[Peetwo]

"We've got a Blackhawk grounded" - due drone collision

Via Oz Aviation yesterday...

Drone collides with US Army Black Hawk
September 25, 2017 by Paul Sadler 7 Comments
A file image of a UH-60M Black Hawk helicopter. (US Military/Wikimedia Commons)

A remotely-piloted aircraft collided with a US Army UH-60M Black Hawk while it was flying at 500ft over a residential neighbourhood on Staten Island, New York on September 23.

Believed to be the first time a drone has collided with a helicopter in flight, the incident happened at about 1930 local time while two Black Hawks, from the 82nd Airborne Division based at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, were on a security mission for the United Nations General Assembly above the Midland Beach section of the island.

The US Army confirmed the drone struck the left side of fuselage just behind the co-pilot’s door with debris from the disintegrated drone striking one of the Black Hawk’s four main rotor blades causing minor damage.

The Black Hawk made a normal approach and landing at the nearby Linden Airport in New Jersey.

“There were no adverse impacts to the flight,” said 82nd Airborne Division spokesperson Lieutenant Colonel Joe Buccino.

“One blade was dented in two spots and requires replacement and there is a dented window.”

A piece of the drone was found to be lodged in the oil cooler at the bottom of the helicopter’s main rotor system. An image of the collected debris suggests the drone was a DJI Phantom.

Although New York City bans drones from flying in most locations, those registered with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are permitted to fly above just a handful of New York’s city parks.

The US Army, New York Police Department and the FAA are investigating the incident.

The comments are also worth regurgitating...

Mick181 says

September 25, 2017 at 10:10 am

Have fun with your Drones while it lasts, can see severe restrictions or even Bans comming eventually. Time to bring in laws with severe penalties for their missuse.

---

PAUL says

September 25, 2017 at 11:41 am

Yep as I commented before-its only a matter of time

---

Philip says

September 25, 2017 at 2:47 pm

Yes, Agree – if you look at the cost differential of a drone vs the damage of any impact to aircraft or helos, its not going to take much more to get them banned or regulated to specific areas.

They are equally then worthy ‘flies-in-the-ointment’ to assist in containing flight operations for an adversary though. Just a thought.

---

Paul says

September 25, 2017 at 5:28 pm

Funny, currently just watching 2 drones flying at 800 feet above me in a controlled zone. Laws need to be very strict with hefty penalties.

---

Allan says

September 26, 2017 at 3:57 am

Time to ban all uav`s that are not operated by a responsible/licenced operator. It`s only a matter of time before one idiot causes an incident to awful to contemplate.

---

PAUL says

September 26, 2017 at 10:35 am

Agree All drone operators should have to pass exams operating anything that can fly above 50ft in controlled airspace- they should at least have a pass in Aviation Law to gain an operators license & then registered & fitted with GPS.

---

Boleropilot says

September 26, 2017 at 10:51 am

I recently read the specifications for one of the newer drones with the latest technology – it stated that the range of the drone is 7km – that’s about 20,000 feet, folks, if the operator decides to go straight up…..and for those who don’t know about the capabilities of these little monsters, they don’t have to be in the sight of the operator. Most have cameras that transmit video back to the operator, plus little niceties like Return To Base with the press of a button – some will even do that if the battery gets low or the drone starts to move out of range.

I live in a rural area and have been a radio control (fixed wing) enthusiast for about three decades. I am currently building a hexacopter from scratch (just to prove I can do it – talk about a steep learning curve) and I see both GA and RAAus aircraft below 1,000 feet passing over our property on a regular basis.

IF I ever get my drone flying it will be heading to the deck asap if I even hear an aircraft nearby – hopefully the young bloke who lives at the top of a nearby hill will do the same thing (I have spoken to him and his parents – they are fine, he’s a surly teenager).

What could possibly go wrong ?

TICK...TOCK Minister 6D (OGAD) Chester -


Update: AAAA submission to the CASA Review of RPAS Operations 2017 - DP1708OS 

---

---

Choky frog for Phil Hurst and the AAAA crew...

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

CASA Drone review update -

Via the Blacktown Sun:

Should you need a licence to fly a drone?: Blacktown Council says rules on drone use up

29 Sep 2017, 11:19 a.m.

Mayor Stephen Bali was worried about safety for bystanders.

Blacktown Council have responded to a discussion paper of regulations for drone use in Australia. Picture: AAP Image/Aaron Bunch

Should you need a licence to operate a drone? 

Blacktown mayor Stephen Bali said the question needs to be asked, as drone technology moves at rapid rate.

Cr Bali raised the issue during Wednesday’s ordinary council meeting, and asked councillors to air their thoughts on the issue.

“If we have to register a car, why not a drone?” he said.

Drones – or remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS), as they are officially called – have grown in popularity and accessibility in Australia.

In a discussion paper Review of RPAS Operations, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority estimates there are 50,000 unregistered RPAS in the country.

The council’s response to the paper said several key areas should be considered, including stationing public officers to enforce regulations and registration for all private drones.

It also supported flight logging systems, training for users and clearer guidelines on how councils could enforce legislation.

“As further recreational and commercial applications are found for these devices, so does the importance of safety and privacy regulation and compliance,” the council’s response stated.

Cr Bali raised safety concerns for bystanders, especially at major events or public places such as pools and sporting fields.

He said there should be regulations around the quality of drones available for purchase.
Councillor Kevin Gillies was worried about privacy issues, with most drones carrying cameras. 

Rules for flying a drone (source Civil Aviation Safety Authority):

• You must only fly during the day
  
• Drones must stay within your line of sight
  
• Drones can’t fly higher that 120 metres
  
• Drones can’t fly within 30 metres of other people
  
• You can’t fly in restricted areas or over populated areas (beaches, sporting fields)
  
• You can’t fly in areas with public safety concerns
  
• You can only fly one drone at a time
  

MTF...P2

[thorn bird]

Looks like our very own "Angry Birds" are getting on with sorting the drone wars P2.


Ultimate angry birds: wedge-tailed eagles become drone predators

Wedge-tailed eagles have no interest in yielding their apex-predator status to flying drones.
MIKE CHERNEY
The Wall Street Journal
12:00AM October 2, 2017

Daniel Parfitt thought he’d found the perfect drone for a two-day mapping job in a remote patch of the outback. The roughly $US80,000 ($102,000) machine had a wingspan of 2m and resembled a stealth bomber.

There was just one problem. His machine raised the hackles of one prominent local resident: a wedge-tailed eagle.

The swooping eagle used its talons to punch a hole in the carbon fibre and Kevlar fuselage of Parfitt’s drone, which lost control and plummeted to the ground.

“I had 15 minutes to go on my last flight on my last day, and one of these wedge-tailed eagles just dive-bombed the drone and punched it out of the sky,” says Parfitt, who believed the drone was too big for a bird to damage.
“It ended up being a pile of splinters.”

Weighing more than 4kg with a wingspan that can approach 2.4m, the wedge-tailed eagle is Australia’s largest bird of prey. Once vilified for killing sheep and targeted by bounty hunters, it is now legally protected. Though a subspecies is still endangered in Tasmania, it is again dominating the skies across much of the continent.


The remains of Daniel Parfitt’s drone after an attack by a wedge-tailed eagle. Picture: Tom Law.

These highly territorial raptors have no interest in yielding their apex-predator status to the increasing number of drones flying around the bush. They’ve even been known to harass the occasional human in a hang glider.

Birds all over the world have attacked drones, but the wedge-tailed eagle is particularly eager to engage in dogfights, operators say. Some try to evade these avian enemies by sending their drones into loops or steep climbs, or just mashing the throttle to outrun them.

A long-term solution remains up in the air. Camouflage techniques, like putting fake eyes on the drones, don’t appear to be fully effective, and some pilots have even considered arming drones with pepper spray or noise devices to ward off eagles.
They are the “ultimate angry birds”, says James Rennie, who started a drone-mapping and inspection business in Melbourne called Australian UAV. He figures that 20 per cent of drone flights in rural areas get attacked by the ­eagles. On one occasion, he was forced to evade nine birds all gunning for his machine.

The birds are considered bigger bullies than their more docile relatives, such as the bald and golden eagles in the US. Wedge-tailed eagles are the undisputed alpha birds in parts of Australia’s interior but it’s not entirely clear why they’re unusually aggressive towards drones. Scientists say they go after drones probably because they view them as potential prey or a competitor.

“They’re really the kings of the air in Australia,” says Todd Katzner, a biologist and eagle expert at the US Geological Survey in Boise, Idaho. “There’s nothing out there that can compete with them.”

The problem is growing more acute as Australia makes a push to become a hot spot for drones. Queensland recently hosted the World of Drones Congress and last year gave about $US780,000 to Boeing for drone testing. Amazon.com is expanding in Australia and could try using drones for deliveries, and the machines are increasingly favoured by big landowners such as miners and cattle ranchers.

The eagles will often attack in male-female pairs, and they aren’t always deterred if their first foray fails. Sometimes they will come from behind, attack in tandem from above, or even stagger their assault.

A drone operator may evade one diving eagle with an upward climb, but the second eagle can then snatch it, Rennie says.

“If you take your eye off that aircraft even for a couple of minutes, the likelihood is it will end up in pieces on the ground,” he says.

In late 2015, Andrew Chapman, a co-owner at Australian UAV, was mapping a ­quarry and landfill site near Melbourne, and figured it was close enough to the city that an eagle attack was unlikely.

But when the drone was about 800m away, an eagle “materialised out of thin air and knocked out the drone”, Chapman says.

He spent two days looking for the machine, worth about $US35,000 at today’s retail price, and had to ship it to the manufacturer in Switzerland for repairs.

More exotic defences have been considered. Chapman says arming drones with pepper spray was discussed but quickly discarded, out of concern it could harm the birds.
“It’s a relief to be planning for jobs overseas because we know the wedgies aren’t there,” says Chapman.



A wedge-tailed eagle as pictured by an Australian drone.

Rick Steven, a survey superintendent at the St Ives goldmine in Western Australia, who uses drones to survey the pits, debated using something like a ShuRoo — a device mounted on cars that makes noise, which humans can’t hear, to keep kangaroos off the road. But he was concerned it would be cumbersome on the drone and may not ward off eagles anyway.

Instead, Steven and other drone operators make use of another weapon: time.
The eagles are less active in the early morning, because the thermals — columns of rising air — they use to fly don’t develop until later in the day after the sun has warmed the ground.

In his first 2½ years flying drones at the mine, Steven says he lost 12 drones to eagle attacks, which cost his employer, South Africa-based Gold Fields, about $US210,000. During the past year, when he focused his flying in the morning, he has lost two — with two more close calls.

