laws to deregulate the commercial operation of drones could affect public privacy and safety.

“Mobile networks have the ­potential to allow drones to deliver sensor data for processing, analysis and decision-making mid-flight and to receive command-and-control inputs in real time, resulting in a safer, more ­reliable shared airspace.”

In its submission, the telco ­welcomes recent moves by the aviation regulator to amend rules that have allowed commercial ­operators to fly without a licence drones weighing less than 2kg.

The Australian reported last week that pilots from Qantas and Virgin Australia hit out at laws that deregulate the commercial operation of remotely piloted aircraft, saying the rule relaxation could lead to a collision between drones and passenger planes.

The warnings were made to a Senate committee investigating the safety implications of the new rules — allowing commercial ­operators to fly without a licence drones weighing less than 2kg.

In its submission, Qantas chief pilot Richard Tobiano said the airline feared increasing numbers of untrained and uneducated drone pilots could jeopardise the airline’s operations.

But Telstra said for the nation to harness the benefits of drones, a more progressive regulatory framework, allowing drones to be flown beyond visual line of sight — a term known as BVLOS — would be required. “We understand concerns about safety, ­security, and privacy and believe they are very important factors, especially as drones become more prolific,” Ms van Beelen said.

“(But) we believe the smart use of drone technology together with mobile network connectivity and traffic management systems can help address many of these concerns while minimising the regulatory burden on drone users.”

Telstra says its mobile network would be able to provide a convenient, cost effective, reliable and secure way of communicating with drones which would pave the way for beyond of sight flying, multiple drones being controlled by a single pilot, and night flying.

“Due to regulatory restrictions, drone flights are limited to visual line of sight, unless an exemption is granted by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Based on our experiences we believe that safe use of drones BVLOS is the key to unlocking many of the potential benefits associated with drones,” Ms van Beelen said. “For example, using a drone for shark surveillance would deliver the greatest benefit to the community if it could be flown BVLOS. Another area where flying drones BVLOS is necessary for success is the enablement of disaster response and restoration in situations where it is not always possible or safe for a user to be close enough to maintain visual line of sight (for example, bush fires or chemical spills).”

Telstra’s gambit that its mobile network could be used to track drones comes as the telco giant has been working behind the scenes on expanding its use of the technology over the past 12 months

The telco is currently working with Shell Queensland Gas Company and the Boeing subsidiary Insitu Pacific to develop a situational awareness system that will allow a drone fleet to inspect gas wells, pipelines and production ­facilities that sit beyond the line of sight of the pilot.

The telco is also using drones as its “eyes in the sky” to inspect its mobile towers and other infrastructure. It has 11 licensed pilots currently flying remotely piloted aircraft across five zones nationwide.

In its submission, Telstra also calls on the senate committee to establish a forum, chaired by the aviation regulator and with members from suppliers and commercial users of drones, to report on the regulations, technology and educational resources that will be required to enable the widespread and safe use of drones in the ­future.

Drone technology has become increasingly popular among recreational and commercial operators in recent years. But it’s also being adopted by a range of industries due to the potential of the flying machines to dramatically reduce the cost and human risk involved in monitoring infrastructure.

Such is the potential of the growth of the drone industry that Goldman Sachs estimates total global spending on drones will top $100 billion by 2020, rivalling the size of the helicopter market, with ripple effects to areas such as insurance, camera makers, and component manufacturers.

Fast food operator Domino’s Pizza, for one, is aiming for a commercial lift-off for the ­nation’s first drone-delivered pizza next year with a test site being sought in regional ­Australia.

Additional reporting: David Swan

 
MTF...P2

[Kharon]

New year’s resolve.

It has been a ‘productive’ holiday season, the BRB almost totally unanimous in deciding to pursue a course of action which is firmly believed to be the only valid method to enforce true reform of the CASA. There is a trigger in place which, managed correctly, could bring about an inquiry, not into CASA – ‘the institution’ but the actions taken by various, individual CASA officers which have had a detrimental effect on industry business and individuals within the industry. Its time to out these individuals, at whatever cost, for the good of many. It is a dirty, thankless, time consuming job; but it must be done.

Going through the motions will be, as always, a longish process. It is hoped however that the interests of cross bench and independent Senators, along with the stalwarts from the RRAT can be attracted to support a very worthwhile cause.

In essence, the dice have been rolled and the game has begun. Before last Christmas break the Industry Complaints Commissioner (ICC) was given what amounted to a better chance to examine and rule on ‘complaints’, through reporting to the CASA Board of Directors (BoD) and the disbanding of the infamous Ethics Committee (ECC): an ‘internal’ committee which, stand alone, merits serious inquiry.

