Begun-the drone wars have_MKII.
#1

We seem to have lost the thread - something 'weird' has happened on the data base and  'poof' it just vanished. We are working to get it back; so be patient. Sorry too much.
 -  - - - - - - - - - -
Expert opinion continues;
 
Do you spot a trend developing; the real world facing up to the realities of ‘drone’ operation. The pilots, lawyers, licenced RPA operators, eyes wide open, considering the realities and risks associated with ‘drone operations’. Intelligently, rationally; and, more importantly, responsibly seeking to find a balance and system to address the ‘problems’; seen and undiscovered.
 
The stark contrasts between the smug, dismissive, ignorant, unimaginative CASA approach is self evident; what is not perhaps so immediately apparent is the arrogance. The submissions to the Senate inquiry have all sought to offer remedy and detailed examination of the potential dangers, operationally, commercially and legally. Not all of these matters lay within the ambit of the CASA remit, however, once a drone is ‘off the reservation’ and airborne it enters the world of not only a highly regulated ‘airspace’ but a highly regulated public domain. Hells bells, you cannot even allow the dog off a leash without breaking a rule, skateboards are banned in certain places; FDS even the poor homeless are not allowed to sully certain areas. But some idiot wanting to make ‘the’ greatest you-tube video; or, a thief checking to make sure no ones home; or a perv watching the children playing can purchase a camera drone and with complete anonymity do whatever pleases them best, without challenge or recourse. This before we even consider the dangers to helicopters operating over city streets, cars and heavy vehicles on the highways or even risks of collision between drones and the debris creating personal or property damage.
 
Well, CASA may not have the wit or imagination to see the problems, but our Senators do, the professional pilot bodies, the legal eagles do and, with any sort of luck – the general public do. That leaves the sad sack minister, his DoIT and CASA minions working out to avoid any and all responsibility, while watching the rest do their job for them.
 
CASA clearly expressed their risk management strategy; “a drone hitting the engine of a jet is not catastrophic mate; anyway it will go down the by-pass”. The face of Shameless O’Carmody is worth watching as his ‘expert’ makes those remarks – smug, self satisfied and completely at ease with the display. A classic example of why industry has had a guts full of CASA, the CEO and the minister who failed to appoint the right man.


 
Many will have good reason to be eternally thankful to ‘rogue’ drones. They are providing a perfect example of just how truly dreadful CASA is – across the spectrum. We must hope the Senators have the vision to understand that and force reform of the aberration which CASA has become. Starting at the top, there is no place for either Muppet or Puppet.

[Image: 300?cb=20131130142326]

I’d bet a good deal  of fine ale that the work hours being done now, by Aleck and Carmody et al on the Pel-Air draft report far exceeds any time or thought given to the responsibility our ‘aviation regulator’ has devoted to the ‘drone wars’, by a big margin. There are no holes in ‘drone’ defence – but the Pel-Air dyke is seriously breached. I digress, but really look forward to reading the CASA response to Pel-Air.
 
Aye well; they’ve wriggled off some bigger hooks in the past; and, after a drone has failed to oblige and disappear down a by-pass and cost just a little more than a few million in repair bills; maybe then we will get some sense out of ‘em. But I ain’t holding my breath; not so long as the McConvict signature is enshrined of the Enforcement manual foreword; until that is addressed the attitude of our aviation ‘regulator’ will never change.
 
Toot – up your by-pass Senator- toot.
Reply
#2

P2 comment -  Hopefully the original BTWH thread can be recovered as I note that it had just passed 10k views and was registering much traffic overnight and this morning (> 500 views for last 12 hrs)... Blush

However in the meantime here is an historical reference cribbed off the blog:

Begun – the drone wars have.

[Image: OlTom.jpg]
Beauty – through rose tinted glasses.

Ever since the Wright brothers there has been a requirement for regulation of matters aeronautical. In the early days, the rules which had worked on the ocean were adapted – after a fashion – to suit aviation. Within a short period of time; dedicated rules for aviation related activities were developed. Beginning with very ‘simple’, often one short paragraph was ‘All she wrote’.  Things really got moving in 1910 and since then, with an increasing complexity, ‘rules’ have been developed. Australia has one of, if not the most complex rule sets anywhere in the world. Australia must certainly hold the record for sheer weight and volume if nothing else, a rule set which subtly prescribes almost god like powers to those who work behind the curtain wall of the monolith. The upkeep of the castle costs the nation a steadily increasing significant amount of money; the latest budget reflecting this fact. There is  I note, a significant sum allocated to ‘Drone control’. I say this money is well wasted.
Quote:(Yesterday, 09:28 AM)Peetwo Wrote: “..It would also be a first step in harmonising drone regulations across jurisdictions as the industry rapidly expands…”

6D aviation minion adviser to Comardy: “…The miniscule has had ICAO on the phone and he now wonders if it might be an idea if we harmonise our drone regs to the rest of the world..”