Any successes at deterring wedge-tailed eagle attacks in Australia could provide clues in how to minimise avian obstacles in other regions.
“Every time I go to a conference on birds and they’re having a workshop on drones, somebody tells me about this problem in Australia, about these wedge-tailed eagles,” says David Bird, a retired wildlife biology professor in Canada and founding editor of the Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems.

Parfitt, who began his drone business Aerial Image Works about three years ago, remains vigilant. Each of his last three jobs attracted an eagle attack.

Other birds will “fly at the drone and they’ll act in a very aggressive manner, but they don’t actually touch you,” he says.

“I’m not scared of anything else attacking my drone except the wedge-tailed eagle.”

The Wall Street Journal.

"K" - edit - Aye; mine is called Haast and she has made the Purdy redundant. Haast 4 – Purdy 0. Not the easiest of animals, but we seem to have come to an understanding – of sorts; the ‘mess’ is appalling, but it saves on shells – Big (huge) smile. Yuk, yuk ,yak…..

[Peetwo]

Luv it Thorny - P2

Looks like our very own "Angry Birds" are getting on with sorting the drone wars P2.


Ultimate angry birds: wedge-tailed eagles become drone predators


Wedge-tailed eagles have no interest in yielding their apex-predator status to flying drones.

MIKE CHERNEY
The Wall Street Journal
12:00AM October 2, 2017

Daniel Parfitt thought he’d found the perfect drone for a two-day mapping job in a remote patch of the outback. The roughly $US80,000 ($102,000) machine had a wingspan of 2m and resembled a stealth bomber.

There was just one problem. His machine raised the hackles of one prominent local resident: a wedge-tailed eagle.

The swooping eagle used its talons to punch a hole in the carbon fibre and Kevlar fuselage of Parfitt’s drone, which lost control and plummeted to the ground.

“I had 15 minutes to go on my last flight on my last day, and one of these wedge-tailed eagles just dive-bombed the drone and punched it out of the sky,” says Parfitt, who believed the drone was too big for a bird to damage.
“It ended up being a pile of splinters.”

Weighing more than 4kg with a wingspan that can approach 2.4m, the wedge-tailed eagle is Australia’s largest bird of prey. Once vilified for killing sheep and targeted by bounty hunters, it is now legally protected. Though a subspecies is still endangered in Tasmania, it is again dominating the skies across much of the continent.


The remains of Daniel Parfitt’s drone after an attack by a wedge-tailed eagle. Picture: Tom Law.

These highly territorial raptors have no interest in yielding their apex-predator status to the increasing number of drones flying around the bush. They’ve even been known to harass the occasional human in a hang glider.

Birds all over the world have attacked drones, but the wedge-tailed eagle is particularly eager to engage in dogfights, operators say. Some try to evade these avian enemies by sending their drones into loops or steep climbs, or just mashing the throttle to outrun them.

A long-term solution remains up in the air. Camouflage techniques, like putting fake eyes on the drones, don’t appear to be fully effective, and some pilots have even considered arming drones with pepper spray or noise devices to ward off eagles.

They are the “ultimate angry birds”, says James Rennie, who started a drone-mapping and inspection business in Melbourne called Australian UAV. He figures that 20 per cent of drone flights in rural areas get attacked by the ­eagles. On one occasion, he was forced to evade nine birds all gunning for his machine.

The birds are considered bigger bullies than their more docile relatives, such as the bald and golden eagles in the US. Wedge-tailed eagles are the undisputed alpha birds in parts of Australia’s interior but it’s not entirely clear why they’re unusually aggressive towards drones. Scientists say they go after drones probably because they view them as potential prey or a competitor.

“They’re really the kings of the air in Australia,” says Todd Katzner, a biologist and eagle expert at the US Geological Survey in Boise, Idaho. “There’s nothing out there that can compete with them.”

The problem is growing more acute as Australia makes a push to become a hot spot for drones. Queensland recently hosted the World of Drones Congress and last year gave about $US780,000 to Boeing for drone testing. Amazon.com is expanding in Australia and could try using drones for deliveries, and the machines are increasingly favoured by big landowners such as miners and cattle ranchers.

The eagles will often attack in male-female pairs, and they aren’t always deterred if their first foray fails. Sometimes they will come from behind, attack in tandem from above, or even stagger their assault.

A drone operator may evade one diving eagle with an upward climb, but the second eagle can then snatch it, Rennie says.

“If you take your eye off that aircraft even for a couple of minutes, the likelihood is it will end up in pieces on the ground,” he says.

In late 2015, Andrew Chapman, a co-owner at Australian UAV, was mapping a ­quarry and landfill site near Melbourne, and figured it was close enough to the city that an eagle attack was unlikely.

But when the drone was about 800m away, an eagle “materialised out of thin air and knocked out the drone”, Chapman says.

He spent two days looking for the machine, worth about $US35,000 at today’s retail price, and had to ship it to the manufacturer in Switzerland for repairs.

More exotic defences have been considered. Chapman says arming drones with pepper spray was discussed but quickly discarded, out of concern it could harm the birds.

“It’s a relief to be planning for jobs overseas because we know the wedgies aren’t there,” says Chapman.


A wedge-tailed eagle as pictured by an Australian drone.

Rick Steven, a survey superintendent at the St Ives goldmine in Western Australia, who uses drones to survey the pits, debated using something like a ShuRoo — a device mounted on cars that makes noise, which humans can’t hear, to keep kangaroos off the road. But he was concerned it would be cumbersome on the drone and may not ward off eagles anyway.

Instead, Steven and other drone operators make use of another weapon: time.
The eagles are less active in the early morning, because the thermals — columns of rising air — they use to fly don’t develop until later in the day after the sun has warmed the ground.

In his first 2½ years flying drones at the mine, Steven says he lost 12 drones to eagle attacks, which cost his employer, South Africa-based Gold Fields, about $US210,000. During the past year, when he focused his flying in the morning, he has lost two — with two more close calls.

Any successes at deterring wedge-tailed eagle attacks in Australia could provide clues in how to minimise avian obstacles in other regions.

“Every time I go to a conference on birds and they’re having a workshop on drones, somebody tells me about this problem in Australia, about these wedge-tailed eagles,” says David Bird, a retired wildlife biology professor in Canada and founding editor of the Journal of Unmanned Vehicle Systems.

Parfitt, who began his drone business Aerial Image Works about three years ago, remains vigilant. Each of his last three jobs attracted an eagle attack.

Other birds will “fly at the drone and they’ll act in a very aggressive manner, but they don’t actually touch you,” he says.

“I’m not scared of anything else attacking my drone except the wedge-tailed eagle.”

The Wall Street Journal.

"K" - edit - Aye; mine is called Haast and she has made the Purdy redundant. Haast 4 – Purdy 0. Not the easiest of animals, but we seem to have come to an understanding – of sorts; the ‘mess’ is appalling, but it saves on shells – Big (huge) smile. Yuk, yuk ,yak…..

Some of the comments are worthy of regurgitation...

brett3 DAYS AGO



If Amazon starts flying drones over my suburban house at low level then I will have no choice but to acquire a shotgun - or perhaps a house trained wedge tail eagle.

While great for some applications drones can be spectacularly invasive.

FLAGSHARE

42LIKEREPLY

Adrian3 DAYS AGO


Problem is the Amazon drones will carry GPS and a camera with a continuous live feed. They will know who shot it down - next thing the police arrest you and a court case. Amazon will make sure the Govt is on their side. Oh but the satisfaction of shooting one of those things out of the air - raining little bits of plastic.

---

Ken3 DAYS AGO


Glorious, amazing birds. 

FLAGSHARE

33LIKEREPLY

Greg3 DAYS AGO



@Ken Yep amazing.But perhaps their is a scientific explanation - the low level sound of the buzzing of a Drone may affect the Hearing and therefore balance of the Bird.

The Magnificent Eagles are doing the other Birds a huge favor.

Deplorable #1

---

MA3 DAYS AGO


I am on the beach every morning photographing the sunrise. The serenity is amazing... right up until the moment someone with a drone turns up. I can understand birds wanting to attack them.

FLAGSHARE

24LIKEREPLY

Robyn3 DAYS AGO



@MA Drones are not going to go away soon. Have you seen the "accessories" now available for sale? A whole new industry.
Robyn S.

---

John3 DAYS AGO


Here we go ADF...start training them up. They will be selected on a quota system though. At least four out of the 10 wedgies will have to be females and a minimum of two will have to be gender neutral.

---

Patricia3 DAYS AGO



The facts of the matter are these:

1. Drone propellor tips move at very, very high speeds.
2. These propellors have already resulted in serious injuries to humans - and to birds.
3. A magpie recently lost a leg in an altercation with a drone.
4. There is no way for WTE's to learn to discriminate which bit of the drones to hit and which bits to avoid.
5. Even quite small injuries to legs, feet and toes can seriously reduce an individual bird's chance of thriving, let alone surviving.
6. Treating eagles v drones as in some way heroic or romantic is grossly to miss the point.

What is needed urgently is a set of laws to protect planes, raptores, stray humans and our privacy from drones.

Next in something of an update to the DW1 Senate Inquiry and CASA RPAS review, the following is from today's the Oz...

CASA mulls geofencing system
US Army UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters

• Annabel Hepworth
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM October 5, 2017
  

Australia’s aviation safety watchdog has had early-stage talks with Chinese drone manufacturer DJI about rolling out its geofencing system here.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has had preliminary dialogue with DJI about applying its “geo system” in Australia and has also had talks with air traffic control operator Airservices Australia about what data would be needed to make it work. More talks are expected this month, CASA said in a recent answer to a question on notice from a Senate inquiry into drones.

The development comes as pressure builds for the use of geofencing technologies designed to stop drones from entering restricted airspace as CASA takes submissions on drone safety rules and a Senate inquiry is expected to report in December.

Last week, a drone collided with one of the US Army’s UH-60M Black Hawks that was flying over a residential area at Staten Island, causing minor damage to a rotor blade and window. Meanwhile, a summit of the International Civil Aviation Organisation last week also dis­cussed setting up possible global standards for drones.

The Australian Airline Pilots’ Association has also entered the fray, declaring that geofencing is a “vital collision risk mitigator” for remotely piloted aircraft.

“It is imperative that Australia develop and move forward with an unmanned traffic management system which defends critical infrastructure from aerial incursions by the use of geofencing type technologies,” AusALPA says in a new submission to CASA.

The pilots’ group says it’s not clear that geofencing is well enough developed to be mandated yet but this should be done in the “not too distant future” to provide “greater incentive for manufacturers and developers to invest appropriately to protect their markets”.