That aside, the ICC has been approached to examine three separate, but similar cases where complaints are made that CASA officers are alleged to have acted improperly. These allegations are neither frivolous nor vexatious and are fully supported by evidence. To explain, I need to digress. Midway through 2016 a serious complaint was registered with the ICC; this involved some scurrilous behaviour from CASA officers. The ICC was, happily, able to uphold the complaint and rectification was swift; full marks the ICC. All’s well that ends well does not apply. Directly attributable to the actions of CASA, a company lost the services of an experienced man and that man lost a position. Having the complaint upheld is a hollow, worthless sham. No one was punished, no one became unemployed (except the victim) and nothing at CASA changed because of it. The BoD were to ‘examine’ the case, but, with the passage of time, any hope of action of BoD action diminishes as the months roll by. The nett effect of the time, money and energy invested in ‘complaint’ rendered nugatory; again.

So, what to do? There is a formal system in place, the ICC has indicated, fair and square, that due to the ‘age’ of the ‘trigger’ complaints, his hands are firmly tied. The ICC has advised that if there is complaint with his ruling there is a course which may be followed, which is fair enough, but totally irrelevant to addressing the root problem.  The ICC also advises that (a) the DAS may be approached; or, (b) the BoD may be addressed. To sidestep either option would be foolhardy. The next contact will be made directly to the DAS, that failing, then the Board will be approached.

Both actions doomed to failure; but the steps are necessary. The DAS is ‘temporary’ so the matter will be hand balled directly into the ‘wait for the new boy’ basket; which lets the Board off the hook until such time as the ‘new boy’ gets comfy – exit a minimum six months of earning capacity for our Guinea Pigs 3. Eventually, an audience with the new DAS may be granted, no doubt a sympathetic ear will be afforded for 30 minutes and that, pretty much, will be it, except the Board will be guided by the DAS ‘opinion’ and that takes ‘meeting the board’ off the cards. But, these actions must be taken to remove any doubt from a Senator’s mind that there were ‘alternative’ ways and means to accomplish the goals, which had not been utilized, to the fullest extent.

So be it; but, the time line is running and the interested parties will be regularly and thoroughly briefed as will be such audience as this small forum has, on every painful step along the way to eradicating the inutile, those who have abused not only the powers granted, but perverted them. Tick tock say’s GD’s clock.

Selah.

[Peetwo]

Civil Air submission 21 (PDF 145 KB) - A reasoned approach


While continuing to review some of the more informative and considered submissions to the UAV/RPA inquiry, the following AvHerald article link is particularly relevant in light of  submission 21: 

Drone vs B737 radome -

To what is tick, tocking towards a regular event via Avherald.. :  

Incident: LAM B737 at Tete on Jan 5th 2017, collision with a drone

By Simon Hradecky, created Friday, Jan 6th 2017 12:22Z, last updated Saturday, Jan 7th 2017 21:39Z

A LAM Linhas Aereas de Mocambique Boeing 737-700, registration C9-BAQ performing flight TM-136 from Maputo to Tete (Mozambique) with 80 passengers and 6 crew, was on final approach to Tete when the crew heard a loud bang, no abnormal indications followed. The crew suspecting a bird strike continued the approach for a safe landing.

A post flight examination revealed a drone had impacted the right hand side of the radome.

The airline confirmed the occurrence, a replacement aircraft was dispatched to Tete to perform the return flight. The occurrence aircraft is being repaired.

In the region there are frequently drones weighing around about 10kg/22lbs operated for mining survey. Ground witnesses describe those drones are being operated without regard for the aerodrome and aircraft traffic.

The radome damage:


The damage stretches down the right-hand side of the fuselage (Photo: The Aviation Herald)

From the beginning the Civil Air submission makes it very clear, without being sensationalist or overly dramatic, where the ATCO association's concerns and obligations lie in regard to mitigating risk with the operations of RPAs in and around ATC controlled airports and/or airspace:

...Whilst Civil Air acknowledges the commercial and recreational requirements of RPAS users, and the future social and economic impacts, these are best left for those with expertise in these areas to advocate on their behalf. Equally, Civil Air has limited expertise in the areas of manufacture, design, compliance, insurance and privacy issues and therefore these issues are beyond the scope of this submission. The purpose of our submission is to provide Committee members with information we feel is necessary to ensure that ATCOs can continue to provide a safe, orderly and expeditious air traffic control system...

Civil Air also quietly remind the regulator of their obligations, under the CAA, and highlight why it is important for CASA to write considered, understandable, firm but fair 'risk based' regulations:

..Civil Air acknowledges that CASAs function is to regulate civil air operations in Australia through the development and promulgation of clear and concise aviation safety standards. Relevantly, CASA must have regard to the safety of air navigation as its most important consideration. Therefore, Civil Air submits that while there are other important concerns regarding the integration of RPAS into the aviation environment, these are secondary to the safety of air navigation.