Comardy in reply:

[Image: attachment.php?aid=303]
 
Quote:(Yesterday, 11:06 AM)Cap Wrote: Full story here
[Image: CxRMCJXUsAAAQ8w.jpg]

For those not familiar with totally inept shambles the CASA has become the matter of ‘drones’ is a simple, current example of why this moribund department needs to stripped back to the bone, reformed internally and the rules reformed. In short CASA have done a little as possible about the existing ‘drone’ situation and potential dangers, particularly in relation to ‘public safety’. They have however gone to extraordinary lengths to abrogate that responsibility and yet have the audacity to claim significant sums, from the budget, to ‘manage’ that responsibility. Had they demanded this sum before the ‘drone’ situation developed and grew out of control – I’d be first to say well done; foresight, imagination and direct, positive action applauded. But this not the case. CASA are playing catch-up and start from a long way behind the game. There is no imaginative foresight in the regulation, just another of many neatly crafted escape hatches, leading to the ‘wriggle room’.

Within the last half year there have been three events for which, IMO CASA ineptitude and incompetence, developed through legally supported abrogation have played a part of the root cause:-
[Image: Swan-River-Mallard.jpg]

The Swan river fatal. CASA approval for the Mallard flight required that the aircraft operate within the confines of an area too small to allow safe manoeuvring.



The margins required although strictly the pilots responsibility should have been examined – as a public safety case by CASA, prior to the approval being granted. Furthermore, had the pilot been requested and required to mathematically prove and physically ‘demonstrate’ that the aircraft could operate within the CASA prescribed ‘box’ then the accident may have been prevented. CASA went to great lengths to ensure the ‘pilot’ was ‘legal’ but failed to ensure the operation was ‘safe’; the public were put at great risk that day simply because real, interested, holistic safety ‘oversight’ failed.



The Essendon fatal. Here again we hear CASA at Estimates avoiding and abrogating all responsibility for ‘public safety’. Despite protestations of innocence, hidden under the guise of ‘advice only and strictly no liability’ this department is charged with, indeed brags about, it’s significant ‘safety’ role. Never a peep of protest about buildings, filled with the ‘public’ being allowed to damn close to an operational runway.

Now we have a potentially serious accident on the Sydney Harbour bridge. A drone has collided with a motor vehicle.



Please; don’t say ‘so –what’. The fact that it was a car and the there was not a multiple ‘pile-up’ on a seriously busy roadway is down to pure luck.  The cost in delays and disruption alone should be enough to have the minister screaming for better control of ‘drone’ activity, let alone the costs of emergency services being provided, hospital care, insurance cases etc. All this because CASA was to lazy, determinedly arrogant in the belief that ‘they’ will carry no responsibility; and, so inept that they failed to foresee the possibility of a major risk to public safety through uncontrolled ‘drone’ activity.

The Harbour bridge episode and the CASA response to the potential for more serious events, after the fact; has been less than impressive. The existing rule set designed purely to relive CASA of any and all responsibility. Now, gifted yet another huge sum of public money will they try to catch up and put things to rights? The short answer is no, they will not. What will happen is a huge volume of prescriptive regulation will be published, with draconian penalties and no thought of protecting anyone else, bar CASA from their mandated, stated duty of care to the Australian public.

Bollocks you say. Do you hear the minister howling for action? Do you see the CASA board looking grave and concerned for public safety, cracking the whip and making the DAS get off his arse and do something? Do you see the ‘officers’; at CASA leaving their lattes and presenting reams of bright ideas on how best the public may be protected? Do you here a strident call from the ‘member’ representing these folk for positive action – now?

Quote:[Image: 161012-Darren-Chester-with-Shane-Carmody.jpg]
6D Chester quote on drones: “..the government wanted to ensure the safety of drone operators, while also ­encouraging growth in the use of remotely piloted aircraft..”

No, you do not; do you hear the public asking WTD are you doing to protect us from the ‘drones’; or, the splash from the Swan river crash; or, the flames of the Essendon inferno? No Sir, you do not – each believes someone else is ‘doing’ something about it. Well someone has – the government have given CASA a whole heap of money to exactly that. As it was in the beginning, so it shall be, bullshit and abrogation without end. Amen.

Toot toot.