It also raises concerns about the potential for geofencing curbs to be unlocked.

“AusALPA recognises that the geo-fenced ‘bubbles’ of airspace are akin to restricted rather than prohibited airspace and that there are legitimate reasons for RPAs operators to access that airspace from time to time,” the submission says.

“Establishing a practical and effective scheme that permits only authorised unlocking seems to us to be a matter to be primarily negotiated between regulators and developers.”

CASA’s manager of remotely piloted aircraft systems, Luke Gumley, told the Senate inquiry last month that while manufacturers like DJI had “quite advanced geofencing”, “it comes down to the user and whether they elect to use that particular application.”

“So, I’d imagine most people would use it, because that’s what comes out of the box; however, you’re not obliged to use it,” Mr Gumley said.

Brisbane Airport general manager of operations, the Australian Airport Association’s immediate past chairman, Stephen Goodwin, told the same hearing that it was investigating a few options.

“There is some geofencing technology that an airport operator can put in place which can possibly jam the frequencies on these types of things … We’re investigating possibly investing in something like that.”

MTF...P2

[Cap'n Wannabe]

Full story here..

Passenger plane hit by drone while flying into Quebec airport

A Canadian passenger plane hit a drone while descending on Quebec City’s Jean Lesage International Airport, a minister has said, raising concerns about aviation safety. The incident with the Skyjet flight occurred around 3km from the airport at an altitude of 450 meters on October 12.
“This should not have happened,” said Minister of Transport Marc Garneau on Sunday, as quoted by CTV News. “The drone should not have been there.”

Transport Canada recommends that drones should be flown no higher than 90 meters and at least 5.5km away from anywhere aircraft may take off and land. There were no injuries and only minor damage, allowing the plane to land safely.

Currently, anyone wanting to fly a drone in Canada is subject to a set of safety regulations . Anyone caught endangering the safety of an aircraft risks getting hit with a CA$25,000 (US$12,000) fine.

“I would like to remind drone operators that endangering the safety of an aircraft is extremely dangerous and a serious offence,” Garneau added.

According to the minister, there have been 1,596 reported drone incidents in 2017, of which 131 were deemed concerns to aviation safety.

In August, the United States military gave its bases permission to shoot down any drones they feel may threaten security or aviation safety.

[Peetwo]

DW1 Inquiry update: 16/10/17

Full story here..

Passenger plane hit by drone while flying into Quebec airport

A Canadian passenger plane hit a drone while descending on Quebec City’s Jean Lesage International Airport, a minister has said, raising concerns about aviation safety. The incident with the Skyjet flight occurred around 3km from the airport at an altitude of 450 meters on October 12.

“This should not have happened,” said Minister of Transport Marc Garneau on Sunday, as quoted by CTV News. “The drone should not have been there.”

Transport Canada recommends that drones should be flown no higher than 90 meters and at least 5.5km away from anywhere aircraft may take off and land. There were no injuries and only minor damage, allowing the plane to land safely.

Currently, anyone wanting to fly a drone in Canada is subject to a set of safety regulations . Anyone caught endangering the safety of an aircraft risks getting hit with a CA$25,000 (US$12,000) fine.

“I would like to remind drone operators that endangering the safety of an aircraft is extremely dangerous and a serious offence,” Garneau added.

According to the minister, there have been 1,596 reported drone incidents in 2017, of which 131 were deemed concerns to aviation safety.

In August, the United States military gave its bases permission to shoot down any drones they feel may threaten security or aviation safety.

Excellent catch CW, perhaps this maybe subject to a mention in tomorrow's DW1 inquiry public hearing in Can'tberra...

See here:

program (3).pdf Size: 23.91 KB  Downloads: 0

While on the subject of international response and regulatory concern in trying to keep pace with the rapid growth and popularity of RPAS/drones, I note the following article courtesy of the Bangkok Post...

Education the key for drone owners 15 Oct 2017 at 04:20 NEWSPAPER SECTION

https://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opin...one-owners.

& from continent of the EASA, via Lexology:

Drones Over Europe: A Regulatory Overview
Jones Day







prev
next

European Union, France, Germany, Italy, United Kingdom October 12 2017
In Short

The Situation: Interest in drone technology continues to grow across Europe.

The Result: European nations are responding with regulations designed to encourage continued innovation while encouraging responsible drone use.

Looking Ahead: Drone users should remain aware of possible further regulatory provisions in the future.

As the market for civil unmanned aircraft systems—also called "drones"—expands, several European countries, including France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, have already adopted a regulatory framework. An overview of current regulations follows.

France: A Pioneer in Drone Regulation
The French Transport Code defines drones as "any aircraft capable of rising or circulating in the air" (Article L. 6100-1). Despite this simplistic definition, France has been at the forefront of the regulatory initiative on drones.

On April 11, 2012, two decrees regulating the conception and the use of drones were issued, and were soon replaced by the Security Reinforcement on the Use of Civilian Drones Law of October 24, 2016. This law provides more precise definitions and specifies obligations that apply both to users and manufacturers.

Drone users are now required to undergo a special training (Article L. 6214-2 of Transportation Code) and manufacturers are to provide information notices relating to the use of drones (Article L. 425-1 of Transportation Code), install safety devices, and register their products with the French Civil Aviation Authority.

Also, by making drone pilots liable in case of wrongfully flying over restricted areas—as defined by the governmental order dated January 27, 2017, and by increasing the applicable penalties (Article L. 232-12 and L. 232-13 of Transportation Code), this legislation tends to deter undesirable uses, potentially fostering insecurity. As such, gains are realized in both clarity and safety, and this should not be seen as a luxury when dealing with drones.

The French legislature is aware it cannot afford to stop advances in drone technology. By 2018, several decrees are expected to complete the current regulatory landscape regarding training obligations, electronic registration requirements, and mandatory installation of safety devices for drones whose weight is equal or exceeds a certain threshold (which is to be set out by the aforementioned decrees—and not to exceed 800 grams).

Germany: Entering into a New Era of Drone Regulation
Acknowledging the growing commercial value and increasing use of drones, the German government recently established a regulatory reform that can be considered the beginning of a new era of drone regulation.

Under German legislation, drones are mostly subject to general aviation rules and commercial regulations, but are not exempt from more specific regulatory restrictions pertaining to data protection, IP, and radio spectrum regulation.

The main aviation provisions governing the use of drones are found in legal orders issued by the German Ministry of Transport (Sec. 21a – 21f Air Traffic Order and Sec. 19 Air Traffic Admission Order as of March 30, 2017). Even though significant regulatory restrictions apply, flying drones for private or commercial purposes is allowed. And contrary to France, Germany has already set up weight related regulatory obligations: the takeoff weight ("TOW"). For example, the use of drones with a TOW below 0.25 kg is generally unregulated whereas all drones above this TOW will require a fireproof identification tag by October 1, 2017. Pilots flying a drone with a TOW of more than 2 kg must take a theoretical examination, while drones with a TOW of more than 5 kg require an additional license. While the use of drones with a TOW above 25 kg is generally prohibited, operators can apply for derogations.

In addition to general aviation rules, pilots must respect no-fly zones that include sensitive areas ranging from airports via military and industrial facilities, to federal highways. Such restrictions directly affect drone pilots, but can also have an impact on producers if, for example, they ought to install or program GPS-based software recognizing no-fly zones.

No-fly zones apply territorially, but also spatially as drones must stay under a maximum height of 100 meters and be operated within line of sight. But here again, operators can apply for derogations (Sec. 21b (3) LuftVO) that facilitate the development of new drone-based business models. The conditions under which derogations will be granted are case specific. As a rule of thumb, it is more likely that broader exceptions will be granted for specific use in nonresidential areas, i.e., for agricultural and silvicultural purposes (Sec. 21b (2) LuftVO).

Finally, other regulatory restrictions affect both drone users and producers. For example, the operation of drones is subject to compulsory liability insurance requirements, which is particularly important since drone owners are subject to strict liability. Drone owners must bear in mind that drones equipped with cameras must comply with data protection and IP laws when taking pictures. Also, the radio control, the remote control and the transmission features of drones must abide by international and national telecommunications laws that regulate spectrum use by defining the applicable frequency bands and determining other technical specifications.

Italy: Regulating Drone Use and Operator Training
Italy was among the first countries to adopt a regulation on drones. Indeed, as early as December 16, 2013, the Italian Body for Civil Aviation ("ENAC") enacted the Air Means by Remote Pilotage. This regulation includes specific distinctions between aircrafts on the basis of their use and their technical characteristics and subsequent amendments introduced a distinction based on the activity carried out. Thus, the Air Means by Remote Pilotage regulates two main activities: (i) aircraft systems with remote pilotage that are used for specialized operations or in scientific activities, experimentation, and research and (ii) air models used only in activities for leisure or competition purposes.

Starting July 16, 2015, the ENAC regulation was regularly amended to modernize Italian unmanned aircraft law. These reforms targeted safety measures. For example, drone pilots must now undergo a specific training and can be subject to obtaining flight authorizations. Finally, drone pilots must now comply with specific legal requirements and preclude both undesirable use and flying over prohibited areas and locations.

United Kingdom: Drones Feature in Plans for High-Tech Economy
In July 2017, the UK government issued its Response to the official Consultation launched in December 2016 on the safe use of drones in the United Kingdom. The Consultation and Response are part of the government's initiative to unlock the United Kingdom's high-tech economy and indicates the likely direction of travel of future drone legislation. The Response sets out groundbreaking changes to the current regime, and some of these changes are expected to be in place in early 2018. The first major change will be compulsory registration of all drones weighing over 250 g and their users operating in UK airspace.

The Current Law. The Civil Aviation Authority ("CAA") is responsible for supervising compliance with the Air Navigation Order 2016 ("ANO"), which is the principal legislation governing the use of drones. The ANO regulates the use of drones by reference to their use, their weight, and whether or not they have surveillance capability.

Under the ANO, all operators of drones for commercial purposes must have a permission to do so issued by the CAA (ANO, Article 94(5)). Permissions are issued for 12 months and are subject to an annual renewal process. Potential operators are required to provide an operations manual to show how drone flights will be conducted and to demonstrate pilot competence. Evidence of pilot competence includes demonstrating sufficient understanding of aviation theory, aviation law, and good flying practice and by passing a practical flying assessment.

For leisure purposes, no permission is required to operate a drone weighing between 7 kg and 20 kg (in each case, not including fuel), provided certain rules are followed. For example, for all drones with a weight of more than 7 kg, the person in charge of the drone must maintain direct, unaided visual contact with the drone; the drone must not be flown near aircraft, persons, vehicles, vessels, and structures; and the maximum height at which the drone may be flown is 400 feet (ANO, Article 94(3)). Drones equipped with surveillance equipment and weighing under 20 kg are subject to additional restrictions, mostly regulating how close the drone may come to people, vessels, structures, and congested areas (ANO, Article 95 (2)).