Civil Air endorses a risk-based approach to the regulation of RPAS. Baseline risk should be assessed and, if not acceptable or as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), appropriately mitigated until it is acceptable and ALARP. CASR Part 101, with an associated Manual of Standards, is appropriate to regulate the operation of RPAS to manage risk. Furthermore, it should be clear to all affected parties that CASA maintains overall responsibility for that risk. While it is reasonable to prescribe regulations imposing requirements on affected parties including RPAS pilots, manufacturers, business operators, ATCOs, etc., it is important that these regulations are reasonable. It is our contention that unreasonable or onerous regulation will result in conscious non-compliance increasing the risk above what has been assessed as acceptable.

---

...In light of the absence of separation standards between RPAS and manned aircraft, Civil Air understands that Airservices Australia is currently developing ‘segregation standards’ for ATCOs to apply. While Civil Air supports the development of these standards, we remain concerned that these are only necessary because there is no regulation in this area. Civil Air strongly submits that clearly defined rules for the separation or segregation of RPAS and manned aircraft must be promulgated by the regulator to ensure not only the safety of pilots, passengers and the public on the ground, but give certainty to ATCOs as to their responsibilities...

   
The Civil Air submission also reiterate, general industry advocate (The ABCs) concerns, that CASA should be putting more effort into basing their 'safety case' for regulation on a much wider international and independent purview:

..Two commonly referenced elements of risk are the likelihood and consequences of a hazard occurring. Civil Air agrees that the classification of the RPAS according to weight is an appropriate method to assess the consequences of a collision between an RPA and a manned aircraft. However, the analysis used to determine the classification should be independent, transparent and supported by evidence. As far as possible, analysis should be supported international research. Provided the categories of RPA currently being considered by the Part 101 amendment are supported by this analysis, Civil Air has no objection to them being used as one element of a risk mitigation strategy. Together with the consequences of RPAS colliding with manned aircraft, the likelihood of this occurring should form the basis of any regulation. Civil Air submits that the most important element when considering the likelihood of a collision between an RPA and a manned aircraft is the airspace in which the RPA will operate...

---

..The regulation of RPAS is in a state of flux as States undertake similar processes to Australia. It is unlikely that ICAO will develop comprehensive guidance in time to be considered for wholesale adoption by Australia. However, the risk analysis performed by CASA, and assumptions that underlie them, should be tested against the research by other regulators. This will not only provide more confidence that Australian regulations will be strong and suited to their purpose, but will also ensure that Australia can influence international debates and rule-making thereby reducing transition issues when ICAO implement universal standards...

The Civil Air submission also goes to areas of discussion for possible solutions to help mitigate risk in and around CTR zones and/or airports:

...As submitted above, limiting RPAS operations in CTRs to those for hire and reward has two advantages. It limits the number of RPAS operations in busy airspace and provides the opportunity to place a higher regulatory burden on operators. This burden would not be onerous but having more stringent education and licensing requirements would result in a higher standard of operator in busy airspace where the risk of collision with manned aircraft is highest. Of course, the opposite also holds that less experienced and/or competent operators would not be conducting RPAS operations inside busy control zones.


Civil Air also submits that private RPAS operators should also be regulated albeit not to the same degree as commercial operators. Education of the regulatory regime under which RPAS operate would be the bare minimum required. Registration could also be used a method of identifying and therefore communicating with private RPAS operators.


One of the most important tools an ATCO has to safely separate aircraft is surveillance. Generally speaking, surveillance in Australia is provided by Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) or Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B). Both require the aircraft to be fitted with a ‘transponder’ that allow air traffic control to ‘see’ the aircraft. Recent developments in the miniaturisation of ADS-B have resulted in smaller transponders particularly suited to RPAs. The addition of ADS-B to RPAs conducting operations around busy aerodromes could enable ATCOs to more effectively monitor and/or apply separation between RPAs and manned aircraft. It could also provide another safety barrier for unauthorised RPAS in the form of a safety alert to manned aircraft (workload permitting). Regulation would also be required to ensure that altitude and position information transmitted by ADS-B had sufficient integrity for ATC to provide the required level of service to manned aircraft...

P2 verdict: Just like the AAAA submission, this contribution from Civil Air should be required reading for the good Senators and I would suggest Civil Air should be invited to provide further evidence in any future public hearing - choc frogs all round to the ATCO crew...



MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Interlude to RPA inquiry submission review -

Perhaps to help highlight how much of a universal conundrum drones are placing on governments and/or regulatory agencies, the following is an excellent, humorous but somewhat disturbing (on how big and growing the drone issue is) NYT blog piece by Carol Pogashjan...  :  

Santa Delivered the Drone. But Not the Safety and Skill to Fly Them.
By CAROL POGASHJAN. 8, 2017



 
Anthony Melton and Noah, his son, playing with a drone toy in Sugar Land, Tex. Earlier, an errant flight caused some family anxiety. Credit Bryan Schutmaat for The New York Times


My dad got a drone for Christmas.
My dad lost a drone on Christmas.
— @miss_jordon, on Twitter


If this Christmas was the season of the drone, it was also a time of crashes, losses and tweeted laments. Social media is rich with commentary about fathers (major targets) crashing drones, girlfriends with tiny blades enmeshed in their hair (mothers removed them) and crying children whose favorite present went poof in the sky.