P2 comment - I will endeavour to provide a reference page for all the links and recent MSM coverage... Wink 



MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#3

DW1 references - Episode IV

Audio files:

DW1 BrisVegas - VIPA

DW1 BrisVegas - Mr Wheeler & Prof Butler

DW1 BrisVegas - Martin, Tynne & Manning

DW1 BrisVegas - Stevens & Meadows

Episode III

AusALPA audio file: DW1 Melbourne - AusALPA


YMML Hansard link - see HERE :

Quote:AusALPA opening statement:

Capt. Butt : Thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide you with the considered views of Australia's professional pilots. My name is Murray Butt, and I appear today as President of the Australian Airline Pilots' Association, AusALPA. I am accompanied by AusALPA vice-president, Captain David Booth, from AFAP, and by Shane Loney and Dick MacKerras from AIPA, although today we are all wearing the same AusALPA hat.

AusALPA is the safety and technical umbrella organisation for the Australian and International Pilots Association, AIPA, of which I am also president, and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, AFAP. Together we represent over 5,000 members and the vast majority of Australia's professional pilots across all industry sectors. AusALPA is the Australian member association of IFALPA, the International Federation of Airline Pilots' Associations. IFALPA is recognised worldwide in the realm of safety and technical expertise. In fact, it is one of only a few non-government bodies granted permanent observer status to the Air Navigation Commission of the International Civil Aviation Organization, which sets global standards for civil aviation. I am currently a Qantas A380 captain, Captain Booth is a 737 captain and the rest of our team here cover a wide range of aviation experience.

This inquiry has highlighted a number of issues related to AusALPA's operations, and our concern is focused on the safety issues. There is not a professional pilot in Australia who does not harbour some degree of concern about the risks posed by unmanned aerial systems and how these risks are being managed This concern is shared around the world; every major aviation body, including regulators, business associations, air traffic control agencies and pilot representatives have expressed concern at how the risks are being managed.

As aviators, we accept that unmanned aerial systems and their rapidly increasing capabilities offer society great economic benefits. We also accept that the genie is out of the bottle in terms of the rapid expansion of cheap recreational drones and we must now follow the lead of those earlier movers like the EU and the US who recognised the magnitude of the risks and act quickly to better address the situation in Australia.

As this committee confirmed at estimates, we do not know how large the RPA fleet really is. Perhaps what was not made as clear are the unknowns. We do not know the geographical distribution of operations, nor do we know what the operator demographics are. We also do not know if the operator population has the same distribution of cowboys and criminals as the general population. We do not know with any scientific vigour the probability of an aircraft-RPA collision either in general, by industry sector or by aircraft type. Critically, we do not know with any certainty what the consequences are likely to be of an aircraft-RPA collision. This is not just about big engines swallowing little RPAs with relative ease. It is about a range of vulnerabilities and much more adverse outcomes across all sizes and types of aircraft, including general aviation aircraft and helicopters that perform vital work in the vast expanses of rural Australia.

I would therefore like to set out for the committee our views on these issues. AusALPA strongly believes that the risk-mitigation framework must be properly based on the scientific investigation of those unknowns. The conclusions must be peer reviewed and be of world-class standard. We must also empower technologies that aid us in separating RPAs from manned aircraft. We must develop robust strategies that permit the co-existence of RPAs and manned aircraft.

A good example of such a strategy was released 10 days ago by SESAR, the Single European Sky ATM Research, on their project called U-Space. It is intended to make RPAS use in European low-level airspace safe, secure and environmentally friendly by 2019.

We must all accept that safety costs money and that, without being trite, accidents cost more. While we recognise that we must be careful not to create an expensive and cumbersome response that hinders innovation or unnecessarily curtails certain activities, we also believe that the quest for safe airspace for manned aircraft operations must have priority over the needs of RPAS operations, particularly for recreational users.

It is fundamental that we must protect the safety of manned aviation as our primary requirement. That leads me briefly to CASA's approach to RPAS risk management. There is no doubt that CASA's light regulatory touch might please the anti-red-tape brigade, but we at AusALPA are not so convinced. It is certainly out of step with the rest of the world. While the argument was made at estimates that there is no evidence of an unacceptable risk, we see two problems. First, there has been little or no peer-reviewed scientific investigation of the unknowns. Second, should the evidence of risk suddenly emerge, the regulatory horse will already have bolted.

AusALPA believes that CASA's current regulatory approach is a political rather than a safety response to what is now clearly a rear-guard action. It was developed by well-intentioned people who made two key political decisions: one, that there would be no register; and, two, that a sub-two kilogram vehicle could be portrayed as posing an acceptable risk to aircraft and persons on the ground. The reason that we describe these decisions political is simple: registers are expensive to set up and run and the two kilogram weight devisor effectively threw the most popular and affordable vehicles out of regulatory sight; thereby removing an unfunded surveillance and enforcement activity from an already stressed CASA budget.