Drones weighing between 20 kg to 150 kg are regulated in the same way as manned commercial aircraft, and drones weighing above 150 kg will be subject to EU Regulation (EC) 216/2008.

Drone operators violating the terms of a CAA permission and/or the above restrictions in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft or any person in an aircraft can be punished by an unlimited fine or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both. An operator convicted of recklessly or negligently causing or permitting a drone to endanger any person or property is subject to an unlimited fine or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both. Violations where there is no endangerment are subject to a maximum fine of £2,500.

Drone operators also need to comply with applicable nonaviation laws. For example, although leisure users do not need permission from the CAA to fly a surveillance drone weighing under 20 kg at certain heights and distances away from congested areas, this does not mean that the operator can fly the drone over Ministry of Defense restricted property or are permitted to interfere with air traffic, particularly around airports. One particular concern in the United Kingdom is the use of drones to convey prohibited items in and out of prisons. Drone operators must comply with laws regarding trespass, nuisance, and terrorism. They are also subject to data protection laws, and careful compliance with data protection laws will become increasingly important when the General Data Protection Regulation comes into force in May 2018, in particular because the fine for a data protection violation will increase from £500,000 to the greater of €20 million or four percent of global turnover.

New Laws in Short Order. In the Consultation Response, the UK government stated that safety, security, and privacy were its priorities, and the Response stated that the following measures will be implemented shortly:

All operators of drones weighing 250g and above will be required to register themselves and their drones. This is likely to include embedding electronic identification and tracking capability within the registration process so that enforcement action can be improved.
Competence testing, possibly in the form of online tests, will be extended to leisure users.

The government is considering tightening up the rules on areas in which drones can be flown, including an outright ban on flying drones within the proximity of airports, and increasing the penalties for violation of drone laws. The government will support the drone sector and the insurance sector working together to improve the insurance offerings available to drone users. Looking out further into the future, the government has said it will continue to explore the development of an unmanned traffic management system and the implementation of geo-fencing to prevent drones being used in unauthorized areas.

European Union: Regulation of the "U-space"
The European Union aims at producing effective EU-wide rules to make drone use in low-level airspace safe, secure, and environmentally friendly. The "U-space" the European Union wants to regulate covers altitudes of up to 150 meters. The European Union affirms its will to "pave the way for the development of a strong and dynamic EU drone service market" (see European Commission's press release of June 16, 2017, on the matter). As such, it targets the implementation of rules concerning registration of drones and drone operators, their e-identification, and geo-fencing by 2019.

Key Takeaways (by Jurisdiction)

France

• Drone operators must undergo special training;
  
• Drone operators are liable in case of wrongful use of their drone; and
  
• Manufacturers must provide information notices, install safety devices, and register their products.
  

Germany

• Drones are subject to specific regulations depending on their weight; and
  
• Drone operators must respect special no-fly zones and spatial restrictions.
  

Italy

• Drones are subject to specific regulations depending on their use; and
  
• Drone operators must undergo special training and can be required to obtain flight authorizations.
  

United Kingdom

• Currently, drones are subject to specific regulations depending on both their use and weight;
  
• Drone operators are subject to both civil and criminal liability in case of breach or wrongdoing; and
  
• New UK laws will be in place shortly requiring registration of all drone users and drones.
  

 

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

DW1 Update 17/10/17: Final Public hearing. 

Probably be a couple of days before the Hansard is released, in the meantime here is some interesting moving pictures from today's final public hearing...

 


MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Woebegone and disinterested, the ministerial look.



Has any government department yet realised the stark reality of the ‘drone’ situation? IF there is; and, my tote says there must be, a serious bingle between and unlicensed ‘rouge’ drone and an essential service helicopter, the political fallout and media field day will be massive. The major aviation safety agencies have been at silly buggers since the question first arose – and done SFA since; ‘cept cover their collective rear ends. It not only typifies their approach to ‘pro-active’ safety, but the inbuilt reflex denial of any responsibility, whatsoever. CASA for example refuse to believe there is a problem at all -



The thing that still amazes me, even now after this excellent Senate committee has finished doing the ‘heavy lifting’ is the pallid, bland, reluctant responses to what is, quite seriously, an out of control situation. The time taken to shake the dozing departments awake is mind bending. The need to continually ‘hammer’ the message home beggars belief; but that, stand alone is not the reason for taking a long, deep, soothing breath.

I cannot; will not, ever, understand how our major aeronautical safety agencies and their handlers must be dragged, in a fine exhibition of the sheep dogs problem (passive resistance) to accept that they have an urgent responsibility – now: right now to get ahead of this increasingly, dangerous problem. WTD is the matter with ‘em. This is real, this is now – what the hell will happen if a laser loaded drone downs a medivac chopper carrying a hurt kid to the hospital? – Seriously; it could happen, tonight; scenario: - car crash, medi-vac, drone strike, and a two ton chopper smashing into the roof of a busy hospital. The government would fall.

Time the minister started taking some photographs that mattered – instead of pissing about with Barmy-Baby in the Tamworth aero club dunny - ne pensez-vous pas ?




On the latest Hansard video evidence, even the DoIT lady was ‘defensive’, calling up ‘inter departmental’ bollocks and road blocks. The lack of initiative is stunning. DoIT wants to wait for the Senators to sort it out, give them a plan so they can then wait for the ministers response, before they’ll actually do something. Bollocks. Time to get this done before there is an accident; the numbers – as in the odds, are increasing by the second. Why don’t the public servants start actually serving the public interest? Hells bells they’re not even serving 6D AGAD; he’s the one who will wear the shame when it happens. Oh yes minister, not a question of IF; only when.

That’s all the help I can offer – it costs a fortune to rebuild a hospital – but why should 6D give a duck; not his budget is it.. You’d reckon, even in self defence the hapless 6D AGAD  would have the whip out; seems he rather take pictures of Barmy’s. Such is life in the ministerial fast lane.

Toot – Plonker – toot.

[Cap'n Wannabe]

And so it continues.
You know, just the other day, I was stuck in traffic because of a car accident further up the road.  Two paddy wagons and an ambulance screamed past on the other side of the road, lights and sirens blaring.  I just happened to look out of my car, and what did I see?  A drone, about 100 feet - initially - hovering over somebody's back yard.....no doubt trying to get footage of the accident.  It soon shot up - and I mean shot up - to about 200 feet......less than 2km from YMEN, and just off the final approach for RWY 26.

[Peetwo]

Woebegone and disinterested, the ministerial look.



Has any government department yet realised the stark reality of the ‘drone’ situation? IF there is; and, my tote says there must be, a serious bingle between and unlicensed ‘rouge’ drone and an essential service helicopter, the political fallout and media field day will be massive. The major aviation safety agencies have been at silly buggers since the question first arose – and done SFA since; ‘cept cover their collective rear ends. It not only typifies their approach to ‘pro-active’ safety, but the inbuilt reflex denial of any responsibility, whatsoever. CASA for example refuse to believe there is a problem at all -



The thing that still amazes me, even now after this excellent Senate committee has finished doing the ‘heavy lifting’ is the pallid, bland, reluctant responses to what is, quite seriously, an out of control situation. The time taken to shake the dozing departments awake is mind bending. The need to continually ‘hammer’ the message home beggars belief; but that, stand alone is not the reason for taking a long, deep, soothing breath.

I cannot; will not, ever, understand how our major aeronautical safety agencies and their handlers must be dragged, in a fine exhibition of the sheep dogs problem (passive resistance) to accept that they have an urgent responsibility – now: right now to get ahead of this increasingly, dangerous problem. WTD is the matter with ‘em. This is real, this is now – what the hell will happen if a laser loaded drone downs a medivac chopper carrying a hurt kid to the hospital? – Seriously; it could happen, tonight; scenario: - car crash, medi-vac, drone strike, and a two ton chopper smashing into the roof of a busy hospital. The government would fall.

Time the minister started taking some photographs that mattered – instead of pissing about with Barmy-Baby in the Tamworth aero club dunny - ne pensez-vous pas ?




On the latest Hansard video evidence, even the DoIT lady was ‘defensive’, calling up ‘inter departmental’ bollocks and road blocks. The lack of initiative is stunning. DoIT wants to wait for the Senators to sort it out, give them a plan so they can then wait for the ministers response, before they’ll actually do something. Bollocks. Time to get this done before there is an accident; the numbers – as in the odds, are increasing by the second. Why don’t the public servants start actually serving the public interest? Hells bells they’re not even serving 6D AGAD; he’s the one who will wear the shame when it happens. Oh yes minister, not a question of IF; only when.

That’s all the help I can offer – it costs a fortune to rebuild a hospital – but why should 6D give a duck; not his budget is it.. You’d reckon, even in self defence the hapless 6D AGAD  would have the whip out; seems he rather take pictures of Barmy’s. Such is life in the ministerial fast lane.

Toot – Plonker – toot.

Still waiting for Hansard -

While we wait I note an addition to the submissions page that is IMO worth regurgitating:

https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ash...bId=561130

Charlotte Sennersten of Mining3 had the privilege to meet Senator Janet Rice at The Drone Congress held in Brisbane last week, 31st of August 2017. She asked Senator Rice how we might contribute to the 'Drone problem' in relation to technology support for a regulatory framework. Senator Rice indicated that we could still make a submission even though the deadline had already past.

The current regulatory framework allows anyone with a couple of hundreds of dollars to buy and launch a drone and legally fly it as long as the flight does not exceed 400 feet, it is not flown nearer than 5 km to an airport and not closer then 30 meters to people. While these regulations are in place to try to create safe conditions for hobby UAV flights, there are few effective methods of ensuring compliance or for detecting regulatory violations.

In Mining3 we are currently building a digital system that we call the Internet of Space and Time where we go away from a typical HTML based document world to an interactive 3D spatial world that could potentially be used, together with tracking and monitoring on board UAVs, to enforce UAV operational regulations. This enforcement can include geo-fencing, querying spatial volume(s) and having real time communication with engineering data as long as transponders are in place and mounted on the unmanned vehicles. The regulatory framework can then be incorporated and defined in 3D spatial technologies and activated at any point and time by UAV control systems and associated authorities.

We understand that CASA are looking into how to create a regulatory framework including RPASs and UAS together with coordination with manned Aerial Work for fixed wing and rotorcraft at low altitude levels – creating a safe a shared airspace for manned air vehicles, unmanned vehicles and third person parties in these contexts.