“How would you like it if your laptop flew away?” Shelley Holloway’s husband asked her after he lost his holiday drone. Ms. Holloway, of Clawson, Mich., had posted a note on Nextdoor, the community-based social network, saying that “his Christmas has been ruined ever since.” (Apparently he didn’t like the ribbing.)

Most drones are harmless toys — albeit ones that seem to have a shorter shelf life than a Christmas tree — and can be bought at Amazon or Walmart for under $100. But drones, particularly bigger ones, can cause major damage and injury, especially in the hands of neophytes.

Like birds, drones can be sucked into engines, creating a risk of planes being brought down. There is also a risk of drones themselves falling on people or their property. The Federal Aviation Administration requires a $5 registration for drones over 0.55 pounds, and insurance companies are girding for a wave of drone-related accident claims.

“We’re adamant,” said Scott McLean, a spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. “If a drone is seen in the vicinity of a wildland fire, we will remove our aircraft, which unfortunately can cause the fire to grow exponentially.”

The agency, known as Cal Fire, has adopted the warning “If you fly, we can’t!” It has a fleet of 50 aircraft and 31 million acres to cover. After a drone flew into what was called the Trailhead Fire in Auburn, Calif., last summer, Cal Fire grounded its aircraft for two hours.

About 2.8 million drones were sold in the United States last year, about 1.2 million of them over the holidays, according to the Consumer Technology Association, a lobbying group. As of Dec. 13, just over 500,000 people had registered with the F.A.A. Surely the rest of the owners will be stepping forward soon — if they haven’t already crashed their drones.

“My daughter got a drone from Santa, and its first launch took off and never returned,” Jim Stephens of Orinda, Calif., notified his neighbors on Nextdoor. “If you find a white and orange drone in your backyard or trees, please let me know.”

In an interview, Mr. Stephens said controlling the drone had been harder than he expected. “I should have let her drive it — maybe we’d still have it,” he said. His daughter, Iris, is 6.

Juan J. Alonso, a professor of aeronautics and astronautics at Stanford who serves on the Federal Aviation Administration’s drone advisory board, suspects that many drone buyers were surprised by the power of their machines — which hobbyists typically fly at 15 m.p.h., but knowledgeable users can nudge up to 40 m.p.h.

 
 
Juan J. Alonso, professor of aeronautics and astronautics at Stanford University, in Palo Alto, Calif., on Friday. Mr. Alonso serves on the Federal Aviation Administration’s drone advisory board. Credit Luke Atwood Abiol

“Mostly people bought small drones, up to $500 or $600,” he said. “They’re probably novices who soon exceed capability of the drone or their own capability as a pilot. Most people have zero training.”

Although a drone can go “as high as you want,” Dr. Alonso said, the F.A.A. limits their altitude to 400 feet.

“These are very sophisticated machines,” he added. “We want to make sure people use them responsibly.”

The F.A.A. receives more than 100 reports a month from pilots who complain that drones have flown too close to their aircraft, an agency spokesman said. Drones have injured people and caused power disruptions.

Drones seem “like innocent toys,” said Brad Koeckeritz, the chief of the unmanned aircraft systems division for the Department of the Interior. But last year, his department “had more than 50 encounters with drones on wildfires,” most of them being flown by hobbyists, he said.

“The bottom line is that midair collisions with aircraft involved in low-level flight on a fire or approaching a runway could potentially have fatal consequences,” he said.

On Christmas Day, with Twitter full of drone drama, Faine Greenwood, a researcher on unmanned aerial technology at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, retweeted messages under the hashtag #dronecrashmas. This was the second year she has “followed the drone-crash beat,” she said. “It’s becoming a major theme on Christmas Day.”

Underlying the humor is concern that “crashing drones on Christmas is indicative of people not taking it seriously enough,” said Ms. Greenwood, who owns five drones and writes about them for Slate. “We need to do a better job of educating them.”

Instead of going to the park, many consumers are flying machines right outside their front doors, without considering wind and pesky trees.

“We’re seeing a convergence of once-futuristic technology with mainstream America,” said Nirav Tolia, chief executive of Nextdoor. Over Christmas week, Nextdoor had 8,709 drone posts, mostly about drones both lost and found.

“It used to be lost cats in a tree,” said Kelsey Grady, head of communications for Nextdoor. “Now it’s drones.”

To improve drone safety, the F.A.A. created an app, B4UFly, and a web page full of tips. Even people flying drones with lights on them must adhere to F.A.A. rules, which include not operating them in the dark, keeping the craft within sight and not flying over groups of people or near airports or other aircraft.