AusALPA does not agree that CASA has acted in the best interests of the Australian people. Therefore, we offer the committee the following recommendations. AusALPA believes a registration framework is essential. Setting out a practical registration scheme with strong deterrents against noncompliance services notice to all users that they are operating in a highly regulated system—hopefully leading users to explore and understand the legal and safety constraints on RPAS operation and the broader aviation context. It will ensure that the necessary safety, education and compliance knowledge can be delivered directly to the major source of risk—RPAS operators.

Mandatory education linked with registration will not prevent laziness or incompetence but it will remove any excuse. However, we need to be balanced, so the registration framework should be targeted only at vehicles and systems that are identified as posing an unacceptable risk to aircraft and persons on the ground. Nonetheless, registration alone will not be sufficient. As I mentioned earlier, geofencing and other constraining technologies must also be in the mix. They are an integral part of solutions in jurisdictions like the EU, which have committed to integrate drones safely into their airspace.

There will always a small risk of the population who will ignore the law, just as they will ignore the risk that their inappropriate RPAS operations may create. For that group, more active protective technologies will need to be pursued for high-risk airspace. There are a range of technologies that can identify and locate both an RPA and its ground operator, allowing law enforcement to act on incidents of inadvertent or unlawful use. I draw the committee's attention to systems like SkyTracker, a passive system that would monitor capital city airports. Like passenger screening, a multifaceted approach may be required to cater for the different size and complexity of Australian airport infrastructure. Much more work needs to be done to establish where to draw the regulatory line around acceptable risk to people and aircraft.

I will conclude by noting some of the research now becoming available. No-one sitting at this table before you today believes that the potential damage from a collision of a 1.99 kilogram RPA with a low-capacity RPT aircraft, a helicopter or a range of general aviation aircraft, will not result in an accident. Emerging work being done overseas by universities and government agencies within the major aircraft certification jurisdictions is already likely to require a significant rethink of certification risk assessments. In May 2015, the FAA created their Center of Excellence for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, originally comprising 15 universities, which has now expanded to form the Alliance for System Safety of UAS through Research Excellence, or ASSURE, which now boasts 23 of the world's leading research institutions and 100 leading industry and government partners.

On 28 April this year ASSURE released the peer reviewed, 195-page, UAS ground collision severity evaluation final report. While this report raises as many questions as it answers, it nonetheless highlights the complexity of that subject and the scientific rigour required to act as a policy basis. Importantly, the methodology shows quite clearly that there is a minimal connection between human trauma studies for ground collisions and airborne collision damage outcomes. It is reasonably open to conclude that RPA collision dynamics are different from bird strikes. Clearly, one regulatory size does not fit all situations.

The much more vital research from ASSURE, their UAS airborne collision severity evaluation, is yet to come and will most certainly take considerable time to deliver. It is most concerning to us that, in the mean time, we are forced to hope that CASA was close to the mark in deciding that (1) there was minimal likelihood of a manned aircraft colliding with a sub-two kilogram RPA anywhere one can be operated and a sub-25 kilogram RPA operated on a personal property adjacent to airports and (2) if it did happen that it would not result in the loss of the aircraft. Thank you for your patience. We are happy to take questions.

CHAIR: Thank you. I am so glad you checked out the Hansard for Senate estimates, where we heard that we have not had a drone hit yet, so what are we worried about—nothing to worry about there!

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  I almost do not know where to start, other than to say, without speaking for my colleagues, I think you will find that we support all but 100 per cent of your observations. I have been waiting anxiously to hear from your group, because, really, you are the front line of failure in some respects. If there is a catastrophic event it is likely to have been between an unmanned aircraft and one of your manned aircraft. Let me ask some bleeding obvious questions. I have started to try to create a pattern in my examination of witnesses.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  In fact, in most of those instances, if not all, the aircraft was operating in a predictable manner within the range and parameters in which it was intended to operate at that time and in that place, whereas the intruder—the burglar in the situation—on 100 per cent of occasions has been the unmanned aircraft. I am going to ask you a controversial question and you might want to avoid it. When you watched the performance of CASA at the estimates hearings in Canberra, were you left feeling as if they might not be attending upon this with the same sense of urgency that others might have?

Capt. Butt : I was not present at the CASA hearings, but if any of my colleagues—

Unidentified speaker: It is a dangerous question.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  It is no more dangerous than the drones—

Capt. Booth : The observation of our members—I am speaking as a president but I am also representing 4½ member pilots—is that the approach taken by CASA to risk management is deeply concerning—that is, we do not yet have an accident or damage and therefore there is no risk. If regulation in other areas of aviation safety and road transport safety went along similar lines, that would be very problematic. I think CASA simply does not regulate in that manner. They look at risk, they look at possible consequences, but I guess one of the problems here is that no impact study has yet been completed. That is one of the main thrusts in our submission—that is, the need for a rigorous damage assessment exercise to be funded by the Australian government and other regulators to determine the extent of damage.