The international regulations have to co-exist with state and local regulations, as well as for longterm regulatory compliance, public safety and national security through education, professional standards, training, insurance and enforcement. Also with higher complexity and higher numbers of UAVs we need better insurance systems for both private and commercial users/operators, including consideration of the suitability of existing data protection, cyber security, liability and insurance regimes, and of a nature sufficient to meet growing use of RPAS.

We would like to demonstrate our ongoing development of a system that can be used for operation, navigation, and geo-fencing with tracking and automated alerting in relation to the legal regulatory framework implemented in technology. If a transponder requirement and legal ID's for each and every UAV was in place we can directly show how this system can work to prevent and secure a safe airspace with 24 hour tracking and data capture.

My team and I would be most happy to demonstrate this system for you and would appreciate the opportunity to work with you to build up and secure a safe airspace.

Sincerely,

 
Also for your amusement and incredulity (or not) I note that Dr Aleck felt obliged to 'correct the bollocks' from evidence he presented at the 29 August 2017 public hearing...

Additional Documents

---

I write to correct and clarify two statements I made in response to a question you raised in the course of the hearing captioned above in relation to the legality of flying a remotely piloted aircraft ('drone') over Parliament House.

The pertinent portion of our exchange, which appears at page 32 of Hansard, was as follows:

---

CHAIR: If I wanted to zap a drone over Parliament House, can I just sit there and zip it out from the car park or wherever? What would you do? What would you say to me?

Dr Aleck; You want to zap it? Do you mean bring one down?

CHAIR: I'm flying over Parliament House. I'm filming Parliament House and I'm filming the sporting fields where there might happen to be a rugby game on between politicians.

Dr Aleck: I'm looking at our app right now, and I see that the—is that Parliament House?

Mr Gumley: Correct.

Dr Aleck: Parliament House is within the control zone of Canberra Airport. So, that operation is, in fact, not appropriate.

CHAIR: Illegal?

Dr Aleck: Yes.

---

Whether the operation of a drone in any particular location (including Parliament House) at a particular time and in particular circumstances is or is not lawful under the civil aviation legislation will depend upon the facts and circumstances of that particular operation.

Certain restrictions and limitations that apply to a particular flight might not apply generally, and certain flights which might normally be impermissible may be permitted under specified conditions and/or subject to certain approvals.

In the absence of specific details related to a particular operation (actual or hypothetical), it is not possible to say with certainty whether it would or would not be legal. My unqualified concurrence with your characterisation of such an operation as illegal ought to have been qualified as depending on a range of considerations.

In responding to your hypothetical question, I had regard to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA's) Can I fly there? app, which my colleague called up on his mobile telephone for my quick reference. From the app I observed that virtually the whole of Parliament House, including the sporting fields within the perimeter of Capitol Circle, was depicted as falling within the darkly shaded area surrounding Canberra Airport. That area is designated on CASA's app as a 'No Fly Zone'.

Describing that zone in my response, I referred to the area as within the 'control zone' of
Canberra Airport. Technically, however, the 'No Fly Zone' depicted on the app is not fully contiguous with the Canberra Airport control zone, as the latter has been formally designated under the Airspace Regulations 2007.

I apologise for any confusion that may have been caused by my unqualified response to your question about the legality of a hypothetical flight of a drone over Parliament House, and my incorrect reference to the 'No Fly Zone' depicted on the CASA app as reflecting the Canberra Airport control zone.

Yours sincerely

Dr Jonathan Aleck

General Manager, Legal Affairs, Regulatory Policy
and International Strategy

 
MTF...P2

[Cap'n Wannabe]

From the Oz this morning..

CASA cracks down on recreational drones

Australians who fly drones for fun will have to follow tougher safety rules imposed by the aviation watchdog to better “protect” the public.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority today will announce remotely piloted aircraft used for recreation must never be flown within 5.5km of any major airport in capital cities and regional centres.

They will also be forbidden in “non-controlled” airports or helicopter landing sites that are being used by other aircraft.

The crackdown brings rules governing recreational drones in line with those that apply to commercial ones, and follows industry concerns about mid-air collisions and laws that some pilots said effectively had allowed “open skies for drones”.

“All recreational drones must be flown below 400 feet (122m) at all times, kept more than 30 metres from people not involved in controlling the drone and only one drone can be flown at a time,” a CASA spokesman said last night. “All drones, recreational and non-recreational, must be kept away from areas where fire, police or emergency operations are under way unless there is approval from the person in charge of the ... operation.”

CASA director of aviation Shane Carmody said the regulator did not want to ban recreational drones but the new rules were necessary for public safety.

“CASA identified some areas in the drone rules that needed strengthening and clarifying to better manage the risks associated with flying drones,” he said.

“The changes make the safety requirements clearer for people flying drones and will make the rules easier to enforce.”

One Nation leader Pauline Hanson controversially flew a drone from a high-rise building in Townsville in July. She was cleared of breaching aviation rules but, under the new rules, had she been within 5.5km of the airport, the senator would have been liable for a fine of up to $10,500.

Independent senator Nick Xenophon last year warned Australians were at risk from very small commercial drones being sucked into plane engines and exploding after the regulator brought in laws that meant operators no longer needed certification or training for the aircraft.

Nationals senator Barry O’Sullivan has warned regulations were removed too quickly and wants laws for commercial drones reintroduced. CASA said then that the relaxation of rules struck the right balance between safety and cutting red tape.

[Kharon]

A message, in a bottle

"The crackdown brings rules governing recreational drones in line with those that apply to commercial ones, and follows industry concerns about mid-air collisions and laws that some pilots said effectively had allowed “open skies for drones”.

All well and good – but;

CASA - “The changes make the safety requirements clearer for people flying drones and will make the rules easier to enforce.”

Enforce ? Golly -by whom and how, we wonder?

The Oz – “The crackdown brings rules governing recreational drones in line with those that apply to commercial ones, etc.

‘Crackdown’ is stretching it a bit too far ain’t it. OK CASA have beefed up the rules, but that is about as far as they go, in any practical sense. Will the ‘new’ rules stop the rogues and the idiots? Will the new rules identify the same and bring them to a prosecution? Will the defence lawyers be able to wriggle around the ‘rules’ and demonstrate that paper tigers can be burned? For example, how will CASA prove that a drone was within 28 meters of ‘people not involved’, rather than the mandated 30 meters.

The problem with messages in bottles is that the tide will usually bring ‘em back ashore – a bit further up the beach; it’s the desperate, last gasp attempt of some unfortunate survivor of a boat wreck. It is more a gesture of hope and a little more practical than praying for divine intervention. CASA could have saved the ink and got the refund on the bottle. Until the Senate committee come up with a ‘plan’ the CASA crackdown is just another Sleepy Hollow generated crack up. Aye well, thanks for the laugh boys.

Toot – toot.

[Cap'n Wannabe]

Advisory Circular 101-3(0) 2002
I always wondered how this and CASR 101 couldn't be expanded to include drones..

[Peetwo]

Woebegone and disinterested, the ministerial look.



Has any government department yet realised the stark reality of the ‘drone’ situation? IF there is; and, my tote says there must be, a serious bingle between and unlicensed ‘rouge’ drone and an essential service helicopter, the political fallout and media field day will be massive. The major aviation safety agencies have been at silly buggers since the question first arose – and done SFA since; ‘cept cover their collective rear ends. It not only typifies their approach to ‘pro-active’ safety, but the inbuilt reflex denial of any responsibility, whatsoever. CASA for example refuse to believe there is a problem at all -



The thing that still amazes me, even now after this excellent Senate committee has finished doing the ‘heavy lifting’ is the pallid, bland, reluctant responses to what is, quite seriously, an out of control situation. The time taken to shake the dozing departments awake is mind bending. The need to continually ‘hammer’ the message home beggars belief; but that, stand alone is not the reason for taking a long, deep, soothing breath.

I cannot; will not, ever, understand how our major aeronautical safety agencies and their handlers must be dragged, in a fine exhibition of the sheep dogs problem (passive resistance) to accept that they have an urgent responsibility – now: right now to get ahead of this increasingly, dangerous problem. WTD is the matter with ‘em. This is real, this is now – what the hell will happen if a laser loaded drone downs a medivac chopper carrying a hurt kid to the hospital? – Seriously; it could happen, tonight; scenario: - car crash, medi-vac, drone strike, and a two ton chopper smashing into the roof of a busy hospital. The government would fall.

Time the minister started taking some photographs that mattered – instead of pissing about with Barmy-Baby in the Tamworth aero club dunny - ne pensez-vous pas ?




On the latest Hansard video evidence, even the DoIT lady was ‘defensive’, calling up ‘inter departmental’ bollocks and road blocks. The lack of initiative is stunning. DoIT wants to wait for the Senators to sort it out, give them a plan so they can then wait for the ministers response, before they’ll actually do something. Bollocks. Time to get this done before there is an accident; the numbers – as in the odds, are increasing by the second. Why don’t the public servants start actually serving the public interest? Hells bells they’re not even serving 6D AGAD; he’s the one who will wear the shame when it happens. Oh yes minister, not a question of IF; only when.

That’s all the help I can offer – it costs a fortune to rebuild a hospital – but why should 6D give a duck; not his budget is it.. You’d reckon, even in self defence the hapless 6D AGAD  would have the whip out; seems he rather take pictures of Barmy’s. Such is life in the ministerial fast lane.

Toot – Plonker – toot.

Still waiting for Hansard -

Finally Hansard is out -  

17 Oct 2017 Canberra, ACT (HTML & PDF)

..CHAIR: I'm not sure, but when we raise this sort of stuff with CASA they don't want to know about it. It's: 'She'll be right. Christ, we've got other things to worry about if one of these hits a plane.' But that is why I have to tell you, because in September, on Staten Island in New York, a drone hit an army helicopter at night. I don't know how the hell the helicopter got out of it. They did, and that's great, but this is the important thing I wanted to raise with you, as a very senior departmental official. We'll raise it again with CASA. They collected the drone, and DJI were able to identify who owned that drone. I don't know whether or not it's compulsory in the United States, but if anyone in CASA or the Australian government doesn't think that this should be a minimum compulsory standard then they need their head read. I just wanted to share that with you, because if you could filter that down to CASA that would be wonderful—if they could get on the same planet as us.

Ms Spence : Just for your awareness, Senator, my observations over the last 12 to 18 months are that CASA has certainly turned its attention—

CHAIR: Don't defend them with us.

Ms Spence : I do feel—

CHAIR: We're getting on fantastically and we want to continue to get on fantastically with you. They give us the whoops; you don't. But feel free if you want to defend them.