 
Faine Greenwood, a researcher on unmanned aerial technology at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, with a drone on the Harvard campus last week. Credit Tony Luong for The New York Times

Anthony Melton of Sugar Land, Tex., was playing by the rules when disaster struck.
“Yes, that’s right — another drone lost in the neighborhood,” Mr. Melton said in a Nextdoor post. His son was flying the drone when it was lost and he cried; Mr. Melton was too upset to sleep. Then a neighbor spotted it on his roof, and the crisis ended.

For drones of all sizes, there is a learning curve. Jim Hayes, a Fox Sports reporter, tweeted his slow progress:


Survival time of 2015 Christmas mini drone: 5 secs (Crashed into wall)
Survival time of 2016 Christmas mini drone: 3 mins (Lost in park)

“Drones look so really cool — they look like they can fly themselves,” said Brian Wynne, president of the Association for Unmanned Vehicles Systems International, an industry group. “People forget they’re actually flying an aircraft.”

The technology has entered the mainstream so quickly, Mr. Wynne said, that “education — and, frankly, regulations — are trying to catch up.”

Drone manufacturers warn people about the dangers, but does anyone actually read those lengthy instructions before running out to try the new toy?

“It is fair to say no one should take a drone out of a box and try to figure out how it works by flying it,” said Brendan Schulman, vice president for policy and legal affairs at DJI, the Chinese company that dominates the personal and professional drone market for high-end aerial photography.

DJI’s consumer drones, which sell for $399 to $1,199, have built-in safety measures, including auto-return and landing for when the battery is low, obstacle avoidance and “geofencing,” which prevents a drone from flying near airports, nuclear power plants or other sensitive locations (including anywhere in Washington, D.C.).

But the market is rife with knockoffs, which may lack those features. And “pilot error” is a big problem.

“Dad crashed Julia’s drone into the neighbor’s tree and broke it on the first flight. Merry Christmas!” tweeted @RachelGriffith.

Two hours later, Ms. Griffith updated the Twitterverse: “He got it working again, and immediately got it stuck in the top of a huge tree.”

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Nice catch P2! Disturbing article, yet funny.

But what about this comment;

Drones seem “like innocent toys,” said Brad Koeckeritz, the chief of the unmanned aircraft systems division for the Department of the Interior. But last year, his department “had more than 50 encounters with drones on wildfires,” most of them being flown by hobbyists, he said.

“The bottom line is that midair collisions with aircraft involved in low-level flight on a fire or approaching a runway could potentially have fatal consequences,” he said.

Hmmm, well don't tell that to Miniscule Der der der Chester, Hoody or Pinocchio Gobson as they really don't see what all the fuss is about!!!

TICK TOCK

[Peetwo]

Update to Senate Drone Inquiry -  

Three additions to the drone Senate Inquiry submissions:

70 Regional Express (PDF 114 KB) 


71 Australian Miniature Aerosports Society Inc (PDF 69 KB) 


72 Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (PDF 417 KB) 

Today Binger picked up on the Pilgrim (OAIC) submission:

Warning over drone stalking
12:00amMITCHELL BINGEMANN

Privacy commissioner Timothy Pilgrim has warned against drone-related stalking, harassment and unlawful surveillance.

Privacy and Information Commissioner Timothy Pilgrim has fired a warning over laws to de­regulat­e the commercial oper­ation of remotely piloted aircraft, saying they could lead to an ­increase in drone-related stalking, harassment and unlawful surveillance.

The warning was laid out in a submission to the Senate committee investigating the safety implic­ations of the new rules that allow commercial operators to fly without a licence drones weighing less than 2kg.

While acknowledging the economic opportunity and increas­ing relevance of drones to business, government and indiv­iduals, Mr Pilgrim said remotely piloted aircraft also posed significant risks to privacy, given their capacity to freely man­oeuvre through airspace with little account­ability.

“Privacy risks presented by drone use range from inadvertent privacy breaches through the collection of personal information, such as photographs of individuals and their activities, to potential conduct that meets criminal-offence thresholds such as stalking,” he said.

Mr Pilgrim, who heads the Office of the Australian Inform­ation Commissioner, said the agency would support increased training and education to inform drone pilots of their responsibilities and to protect the privacy of individuals.

Drones have become a popular tool of paparazzi, who flout privacy rules to snap pictures of sunbathing socialites and cel­eb­rities’ houses from outside the property limits.

&..from REX submission 70:

Rex would like to recommend the following points:

1. Requirement for a comprehensive monitoring and oversight of RPAS operations for

any operations that operate beyond CASA’s standard restrictions. Rex consider that

it is incumbent upon CASA to ensure the safety of air navigation and therefore must

ensure effective oversight and control of RPAS operations. Rex considers that RPAS

Operators that are certified and subjected to an independent audit oversight regime

may pose an acceptable risk to commercial air transport.