CHAIR: This inquiry came about because Senator O'Sullivan and I sat down in the halls of parliament one day. We got some briefings, because CASA wanted to take the foot of the accelerator a little bit with all these little things, but we actually said 'Bulldust! Hang on, we're going to have an inquiry.' Otherwise it would have slipped through.

Capt. Booth : Indeed, and when we found out about the 150-odd ATSB events in 2016, just prior to the amendment of 101 in September last year, it was alarming from our point of view that there seemed to be a disconnect between the ATSB and CASA in making that rule making in relation to sub-two-kilos when clearly there was a proliferation occurring. I have shared airspace with a drone at 12,000 feet north of Sydney on arrival and have been told 'Hazard alert—UAV in your area,' and it is alarming as an RPT pilot to hear that. Of course, in Sydney Airport, which is a hotspot, probably on fewer than five occasions there has been drone activity on the ADIS on arrival—one time over Kurnell, which is directly on the approach path to runway 34R, and similarly from landings to the south at Sydney Airport. Sydney no doubt is a hotspot as 70 per cent of the activity is around the Sydney area, and I am guessing that a lot of that is sub-two-kilograms.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  Did you happen to hear CASA, in their risk profile, no less than the CEO suggested that if you wanted to have an analogy it was someone riding their bicycle along the footpath—a drone in the air and a man on a bicycle on the ground. In my words, not yours, it is absolutely preposterous to try to make an example of that size. Can any of you justify the argument that the person in charge of one piece of tin requires no training—none—requires no proficiency testing, no medical tests, and no rules about their sobriety or their age or their mental condition, whereas with the other piece of tin—and I don't mean particularly with you gentlemen as it is a lifelong journey of education in your space to get your pilot's licence and progress through and have this privilege to fly in your profession—can you think of even one single remote argument as to why one ought not to be as competently trained and tested for proficiency as the other?

Capt. Butt : The biggest point about that is the proximity of the two pieces of tin. If that person could be contained in an area in which they are the only person affected by that area there may be an argument, but that is not what we are talking about here. The industry has grown so quickly, without regulation, that there is no chance of that being the case.

Capt. MacKerras : I do not want to sound like a proponent for the drone industry, but the reality is that they are working flat out at the moment on a whole bunch of technologies—

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  I am not interested in tomorrow's sunrise. I am talking about the current human capacity and the current technologies.

Capt. Booth : The answer is you cannot do that, because there is pilot deconfliction. Essentially, there is no deconfliction plan. We have read in the media about Amazon and Australia Post doing deliveries. There is no deconfliction plan. Clearly it is an economically driven exercise. It is like driverless cars. It is very appealing for the general population, but as operators we know that there is no way of ensuring there is not a collision risk. Of course, you are quite right, there will be conflict aplenty when you get proliferation of drones in suburbia doing this sort of delivery activity.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  One of the fears I have is that I am watching a regulator who just does not seem to have its head in the space. I am hearing a bit of silence from my side of government. If you want to measure things, it took eight months from when the minister said we will have an inquiry by the regulator to getting that fairly detailed and complex document there with about nine lines on it. Here we are. Honestly I could have knocked that up at breakfast this morning in a more detailed form. I will send a message to you and then I will finish. We need all the loud voices we can get in this space because government only knows one thing, and that is the fear of the masses expressing themselves in a genuine way when there is a matter of concern I think of this magnitude confronting our society. I do not think we have had such a technical challenge in terms of absorbing this IT into our operating days since people started to drive along with a telephone up to their ear from a safety perspective. There is something you can do. You are a very powerful voice. The flying public listen very carefully. They have got a very sensitive ear to the messages that come from you people, given you are at the pointy end and we are all there for the grace of you.

Thank you, Chair.

Capt. MacKerras : The decision not to regulate sub-two-kilo drones says that CASA has identified that they do not believe there is any risk in that weight class.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  We have seen their evidence. They commissioned a peer reviewed academic study on the issue—

Capt. MacKerras : I do not think it was peer reviewed.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  Well, they had not read it—which had some critical things to say about the prospects. One of the safety officers from CASA talked to us. I have had 20 years investigating catastrophic international flights. He tried to define to me what the difference was between a catastrophic crash and just a crash. He said, 'Well, it's not catastrophic if it just takes the engine out; you've got another engine.' I thought to myself, 'You know, wouldn't it be lovely, sitting there looking out the window and going, "We've only done one. We've got another one here."' It was just a nonsense.