Ms Spence : It's just that I am conscious they have put out the discussion paper and they are—

CHAIR: They got dragged kicking and screaming into it.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Seven months after they were asked for it—

Ms Spence : I'm just trying to—

CHAIR: But you're dealing with it, so we might leave it at that.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: and consequently there were some very terse encounters with this committee. We met with a delegation of seven of them—I think all three of us were present—and it was breathtaking. I know that their public position has improved but I'm not sure that the energy's there behind it. I share my colleague's view that they need to be monitored.

Finally more on the Carmody hour backdown on drones...

Via Spacial Source:

CASA tightens drone rules ahead of review
By Daniel Bishton on 23 October, 2017


Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has introduced tighter rules on recreational drone flight ahead of a full review of drone regulation.
 
CASA cites community concern as the prompt for the new restrictions, and a rising number of incidents being reported.

“We keep getting reports from pilots of seeing drones while they’re taking off and landing, often up to several thousand feet high,” CASA spokesman Peter Gibson told Spatial Source.

“The increasing number of drones, the number of people flying them recreationally, and the increasing number of reports of incidents and events made us look again at the drone rules — and we thought it appropriate to tighten them up, and clarify some areas where they weren’t as clear as they could be.”

The new regulations enforce a maximum ceiling of 400 feet (just under 123 metres) on recreational drones, and craft must remain more than 30 metres from people not involved in controlling the drone, and only one recreational drone may be flown at one time. All drones – recreational and non-recreational – must now be kept away from areas where fire, police or other emergency operations are underway unless there is approval from the person in charge of the emergency operation.

Drones weighing over 100 grams now cannot be flown within 5.5 kilometres of a controlled aerodrome — the major aerodromes in capitals and regional centres —  or non-controlled aerodromes, if it is clear that aircraft are operating at these sites. Controlled aerodromes can be easily identified by whether a control tower is present at the facility, or on Airservice Australia’s map.

Announced on October 20, the new regulations were accompanied by the launch of DroneFlyer, CASA’s new drone safety website, and are intended as a preliminary measure ahead of a full review of drone regulation in Australia that is in progress. Analysis of almost 1,000 responses to a discussion paper on drone flight regulation are currently being analysed as the basis of CASA’s review, with results and recommendations expected to be made public in 2018.

Gibson confirmed that CASA has been discussion with DJI regarding the potential implementation of their geofencing system, and that various applications of this technology were suggested in the discussion paper, though the agency’s position on the technology was yet to be determined.

The formal direction containing CASA’s new rules for drone flight can be found here.

Note how Pinocchio Gobson has completely changed his weasel worded spin'n'bollocks -


MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Drones and the Trump-o-sphere...

Listen up 6D AGAD , via the POTUS & the US DoT:

Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Transportation

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

SUBJECT: Unmanned Aircraft Systems Integration Pilot Program

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Policy.  It shall be the policy of the United States to promote the safe operation of unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and enable the development of UAS technologies for use in agriculture, commerce, emergency management, human transportation, and other sectors.  Compared to manned aircraft, UAS provide novel, low cost capabilities for both public and private applications.  UAS present opportunities to enhance the safety of the American public, increase the efficiency and productivity of American industry, and create tens of thousands of new American jobs.

The private sector has rapidly advanced UAS capabilities to address the needs of recreational, commercial, and public users.  To promote continued technological innovation and to ensure the global leadership of the United States in this emerging industry, the regulatory framework for UAS operations must be sufficiently flexible to keep pace with the advancement of UAS technology, while balancing the vital Federal roles in protecting privacy and civil liberties; mitigating risks to national security and homeland security; and protecting the safety of the American public, critical infrastructure, and the Nation's airspace.  Well-coordinated integration of UAS into the national airspace system (NAS) alongside manned aircraft will increase the safety of the NAS and enable the authorization of more complex UAS operations.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has taken steps to integrate UAS into the NAS at specific test sites and has issued operational requirements for small UAS operations in the NAS.  Further integration will require continued private-sector cooperation and the involvement of State, local, and tribal governments in Federal efforts to develop and enforce regulations on UAS operations in their jurisdictions.  Input from State, local, tribal, and private-sector stakeholders will be necessary to craft an optimal strategy for the national management of UAS operations.  A coordinated effort between the private sector and among these governments will provide certainty and stability to UAS owners and operators, maximize the benefits of UAS technologies for the public, and mitigate risks to public safety and security.

Sec. 2.  UAS Integration Pilot Program. 

(a)  Within 90 days of the date of this memorandum, the Secretary of Transportation (Secretary), in consultation with the Administrator of the FAA (Administrator), shall establish a UAS Integration Pilot Program (Program) to test the further integration of UAS into the NAS in a select number of State, local, and tribal jurisdictions.

(b)  The objectives of the Program shall be to:

(i)    test and evaluate various models of State, local, and tribal government involvement in the development and enforcement of Federal regulations for UAS operations;
(ii)   encourage UAS owners and operators to develop and safely test new and innovative UAS concepts of operations; and
(iii)  inform the development of future Federal guidelines and regulatory decisions on UAS operations nationwide.

Sec. 3.  Implementation. 

(a)  To implement the Program, the Secretary or the Administrator, as appropriate, shall:

(i)    solicit proposals from State, local, and tribal governments to test within their jurisdictions the integration of civil and public UAS operations into the NAS below 200 feet above ground level, or up to 400 feet above ground level if the Secretary determines that such an adjustment would be appropriate;
(ii)   select proposals by State, local, and tribal governments for participation in the Program according to the criteria listed in subsection (b) of this section;
(iii)  enter into agreements with the selected governments to establish the terms of their involvement in UAS operations within their jurisdictions, including their support for Federal enforcement responsibilities; describe the proposed UAS operations to be conducted; and identify the entities that will conduct such operations, including, if applicable, the governments themselves; and 
(iv)   as necessary, use existing authorities to grant exceptions, exemptions, authorizations, and waivers from FAA regulations to the entities identified in the agreements described in subsection (iii) of this section, including through the issuance of waivers under 14 CFR Part 107 and Certificates of Waiver or Authorization under section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 (FMRA) (Public Law 112 95).

(b)  In selecting proposals for participation in the Program under subsection (a) of this section, the Secretary shall consider:

(i)     overall economic, geographic, and climatic diversity of the selected jurisdictions;
(ii)    overall diversity of the proposed models of government involvement; 
(iii)   overall diversity of the UAS operations to be conducted;
(iv)    the location of critical infrastructure;
(v)     the involvement of commercial entities in the proposal, and their ability to advance objectives that may serve the public interest as a result of further integration of UAS into the NAS;
(vi)    the involvement of affected communities in, and their support for, participating in the Program;
(vii)   the commitment of the governments and UAS operators involved in the proposal to comply with requirements related to national defense, homeland security, and public safety, and to address competition, privacy, and civil liberties concerns; and
(viii)  the commitment of the governments and UAS operators involved in the proposal to achieve the following policy objectives:

(A)  promoting innovation and economic development;
(B)  enhancing transportation safety;
©  enhancing workplace safety;
(D)  improving emergency response and search and rescue functions; and
(E)  using radio spectrum efficiently and competitively.
©  Within 180 days of the establishment of the Program, the Secretary shall enter into agreements with State, local, or tribal governments to participate in the Program, with the goal of entering into at least 5 such agreements by that time.
(d)  In carrying out subsection © of this section, the Secretary shall select State, local, or tribal governments that plan to begin integration of UAS into the NAS in their jurisdictions within 90 days after the date on which the agreement is established.
(e)  The Secretary shall consider new proposals for participation in the Program up to 1 year before the Program is scheduled to terminate.
(f)  The Secretary shall apply best practices from existing FAA test sites, waivers granted under 14 CFR Part 107, exemptions granted under section 333 of the FMRA, the FAA Focus Area Pathfinder Program, and any other relevant programs in order to expedite the consideration of exceptions, exemptions, authorizations, and waivers from FAA regulations to be granted under the Program, as described in subsection (a)(iv) of this section.
(g)  The Secretary shall address any non compliance with the terms of exceptions, exemptions, authorizations, waivers granted, or agreements made with UAS users or participating jurisdictions in a timely and appropriate manner, including by revoking or modifying the relevant terms.

Sec. 4.  Coordination. 

(a)  The Administrator, in coordination with the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, shall apply relevant information collected during the Program and preliminary findings to inform the development of the UAS Traffic Management System under section 2208 of the FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016 (Public Law 114-190).
(b)  The Secretary, in coordination with the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security and the Attorney General, shall take necessary and appropriate steps to:

(i)   mitigate risks to public safety and homeland and national security when selecting proposals and implementing the Program; and
(ii)  monitor compliance with relevant laws and regulations to ensure that Program activities do not interfere with national defense, homeland security, or law enforcement operations and missions.

©  The heads of executive departments and agencies with relevant law enforcement responsibilities (Federal law enforcement agencies), including the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall develop and implement best practices to enforce the laws and regulations governing UAS operations conducted under the Program.
(d)  In carrying out the responsibilities set forth in subsection © of this section, the heads of Federal law enforcement agencies shall coordinate with the Secretaries of Defense and Transportation, as well as with the relevant State, local, or tribal law enforcement agencies.
(e)  In implementing the Program, the Secretary shall coordinate with the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security and the Attorney General to test counter UAS capabilities, as well as platform and system-wide cybersecurity, to the extent appropriate and consistent with law.

Sec. 5.  Evaluation and Termination of UAS Integration Pilot Program. 

(a)  The Program shall terminate 3 years from the date of this memorandum, unless extended by the Secretary.
(b)  Before and after the termination of the Program, the Secretary shall use the information and experience yielded by the Program to inform the development of regulations, initiatives, and plans to enable safer and more complex UAS operations, and shall, as appropriate, share information with the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and the heads of other executive departments and agencies.
©  After the date of this memorandum and until the Program is terminated, the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security and the Attorney General, shall submit an annual report to the President setting forth the Secretary's interim findings and conclusions concerning the Program.  Not later than 90 days after the Program is terminated, the Secretary shall submit a final report to the President setting forth the Secretary's findings and conclusions concerning the Program. 

Sec. 6.  Definitions.  As used in this memorandum, the next stated terms, in singular and plural, are defined as follows: 

(a)  The term "unmanned aircraft system" has the meaning given that term in section 331 of the FMRA.
(b)  The term "public unmanned aircraft system" has the meaning given that term in section 331 of the FMRA.
©  The term "civil unmanned aircraft system" means an unmanned aircraft system that meets the qualifications and conditions required for operation of a civil aircraft, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102.

Sec. 7.  General Provisions. 