2. That consideration be given to the establishment of an effective drone violation

reporting system encompassing recreational RPAS operators and commercial

airspace users. This information is currently not available and could assist airline

operators to identify airspace that may pose hazards to aircraft in respect to reported

unlawful RPAS activities.

3. With the expected continued advancement of RPAS technology and increased

activity levels, a risk-based approach to regulatory framework including technical,

safety and operational requirements will need to be implemented. This includes the

individual registration of ownership of RPAS, as we believe this would act as a

deterrent to illegal or dangerous RPAS activities, allowing a path for traceability.

4. Airborne collision aviodance systems (such as TCAS) have a proven risk control in

the prevention of mid-air collision. Therefore if RPAS operations occupy the same

airspace as commercial air transport operators then the fittment of transponder type

equipment should be mandated. ADS-S transceivers that weigh less than 5000 gms

are available to RPAS operators.

The five pages of the AMAS submission 71 is also worthy of purview but what intrigued me the most was what the AMAS under 'Any other related matters'... :

i. Any other related matters.

Refer d. and, It has been the experience of this Society when engaging with the CASA that the reactive and mostly unhelpful attitude and mostly lack of professionalism does not lend itself to the CASA aligning with its regulatory philosophy and more seriously aviation and public safety. The extent of this 'apathy' has bordered on and has been lead to complaint. (correspondence available on request). It is that persistent characteristic that concerns the Society and its ethos regarding aviation and public safety. In conclusion, the AMAS Inc., as a recreational organisation will continue to work with our members and all parties (those parties that proactively seek integration) to promote a safe environment for all and live up to our motto
"Get up and fly" and “Safety is no Accident”

The Australian Miniature Aerosports Society Inc formerly requests an opportunity to address the senate committee regarding matters within this submission...

Hmm..that sounds familiar??  

While on drones, coming out of WA their is a couple of articles dealing with DFES issues with UAVs and fires, plus a current SLSWA trial with shark spotting drones:

SLSWA are using drones to patrol beaches, DFES say they could be a hazard
January 15, 2017 2:35am
Drones were being trialled by Surf Life Saving WA at City Beach this week.

REMOTELY piloted eyes in the sky have started flying above Perth beaches to spot sharks and other ocean hazards — and the early verdict is swimmers already feel safer.
However some emergency services believe they are more a hindrance than a help.

Surf Life Saving WA this week started a three-month trial of high-definition camera-equipped drones at popular beaches in Perth and the South West.

The battery-powered drones were seen flying above swimmers and surfers at Floreat and Cottesloe beaches yesterday and will be monitoring Mullaloo and Scarborough beaches from above today.

Smiths Beach, Meelup and Bunker Bay, as well as Sorrento and North Cottesloe, will also be on the drone radar.

SLSWA lifesaving contract manager Peter Scott said feedback was already positive.

“We are looking for sharks but we are also looking at assisting lifesavers with being that extra set of eyes to identify hazards such as rips and people who might be weak swimmers,” he said.

No sharks have been spotted by the drones since an $88,000 State Government-funded trial started at City Beach last weekend and at Cottesloe on Wednesday.

The drones won’t necessarily be first spotters of sharks but if any of the 13 drone pilot volunteers sees a shark, they will immediately radio patrolling lifeguards.

The five DJI Phantom 4 drones can be used to verify reports from members of the public, possibly avoiding beach closures.

“In this trial we’re trying to get as much flight time as possible so we can evaluate their effectiveness,” Mr Scott said.

Once the State Government-funded trial ends in mid-February, SLSWA will continue with its own trial until the end of March before reviewing whether to continue with the program.

Yesterday morning, City Beach was closed after a possible 2.5m shark was detected by a “clever buoy” in the second day of an eight-week trial of the technology. At Floreat Beach, 13 teenage boys competing at a surf carnival were plucked from the water by inflatable rescue boats and jetskis after another shark detection.

Surf Life Saving WA

The clever buoy system uses sonar technology to create a virtual shark net, detecting sharks outside the surf zone and immediately alerting authorities and beach users.

It comes as new research suggests the popularity of Perth’s beaches has started to recover from a severe slump three years ago.

In 2013-14, just 43 per cent of Perth residents polled by Roy Morgan said they had visited a beach that summer, compared with 56 per cent in 2009-10. Last summer, that number bounced back to 50 per cent.

Premier Colin Barnett said the spate of fatal shark attacks in WA had “understandably frightened people”.

“Now with the aerial patrols in place operating over extended periods, the beach enclosures and increased resourcing for SLSWA, people are probably regaining some confidence,” he said.

LIVES AT RISK

DFES aerial bomber pilot Julian Chatfield with a drone. Picture: Steve Ferrier
THE surging popularity of drones is putting residents and firefighters at risk during bushfires, with water-bombing aircraft grounded if a drone is seen flying in the area.