Mr Loney : I can also comment on the assessment of risk and what you do about it. We have heard the references to bird strikes by CASA. And, of course, the airport authorities go to a lot of effort to find the right kinds of grasses and cut them to the right length to scare birds. They do everything in their power to keep birds away from the airport environments and the flight paths of the aeroplanes. So, if we think it is good enough and important enough to deploy teams in that way, how can we say that a two-kilogram drone is of no consequence?

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  We need your organisation's voice, Mr Butt. You should not fear anything from government by speaking out very strongly on this. We are going to; we continue to. The three of us will never be promoted in government, no matter which side is in, because we are a bit strong with our language around this stuff. We just need your voice, seriously.
Reply
#4

(06-30-2017, 11:28 AM)Peetwo Wrote:  DW1 references - Episode IV

Audio files:

DW1 BrisVegas - VIPA

DW1 BrisVegas - Mr Wheeler & Prof Butler

P2 comment: In a follow up to his excellent contribution/evidence to the BrisVegas Senate Inquiry Hearing - and indeed his submission No.19  - Joseph Wheeler writes today in the Oz... Wink


Quote:Time to get serious about safety
  • JOSEPH WHEELER
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM June 30, 2017


The public hearings of the Senate inquiry into RPAS continued this week in Sydney and Brisbane, with Australia’s pointy end professionals (pilots) and drone operators providing their views.

There is clearly a strong appetite for strong regulatory change going beyond that which the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s present policy would suggest is needed.

Over time the rest of the world has started with a relatively clean slate and thus helpfully developed overarching principles for safe integration of these airspace users, which Australia lacks.

These principles and positions (and there are several, including the Riga Declaration of 2015, the Warsaw Declaration of 2016, and similarly the Joint Call to Safely Integrates/UAS into Europe’s Airspace) note both the scientific risk-based research that is needed and, subsequent to that, the necessary legal strictures for a realistic, safe and sustainable integration.
This month, the European Union’s SESAR joint undertaking “U space” blueprint was released and suggests one manifestation of truly open skies integrating all forms of aviation, albeit in the European domain. It features the goal of creating an aerial ecosystem using approaches that, proportionately, and in an iterative way, opens the skies through digitalisation and automation, while ensuring safety and separation from manned commercial air transport. The International Federation of Airline Pilots’ Associations in May also updated its policy position advocating for a staged, risk-based approach to drones.

When those who navigate the skies for us and get us from point A to point B talk, we must listen.

The commonality is that no entity seems against drone use per se — rather that restrictions must be appropriate. We are talking about flying powerful vehicles high enough and fast enough to do serious damage and cause significant harm. The only way forward is to regulate with a sensibility attuned to a reasonable endgame for all users of airspace. This is the way we manage to keep airlines safe.

Where are our Australian drone-related guiding principles? There is nothing in the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (last updated in 2015). Cutting red tape doesn’t stand up in comparison to well thought-out, overarching principles to help guide and harmonise laws for drone usage.

As well as missing a true policy framework, Australia lacks the drive to engage options that would guarantee safety and permit enforcement against errant users and misusers, for example electronic registration, identification and geo fencing. Only a combination of these (regulating not only operators of drones but those who manufacture and import them) will ensure a higher standard of vehicle reliability and operator foolproofing.

We shouldn’t be treating small drones as toys, and their operators as sponges of aeronautical wisdom. Pilots, engineers, air traffic controllers, and cabin crew members all spend considerable time understanding the rules crucial to their roles in the aviation safety system.

Those who jockey department store UAVs do not and, under present rules, need not care about their place in aviation because not enough has been done to bring them within the fold or deter them from recklessness.

While any international agreement on anything but broad principles likely remains practically out of reach, a lot can be done closer to home.
One formula might look like this.

First, agree to the kind of research necessary to guide the complexion of domestic laws, or piggyback off the European and US research geared to doing just that.

Second, agree on suitable principles of safe integration and airspace design with a whole of government approach.

Third, design an iterative system whereby aviation at all levels can coexist and expand with increasingly lower margins and tolerances as technology, experience with managing such a system, and community acceptance all mature. It is time for aviation to become proactive and predictive rather than reactionary and regretful.

Joseph Wheeler is the principal of IALPG, national head of aviation law for Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, and aviation legal counsel to the AFAP.


DW1 BrisVegas - Martin, Tynne & Manning

DW1 BrisVegas - Stevens & Meadows

Episode III

AusALPA audio file: DW1 Melbourne - AusALPA


YMML Hansard link - see HERE :

Quote:AusALPA opening statement:

Capt. Butt : Thank you for giving us the opportunity to provide you with the considered views of Australia's professional pilots. My name is Murray Butt, and I appear today as President of the Australian Airline Pilots' Association, AusALPA. I am accompanied by AusALPA vice-president, Captain David Booth, from AFAP, and by Shane Loney and Dick MacKerras from AIPA, although today we are all wearing the same AusALPA hat.