(a)  Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)    the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof;
(ii)   the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals; or
(iii)  the conduct of public aircraft operations, as defined in 49 U.S.C. 40102(a)(41) and 40125, by executive departments and agencies, consistent with applicable Federal law.

(b)  This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
©  This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(d)  The Secretary is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
                               

DONALD J. TRUMP

Updated: Wednesday, October 25, 2017

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

Comedy’s Confounded Collision Confusion.

Lot’s of ‘C’s there – which could be rolled out to ‘SEE’ to which the word ‘AVOID’ could be added to make one of aviation's basic  tenets – See & Avoid. This implies looking and being able to see what you are trying to avoid.

“We’ve ‘beefed up’ the rules” say’s Carmody – “Great” say the Senators, all happy now. Alas, their smiles are premature. Why?

Now, I don’t know which school of thought the aeronautical geniuses CASA employ come from, but it ain’t reality based. No matter, I shall explain, for the non flyers out there, some of the rudimentary flaws in the CASA thinking related to trying to keep ‘drones’ and aircraft separated; won’t take too long.

When the weather is awful, aircraft which need to land at the aerodrome affected by low cloud, poor visibility, rain and wind conduct what is called an ‘instrument approach’. This is a ‘procedure’ which takes the aircraft, in a very safe, orderly manner, from overhead at a safe height progressively down toward the runway. The aircraft may only descend to what is known as ‘the minima’. Say the instrument approach kicks off at 4000 feet and takes the aircraft down to 600 feet above the airfield (minima); if the crew can’t ‘see’ the runway then they are obliged to ‘go around’ which means climbing back to a safe height. All routine and perfectly safe.

Now let’s take our aircraft back to the 600 foot point again only this time, the runway is sighted – the aircraft has now become what is known as ‘visual’. The Captain now has a couple of options – land straight ahead or; circle. When the weather is liquid and lousy with low cloud scudding through along with rain showers; or bad light; or the suns glare through the haze; a fog bank below and ahead; the pilot may elect to conduct what is known as a ‘visual circling approach’; to a more favourable runway. Quite legal and, executed properly, safe as houses.

Once the aircraft is established in the ‘circling’ area, provided the visibility is not less than the minimum specified and the pilot can maintain ‘visual contact’ with obstacles, the aircraft may descend further to maintain that in flight visibility. There are restrictions on this, which vary between aircraft – depending on the approach speed. The minimum height and maximum speeds promulgated are to facilitate standard rate turns and a stable approach to landing – once again – all perfectly sane, sensible and safe.

For a SAAB or Dash 8 approaching an aerodrome like Bathurst or orange the parameters for a visual circling approach are: (i) a maximum distance from the aerodrome of 4.2 nautical miles (7.77 kms); (ii) no lower than 400 feet above the ground until the final approach path is intercepted. Safe, sane, sensible and routine although a busy time for the crew, one demanding their full attention.

Could someone please explain why, for ducks sake, CASA have allowed drone operations within the ‘circling area’ of aerodromes? At 5.5 kms (3 nautical miles) at 400 feet in piss poor visibility a small, basically white ‘drone’ cannot be seen. Yet they are legally sanctioned to be there – WTD. Aside – ‘Class B (chartered) aircraft may be as low as 300’ and at 2.6 nms (5 Kms) and operate with one, busy pilot. For this aircraft the ‘drone’ is a very high risk collision  element. It’s even worse for the bigger aircraft.


I’ll own that the percentage probability of a drone buggering about on a bad weather day , within the circling area are slim, probably anorexic – however, the scenario does serve to illustrate the wooly minded, amateurish thinking the tax payer funds – in the name of air safety. Drones, legally allowed to operate within the aerodrome circling area. An area of low flying, in poor weather and maximum risk. Get your bloody act together CASA.

Toot -FDS - toot.- MTF definitely; Hell, I ain't even watched the video yet. Ambles off muttering curses while shaking head................

[P7_TOM]

“K” makes a valid point. The ‘visual circling approach’ is not, these days at least, a common practice. It however a legal, legitimate procedure available, at discretion to a pilot. I, personally, have not done too many, but enough to pass an educated comment. At 4.2 nms from the strip at 400 hundred feet, in very ordinary weather – you need to be paying attention. What you must not do is ‘de-stabilise the approach’ this is no place for avoiding anything, no time, no space and bugger all wriggle room. In fact, on reflection, I reckon I’d take the hit if a drone popped out of the murk. It’s a risk, but IMO the lesser of the two weevils.

CASA have authorised ‘drone’ operations within the most critical part of an instrument approach sequence; close to the deck, in poor visibility, slow and configured for landing. Hitting the drone would be much better than loosing stability by avoiding it and, would beat the crap out of trying to dodge it.

Second the motion to ask CASA WTD are you thinking with – yesterdays porridge, perhaps?

[Peetwo]

DW1: Estimates latest -

Via Buzzfeed today:

A One Nation Staffer Was Let Off With A Warning For Flying A Drone Over Parliament
A man who flew a drone to Bunnings for a sausage sizzle got a $900 fine.

Posted on October 30, 2017, at 2:11 p.m.

Josh Taylor
BuzzFeed News Editor, Australia

One Nation staffer James Ashby was let off with a "counselling letter" from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) for flying his drone over Parliament House and over politicians involved in a rugby league event in June.

Facebook: video.php

The video posted on Pauline Hanson's Facebook page included footage shot high above the rugby league field where Hanson and several other politicians including Michelle Landry and Graham Perrett were participating in an NRL event early one morning before State of Origin. SBS recorded footage of Ashby flying the drone.

Parliament House is partly in a restricted area for flying drones, according to CASA's Can I Fly There? app.



In August, Labor senator Glenn Sterle lodged a formal complaint with CASA about the incident, and in a Senate Estimates hearing on Friday, CASA's head of legal affairs, Dr Jonathan Aleck said that the case had been closed with a counselling letter sent to Ashby as punishment.

A counselling letter is a formal record that a breach of the law has occurred, and advises that if it happens again the recipient of the letter may face "enforcement action" which can include fines of up to $9,000.

Aleck said that during the investigation, CASA couldn't gather enough evidence to show breaches of the law, such as flying too close to people or directly over them.

"Convenient as it would be to rely on video footage on Facebook, forensically that is problematic," he said.

Without sufficient evidence, Aleck said, it would be difficult to prove the case if Ashby had challenged the fine in court.

CASA had interviewed Ashby as part of the process, and LNP MP Michelle Landry.



"Our efforts to interview Ms Landry were unsuccessful at this point," Aleck said. LNP Senator Barry O'Sullivan, an ex-police detective, said it wouldn't be hard to identify other people in the video.

"I bet you a carton of XXXX beer that I can come back with a dozen names," he said.

Sterle said it was obvious the video was shot on a drone.

"I can tell you right now, the camera wasn't in the back of a magpie's bum." -

In notes read out during the hearing from CASA investigators, Aleck said that when investigators had asked Ashby what permission he sought to fly the drone, Ashby indicated he had inquired with the Australian Federal Police and they had no issue with flying the drone. When CASA asked the AFP if they had spoken to Ashby about it, they said he had not sought permission.

"We inquired of the AFP and the organiser of the event and no permission was sought," Aleck said.

Both Labor and Liberal senators suggested that Ashby was treated differently to the general public in the investigation because he was a political staffer. Aleck said that was not the case.

"The political affiliations of the individual did not come into this," he said.
Last year, a man who recorded a video of his drone flying to hardware store Bunnings Warehouse to pick up a sausage sandwich was warned he would face a fine of up to $9,000 for the video. CASA said in the committee hearing on Friday that the man was ultimately fined $900.



Aleck defended charging the Bunnings man and not Ashby, stating that in the Bunnings video the drone was visibly flying over a crowded parking lot, and a road, which he said was not present in the Ashby video.

O'Sullivan indicated that Ashby might be called before the committee to give evidence about the incident.

BuzzFeed News has sought comment from Ashby.

---

6  Answers to written questions taken on notice by the AFP on 19 September 2017. Received on 17 October 2017.

7  Answers to written questions taken on notice by the Department of Parliamentary Services on 17 October 2017. Received on 26 October 2017.

---

 
Taking up the "K" OBS and the P7 follow up:

P9: "..Could someone please explain why, for ducks sake, CASA have allowed drone operations within the ‘circling area’ of aerodromes? At 5.5 kms (3 nautical miles) at 400 feet in piss poor visibility a small, basically white ‘drone’ cannot be seen. Yet they are legally sanctioned to be there – WTD. Aside – ‘Class B (chartered) aircraft may be as low as 300’ and at 2.6 nms (5 Kms) and operate with one, busy pilot. For this aircraft the ‘drone’ is a very high risk collision  element. It’s even worse for the bigger aircraft..."

---

P7:"..The ‘visual circling approach’ is not, these days at least, a common practice. It however a legal, legitimate procedure available, at discretion to a pilot..

..At 4.2 nms from the strip at 400 hundred feet, in very ordinary weather – you need to be paying attention. What you must not do is ‘de-stabilise the approach’ this is no place for avoiding anything, no time, no space and bugger all wriggle room...

...CASA have authorised ‘drone’ operations within the most critical part of an instrument approach sequence; close to the deck, in poor visibility, slow and configured for landing..."

From the ENR AIP here is the visual circling approach criteria:

Note 2. The pilot should maintain the maximum practical

obstacle clearance. The minimum obstacle clearance

requirements are:

Categories A and B - 300FT;

Categories C and D - 400FT; and

Category E - 500FT.

Note 3. The circling area is determined by drawing an arc centred

on the threshold of each usable runway and joining these arcs by

tangents. The radii are1.68NM for Category A, 2.66NM for

Category B, 4.20NM for Category C, 5.28NM for Category D and

6.94NM for Category E. Runways less than 1,000M long are not

considered usable for Categories C, D and E.

1.68NM = 3,111M

2.66NM = 4,926M

4.20NM = 7,778M

5.28NM = 9,779M

6.94NM = 12,853M.

With that in mind I decided to visit the 'CASA' approved 'Can I fly there?' app:

Can I fly there? - Drone safety app

Not sure about where you can fly your drone?

We’ve teamed up with Drone Complier to produce an easy-to-use smartphone app illustrating where you’re not allowed to fly.

These areas include within 5.5km of controlled aerodromes, in approach and departure paths of non-controlled aerodromes and helicopter landing sites, as well as in restricted or military airspace. The app also highlights ‘caution’ areas around unregistered aerodromes where aircraft could be flying.

The ‘Can I fly there?’ drone safety app reflects the standard operating conditions for those flying their drone commercially (under the excluded category of commercial operations) and is a valuable educational and situational awareness tool for both commercial and recreational drone flyers.