The Department of Fire and Emergency Services is so alarmed by the increase in drones being flown in the skies over WA it will launch a campaign today warning amateur pilots of the risk of flying the craft anywhere near a bushfire or where water bombers are filling up.

Pilot Julian Chatfield, who has doused bushfires as a helicopter pilot for the past seven years, including four summers in WA, said a drone would “bring down a helicopter”.

“You’re most concerned about blade strike, in particular a drone striking the tail rotor blade,” he said. “The helicopter would spin and become uncontrollable and you would crash.”

To date, drones have not hampered firefighting efforts in WA, but in New South Wales they have caused a stir for affecting several emergency responses to floods.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority estimates there are tens of thousands of drones in use across Australia.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau found the number of remotely piloted aircraft accidents and incidents had increased from 14 between 2006 and 2013, to 37 from 2014-2015.

Drone pilots caught breaking CASA regulations face fines of up to $9000.

---

DFES urges drone users to not become a firefighting menace
16 Jan 2017, 10:52 a.m.

The increasing popularity of drones in Western Australia has prompted the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) to issue a reminder to the community not to unwittingly halt firefighting efforts this bushfire season.

No drone zone: Drone users could face penalties of up to $9000 for flying drones near bushfire areas.

The increasing popularity of drones in Western Australia has prompted the Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) to issue a reminder to the community not to unwittingly halt firefighting efforts this bushfire season.

DFES  Assistant Commissioner Gary Gifford said drones had proven to be popular Christmas gifts in recent years, but few were aware that flying them near a bushfire could result in firefighting aircraft having to be grounded or redirected for safety reasons.

"Flying drones near a bushfire could create a dangerous situation not only for the pilots, but for the firefighters on the ground and the public,” Mr Gifford said.

Assistant Commissioner Gifford said firefighting aircraft operate in one of the most challenging environments imaginable.

"They fly at around 200 kilometres per hour, often manoeuvring in poor visibility, close to each other and to the ground and other obstacles such as trees, radio masts and power lines,” he said.

"Even a small drone colliding or obstructing a bombing aircraft could have catastrophic results.

"If we see a drone we will be forced to ground our aircraft, which would seriously hinder efforts to bring a fire under control.

"There have already been a number of close calls in the Eastern States this season, with aircraft having to be redirected because a drone was in the area. We don’t want to see this happen in WA.”

Drone pilots caught breaking Civil Aviation Safety Regulations face fines of up to $9000.
Assistant Commissioner Gifford reiterated the importance of keeping a safe distance from firefighting aircraft when they are picking up water.

"We need the community to keep a safe distance away to enable the aircraft to do their job, and I urge people to never stand under the flight path of approaching or departing aircraft, especially at areas where they are refilling with water as this can be very dangerous,” he said.

If you see someone operating a drone or remote controlled aircraft near a bushfire, report it to the nearest firefighter or to WA Police on 131 444.

For more information about the dangers of flying drones near bushfires visit the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) website at casa.gov.au.

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Eye in the sky said;

"No sharks have been spotted by the drones since an $88,000 State Government-funded trial started at City Beach last weekend and at Cottesloe on Wednesday".

That's probably because the drones are too busy spotting white pointers and cameltoe's on the beach!!!

[Peetwo]

Binger reviews IPA submission 56 - Institute of Public Affairs (PDF 294 KB)  Attachment 1 (PDF 1645 KB)  

Via the Oz:

          
Drone deregulation support widens

12:00amMITCHELL BINGEMANN

The IPA says a requirement for operators to be within visual line-of-sight of remotely piloted aircraft should be axed.

The Institute of Public Affairs has come out in staunch support of the aviation regulator’s moves to de­regulate the commercial operation of drones, saying more red tape needs to be cut to unleash the ­potential of remotely piloted aircraft.

The free-market think tank called for a slashing of red tape in a submission to the Senate com­mittee investigating safety implications of new rules allowing commercial operators to fly without a licence drones weighing less than 2kg.

In its submission, the IPA said the regulatory requirement for commercial drone operators to be within visual line-of-sight of remotely piloted aircraft should be abolished and a “permissionless” approach where harm must be demonstrated before intervention needed be adopted.

“Achieving minimally effective drone regulation is important, not only to stimulate investment and economic growth as this multi-billion-dollar industry grows, but more importantly to enable this technology to raise Australian ­living standards and make us more prosperous,” IPA research fellow Darcy Allen said.

“CASA’s changes are a sensible trade-off between community safety and the regulatory flexibility entrepreneurs need to grow and develop the technology.”