AusALPA is the safety and technical umbrella organisation for the Australian and International Pilots Association, AIPA, of which I am also president, and the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, AFAP. Together we represent over 5,000 members and the vast majority of Australia's professional pilots across all industry sectors. AusALPA is the Australian member association of IFALPA, the International Federation of Airline Pilots' Associations. IFALPA is recognised worldwide in the realm of safety and technical expertise. In fact, it is one of only a few non-government bodies granted permanent observer status to the Air Navigation Commission of the International Civil Aviation Organization, which sets global standards for civil aviation. I am currently a Qantas A380 captain, Captain Booth is a 737 captain and the rest of our team here cover a wide range of aviation experience.

This inquiry has highlighted a number of issues related to AusALPA's operations, and our concern is focused on the safety issues. There is not a professional pilot in Australia who does not harbour some degree of concern about the risks posed by unmanned aerial systems and how these risks are being managed This concern is shared around the world; every major aviation body, including regulators, business associations, air traffic control agencies and pilot representatives have expressed concern at how the risks are being managed.

As aviators, we accept that unmanned aerial systems and their rapidly increasing capabilities offer society great economic benefits. We also accept that the genie is out of the bottle in terms of the rapid expansion of cheap recreational drones and we must now follow the lead of those earlier movers like the EU and the US who recognised the magnitude of the risks and act quickly to better address the situation in Australia.

As this committee confirmed at estimates, we do not know how large the RPA fleet really is. Perhaps what was not made as clear are the unknowns. We do not know the geographical distribution of operations, nor do we know what the operator demographics are. We also do not know if the operator population has the same distribution of cowboys and criminals as the general population. We do not know with any scientific vigour the probability of an aircraft-RPA collision either in general, by industry sector or by aircraft type. Critically, we do not know with any certainty what the consequences are likely to be of an aircraft-RPA collision. This is not just about big engines swallowing little RPAs with relative ease. It is about a range of vulnerabilities and much more adverse outcomes across all sizes and types of aircraft, including general aviation aircraft and helicopters that perform vital work in the vast expanses of rural Australia.

I would therefore like to set out for the committee our views on these issues. AusALPA strongly believes that the risk-mitigation framework must be properly based on the scientific investigation of those unknowns. The conclusions must be peer reviewed and be of world-class standard. We must also empower technologies that aid us in separating RPAs from manned aircraft. We must develop robust strategies that permit the co-existence of RPAs and manned aircraft.

A good example of such a strategy was released 10 days ago by SESAR, the Single European Sky ATM Research, on their project called U-Space. It is intended to make RPAS use in European low-level airspace safe, secure and environmentally friendly by 2019.

We must all accept that safety costs money and that, without being trite, accidents cost more. While we recognise that we must be careful not to create an expensive and cumbersome response that hinders innovation or unnecessarily curtails certain activities, we also believe that the quest for safe airspace for manned aircraft operations must have priority over the needs of RPAS operations, particularly for recreational users.

It is fundamental that we must protect the safety of manned aviation as our primary requirement. That leads me briefly to CASA's approach to RPAS risk management. There is no doubt that CASA's light regulatory touch might please the anti-red-tape brigade, but we at AusALPA are not so convinced. It is certainly out of step with the rest of the world. While the argument was made at estimates that there is no evidence of an unacceptable risk, we see two problems. First, there has been little or no peer-reviewed scientific investigation of the unknowns. Second, should the evidence of risk suddenly emerge, the regulatory horse will already have bolted.

AusALPA believes that CASA's current regulatory approach is a political rather than a safety response to what is now clearly a rear-guard action. It was developed by well-intentioned people who made two key political decisions: one, that there would be no register; and, two, that a sub-two kilogram vehicle could be portrayed as posing an acceptable risk to aircraft and persons on the ground. The reason that we describe these decisions political is simple: registers are expensive to set up and run and the two kilogram weight devisor effectively threw the most popular and affordable vehicles out of regulatory sight; thereby removing an unfunded surveillance and enforcement activity from an already stressed CASA budget.

AusALPA does not agree that CASA has acted in the best interests of the Australian people. Therefore, we offer the committee the following recommendations. AusALPA believes a registration framework is essential. Setting out a practical registration scheme with strong deterrents against noncompliance services notice to all users that they are operating in a highly regulated system—hopefully leading users to explore and understand the legal and safety constraints on RPAS operation and the broader aviation context. It will ensure that the necessary safety, education and compliance knowledge can be delivered directly to the major source of risk—RPAS operators.