Download

The app is available on Android and iOS devices, with a web-based HTML5 version also accessible.

Android

iOS

webapp

What I discovered is that in almost all cases, where an airport has recognised visual circling approach procedures as an extension/addition to a published IAP, there has been no consideration for the circling approach criteria i.e. radii off the runway thresholds. In other words the 5.5km rule is solely based on the airport; or HLS reference point - UDB!  


MTF...P2

[P7_TOM]

“K” mentions in a post somewhere the ease with which video evidence of Aleck contradicting his own pony-pooh was easy to discover. Here’s an easy one to start your collection with:-

“Aleck said that during the investigation, CASA couldn't gather enough evidence to show breaches of the law, such as flying too close to people or directly over them.”

Furry muff – John Quadrio would love to hear that methinks; but the howler

"Convenient as it would be to rely on video footage on Facebook, forensically that is problematic," he [Aleck] said.

Well, well, ducking well; whodathunkit – may Quadrio now sue the skinny, sorry old ass of the regulator, the one that buggered him up so completely; on exactly that calibre of evidence.

There’s a whole lexicon, a rich vocabulary within the English language which may be used to define ‘Aleck speak’; me I’m as common as muck, so I’ll just call it BOLLOCKS and be done. Arrgh - what the hell - here's another to add to your collection of How he who do voodoo, do do do - so well.  Yuk, yuk, Yak.......

[Peetwo]

Drones, what drones?

Pick a quote any quote - CASA Hansard is out:  Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee(Senate-Friday, 27 October 2017)

Examples, via the @AuSenate :

ACTING CHAIR: I want every Australian out there to hear this very clearly. If you do break CASA's rules, and you do fly your drone over a beach, a park, events or sports ovals, you would expect, if there's people around, that you will not be charged, Australia, because a One Nation staffer did not get charged. What's the difference?

Mr Carmody : It depends on the individual circumstances of the investigation.

ACTING CHAIR: Give me a clue what that actually means—the individual circumstances?

Mr Carmody : Individual circumstances are clear. It depends on firstly—that matter was made public. I saw the video. It depends on whether, for example, members of the public are injured, whether they are frightened, whether they complain; whether or not it looks like a deliberate error or merely an oversight. There are a range of people—if someone who is, for example, extremely well qualified and is a qualified drone operator and then breaks the rules, that would be different. So there are a range of circumstances.

ACTING CHAIR: What if they're a pilot?

Mr Carmody : Again, it depends. And I understand it this person is a pilot. This was the first time. Normally, unless there is something egregious, we will make a decision for an educative letter or a counselling letter. It will not make any difference whether it's a staffer or a member of a political party or anyone else.

Senator GALLACHER: Or a pilot.

Mr Carmody : Yes.

Senator GALLACHER: You can't be serious. The bloke knows the rules of aviation. He knows the risks posed by drones. He is aware of the law more than anybody else in this place. He's a pilot, for goodness sake. They're all talking about the potential threat that drones pose.

Mr Carmody : As I said, we have a very clear, coordinated enforcement mechanism. We apply it across the board for all penalties, including this one, for all offences. The cases are judged on their merits and a penalty is applied.

ACTING CHAIR: You are inconsistent—you being CASA.

---

Dr Aleck : The only other thing I'll say is that when we issue an infringement notice, which is the more serious response, as opposed to a counselling letter, which is more serious than an educative letter, we have to be able to be reasonably confident that if this matter were to be prosecuted there would be a successful prosecution. Because if a person elects not to pay the notice, just like a motor vehicle fine, they can go to court. So the evidence has to be there to substantiate to the claim. We do have any number of those cases where we believe that the evidence is sufficient to substantiate such a claim.

Senator STERLE: Let's come back to this one. The evidence was posted on Facebook and then the TV channels picked it up and ran it and what not. What more evidence did you need? If a drone fell out of the sky and bonked a politician on the head, I don't think too many people would be worried. It might even help some of them! But what more did you need in this case? Please explain to me. I've got this horrible feeling in my head that just because this person happens to work for One Nation they should be treated different than anyone else. You're making me bring the political stuff up here because I'm saying to all Australians go out there, break the laws, who cares? Just tell them you're a member of a political party and you'll get treated differently. Help me out. You're a lawyer.

Mr Carmody : I reiterate that the political affiliations of the individual didn't come into this.

Senator STERLE: Let me tell the rest of Australia who are listening out there that this sounds very stinky. If you were to lean on one of the bars here tonight at 6 o'clock and say, 'Listen brother, what do you reckon about this?' I don't think you're going to walk out of there with the answers that you expect that you're giving here in this committee. Let me run a few other things in front of you. I wrote to you, as Mr Carmody said, and you wrote back to me. I was asking for similar situations. I don't want to bore, Chair. 19 January 2015 was—what does AIN stand for?

Dr Aleck : Aviation infringement notice....

...Dr Aleck : I recognise that. Convenient as it would be to rely on video footage that appears on Facebook, forensically that's problematic.  That's not a CASA invention. Don't think that we didn't investigate this, because in fact we did. We sought to get as much footage as we could, including a question to the individual for any footage that he happened to have. But the likelihood of getting that—

Senator STERLE: The pilot who knows the rules, or should do.

Dr Aleck : Yes. In any case, what we needed to be able to demonstrate was not just a video of someone flying something and then people in the frame; we're trying to identify circumstances in which we could show, in the video, or from evidence, testimony provided by the individuals involved, that the device was closer to them than it should have been. As I said, it looks like it was, but it wouldn't be very difficult for a defence attorney to say, 'Hang one—here's a photograph of this thing flying around. Here's a frame with people in it, but I don't see a frame with this thing flying around very close to another person. In fact, how do I know that this frame wasn't taken it at this point and this frame taken at that point?'

You and I might agree that it's pretty plain, but in order to prevail in a court you need to have at least that much evidence. That's evidence that we were unable to get because we couldn't get sufficient video from those who had it, and because those from whom we sought advice about if they were present and if they would be prepared to say that this thing came within less than 30 metres of where they were—we're still actually looking for that, but it's academic at this point. We weren't able to get that. We weren't able to obtain that evidence.

---

Dr Aleck : The first thing we'd have to do is identify who those people were. We were able to identify—

CHAIR: Listen, seriously. Come around, I'll put an hour into it for you. I'll identify who it was in the parliamentary wings here that were playing rugby that day, if you like. My question is, how many of those did you locate and interview?

Dr Aleck : We identified one person who was the closest to a likely infringement subject and we attempted to interview that person. We obtained some information from that person's office. It was a member of parliament.

Senator STERLE: Who was it? Tell us who the member of parliament was. I know who was on the Facebook video that was broadcasting out there. Who was the member of parliament?

Mr Carmody : While Dr Aleck is looking for the information, I make a point, if I may. For a similar event around the country, I would not invest significant investigative resources in interviewing 40 or 50 people for an event like this that did not result in a serious outcome. I don't have the resources to do that. If it resulted in a serious outcome, I would. If someone was injured, I would.

Senator STERLE: So you wait until something's happened?

Mr Carmody : I do not have the resources, for every drone incident—

Senator STERLE: You're consistent on this, Mr Carmody, because five months ago you sat in that seat and told us there's nothing to worry about because we haven't had an incident. So you're consistent. Wait until something goes wrong and then we'll panic.

---

CHAIR: Can I say to you: I honestly could walk out of here now, and I may—I may. I'll make a couple of phone calls and I'll bet that, within less than 10 minutes—I'll bet you a carton of XXXX beer—I can come back to you with a dozen names, and I'm no longer an investigator, but I'm in the building.

Dr Aleck : I wouldn't doubt it, but, when someone contacts someone and says an investigator from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority seeks this information, oftentimes we don't get the responsiveness we would—

CHAIR: Oh, Mr Aleck, this is lame.

Senator GALLACHER: Can I just say this: why wouldn't you just issue an infringement because there's clear evidence that there's a breach of the rules? You could issue the infringement and, if you get taken to court, that's how infringements work. The police don't sit down and say, 'I think Senator Gallacher was speeding, but I'll need to interview every motorist that he was driving with or anyone else in the car. It's evidence, visual evidence. It's a breach of the rules; give them an infringement; behaviour changed. No-one takes an infringement to court when they've done the wrong thing. You're coming in here saying, 'We would have no possibility of getting a conviction.' That doesn't stand the pub test, as Senator Sterle said. The bloke got fined at Bunnings and you've got a penalty there of $180 and 50 penalty units and you say he was fined $900. If you times 50 by $180, it's $9,000.

Dr Aleck : Senator, a penalty unit is an infringement and, under the legislation, it's assessed at a fraction of the amount a court could fine if the person were found guilty. Five per cent is what we apply.

Mr Carmody : So five times $180 becomes $900.

Senator GALLACHER: That also would have great difficulty getting through the front bar of a hotel.

Dr Aleck : May I say also, Senator: when a police officer issues an infringement notice for someone speeding, the police officer is present and witnesses it.

CHAIR: You've got video evidence. Someone's put it out there, as with the Bunnings case, where they've actually boasted about flying down to Bunnings and picking up a sausage. And you've taken action, quite appropriately, in my view, and you issued an infringement. When it happens around Parliament House, you take a different view: you can't find witnesses, you can't interview people and you have no prospect of success of prosecution. Simply, you should have issued the infringement and let the other person defend themselves.

Dr Aleck : Senator, there are any other number of cases where we have had evidence of an offence, of a contravention, and we've not issued an infringement notice. We've also issued a counselling notice.

Senator GALLACHER: We in this place have to set a higher standard and, if we do something that appears to be in contravention of rules, regulations, we have to be held to account. I fully accept that. And you are an entity in charge of aviation safety and, when you have a pilot breaking the rules and you wander around as if it's too hard, it doesn't look good. - Unlike Dom James who is embuggered for 8+ years on piss poor evidence and a dodgy original decision - FDS!

Senator STERLE: Dr Aleck, you're right. You have had footage and other incidents where someone has flown a drone in the wrong place, and one was the person we're talking about now: his employer. We know that. You've done that, but let us get back to this. This footage clearly shows it going over Parliament House. I can tell you now that the camera wasn't in the back of a magpie's bum. That's pretty clear. Or maybe it was—maybe I'm on the wrong planet! It was flying over Parliament House and flying over the playing field. It flew over the road. There's a road between Parliament House and there. As it goes over this magnificent building here, heading towards the rugby field, it goes over a road. You're so full of inconsistencies. Going back to what Senator Gallacher said, why wouldn't you issue the offence and say: 'Mate, you go defend it. You're a pilot. You should know better'?

If there is a byline here it should be: "CASA consistently, inconsistent" -

MTF...P2