The IPA’s calls for a “permissionless” approach to regulation will rile pilot unions and airlines, including Qantas and Virgin Australia, which have hit out at moves to deregulate the commercial ­operation of remotely piloted aircraft. These groups have said the rule relaxation could lead to a collision between drones and passenger planes. The IPA argued that those calling for the reversal of the rules are “those who have the most stake on maintaining the status quo”.

“Indeed, the political economy of regulation suggests not only a supply of regulation in the ‘public interest’, but also that there is a demand for regulation in the ‘private interest’ largely driven in search of the supernormal profits of regulatory protection,” Mr Allen wrote.

“A permissionless approach suggests harm must be demonstrated before government restriction and intervention are justified. This is on the understanding there are existing laws that would encompass many of the potential harms and dangers of drone technology.”

The IPA joins companies such as Telstra and Dominos in calling for further deregulation of drone operations. Telstra has called for a relaxation on rules that prohibit the ­flying of drones beyond a pilot’s line of sight. The telco giant has argued that its vast network of mobile towers could play a role in keeping tabs on remotely piloted drones when flying beyond visual sight. Under current rules, pilots must keep drones within sight.

“Achieving minimally effective drone regulation is important, not only to stimulate investment and economic growth as this multi-billion-dollar industry grows, but more importantly to enable this technology to raise Australian ­living standards and make us more prosperous,”  

Q/ Where was the IPA over the last 30 years while the rest of the GA industry was being suffocated by the 'Big R' regulator CAsA while they mind-numbingly slowly  were implemented the RRP with voluminous, draconian, totally unreadable and virtually unusable regulations...  

  
MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

ACUO submission 73 - Australian Certified UAV Operators Inc. (PDF 1507 KB)

For what has to be close to the last accepted submission, the ACUO offering IMO reflects how far, what I think is the largest UAV/RPA Australian association, has matured and progressed as a responsible industry advocate...

Here is a promotional article for much of the subjects and solutions from the ACUO submission, courtesy industry publication SUAS News:

Time to Build an Australian National Unmanned Traffic Management (UTM) System

By
Press
-
24 January 2017

The Association of Certified UAV Operators (ACUO) is calling for the Federal Government to launch a program to design, develop and implement a continent-wide unmanned traffic management (UTM) system as the only viable means of achieving the safe integration of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) – called drones by the general public – into national airspace.

The proposed UTM system would facilitate transparent and harmonised integration of all forms of RPAS into Australian skies, resolving already significant and growing safety problems posed by unsafe and non-compliant operators.

“A UTM system, operating alongside and fully integrated with the OneSky air traffic management system, is the only way to ensure all RPAS users follow necessary rules and regulations for flight operations” says ACUO President, Joe Urli

“A national UTM system would be an important enabler for growth of the Australian RPAS industry as a whole, as it would open up access to wider flight environments, including facilitating services such as ‘drone delivery’ across the country.”

ACUO’s proposal is detailed in a submission by the Association to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport inquiry into Regulatory requirements that impact on the safe use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems,
Unmanned Aerial Systems and Associated Systems.

The Senate inquiry was sparked by controversial new regulations for RPAS implemented by CASA in September 2016. ACUO was one of a number of leading national aerospace and aviation sector organisations which sought Senate disallowance of the regulations.

The ACUO submission contains 20 recommendations, these seeking to guide Senate Committee understanding of the origins of the September 2016 regulations, the specific problems those regulations pose, and assist in the planning for practical long term solutions.

“Without implementing a comprehensive structural solution to the problem of rogue RPAS operations, no amount of regulatory reform by CASA will achieve a lasting solution to the problem” says Urli.

“The most logical step is to develop a solution which directly transforms regulation into an economic enabler. UTM is precisely that class of solution.

“Australia was once a leader in the development of regulations for commercial RPAS systems. Australia now lags as nations such as Singapore, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates and the United States all explore development of UTM systems as a requisite part of 21st century national infrastructure”.

About ACUO:

ACUO was established as a legal entity in March 2010 to represent the interests of entities holding Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority unmanned aircraft operator certificates.

The association is chartered to promote the growth and the expansion of the commercial unmanned aircraft industry in Australia and to ensure the safe and orderly growth of the sector.

ACUO represents Australia globally as part of the International Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems Coordination Council, the pre-eminent global policy coordination body for this important sunrise industry.

ACUO represents the commercial RPAS sector as a member of the Federal Government’s Aviation Industry Consultative Committee (AICC) under the auspices of the Transport Minister, the Honourable Darren Chester MP. ACUO is also a member of The Australian Aviation Association Forum (TAAAF), standing with a host of respected manned aviation associations in support of developing and advancing the Australian aviation industry.

For further information please contact:

Joe Urli
President
Email: president@acuo.org.au
Brad Mason
Secretary
PH: 0408 772 571
Email: secretary@acuo.org.au
Website: http://www.acuo.org.au

Kudos to ACUO, your submission maybe last but it definitely should be marked as required reading by the good Senators...
  

MTF...