Mandatory education linked with registration will not prevent laziness or incompetence but it will remove any excuse. However, we need to be balanced, so the registration framework should be targeted only at vehicles and systems that are identified as posing an unacceptable risk to aircraft and persons on the ground. Nonetheless, registration alone will not be sufficient. As I mentioned earlier, geofencing and other constraining technologies must also be in the mix. They are an integral part of solutions in jurisdictions like the EU, which have committed to integrate drones safely into their airspace.

There will always a small risk of the population who will ignore the law, just as they will ignore the risk that their inappropriate RPAS operations may create. For that group, more active protective technologies will need to be pursued for high-risk airspace. There are a range of technologies that can identify and locate both an RPA and its ground operator, allowing law enforcement to act on incidents of inadvertent or unlawful use. I draw the committee's attention to systems like SkyTracker, a passive system that would monitor capital city airports. Like passenger screening, a multifaceted approach may be required to cater for the different size and complexity of Australian airport infrastructure. Much more work needs to be done to establish where to draw the regulatory line around acceptable risk to people and aircraft.

I will conclude by noting some of the research now becoming available. No-one sitting at this table before you today believes that the potential damage from a collision of a 1.99 kilogram RPA with a low-capacity RPT aircraft, a helicopter or a range of general aviation aircraft, will not result in an accident. Emerging work being done overseas by universities and government agencies within the major aircraft certification jurisdictions is already likely to require a significant rethink of certification risk assessments. In May 2015, the FAA created their Center of Excellence for Unmanned Aircraft Systems, originally comprising 15 universities, which has now expanded to form the Alliance for System Safety of UAS through Research Excellence, or ASSURE, which now boasts 23 of the world's leading research institutions and 100 leading industry and government partners.

On 28 April this year ASSURE released the peer reviewed, 195-page, UAS ground collision severity evaluation final report. While this report raises as many questions as it answers, it nonetheless highlights the complexity of that subject and the scientific rigour required to act as a policy basis. Importantly, the methodology shows quite clearly that there is a minimal connection between human trauma studies for ground collisions and airborne collision damage outcomes. It is reasonably open to conclude that RPA collision dynamics are different from bird strikes. Clearly, one regulatory size does not fit all situations.

The much more vital research from ASSURE, their UAS airborne collision severity evaluation, is yet to come and will most certainly take considerable time to deliver. It is most concerning to us that, in the mean time, we are forced to hope that CASA was close to the mark in deciding that (1) there was minimal likelihood of a manned aircraft colliding with a sub-two kilogram RPA anywhere one can be operated and a sub-25 kilogram RPA operated on a personal property adjacent to airports and (2) if it did happen that it would not result in the loss of the aircraft. Thank you for your patience. We are happy to take questions.

CHAIR: Thank you. I am so glad you checked out the Hansard for Senate estimates, where we heard that we have not had a drone hit yet, so what are we worried about—nothing to worry about there!

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  I almost do not know where to start, other than to say, without speaking for my colleagues, I think you will find that we support all but 100 per cent of your observations. I have been waiting anxiously to hear from your group, because, really, you are the front line of failure in some respects. If there is a catastrophic event it is likely to have been between an unmanned aircraft and one of your manned aircraft. Let me ask some bleeding obvious questions. I have started to try to create a pattern in my examination of witnesses.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  In fact, in most of those instances, if not all, the aircraft was operating in a predictable manner within the range and parameters in which it was intended to operate at that time and in that place, whereas the intruder—the burglar in the situation—on 100 per cent of occasions has been the unmanned aircraft. I am going to ask you a controversial question and you might want to avoid it. When you watched the performance of CASA at the estimates hearings in Canberra, were you left feeling as if they might not be attending upon this with the same sense of urgency that others might have?

Capt. Butt : I was not present at the CASA hearings, but if any of my colleagues—

Unidentified speaker: It is a dangerous question.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  It is no more dangerous than the drones—

Capt. Booth : The observation of our members—I am speaking as a president but I am also representing 4½ member pilots—is that the approach taken by CASA to risk management is deeply concerning—that is, we do not yet have an accident or damage and therefore there is no risk. If regulation in other areas of aviation safety and road transport safety went along similar lines, that would be very problematic. I think CASA simply does not regulate in that manner. They look at risk, they look at possible consequences, but I guess one of the problems here is that no impact study has yet been completed. That is one of the main thrusts in our submission—that is, the need for a rigorous damage assessment exercise to be funded by the Australian government and other regulators to determine the extent of damage.

CHAIR: This inquiry came about because Senator O'Sullivan and I sat down in the halls of parliament one day. We got some briefings, because CASA wanted to take the foot of the accelerator a little bit with all these little things, but we actually said 'Bulldust! Hang on, we're going to have an inquiry.' Otherwise it would have slipped through.

Capt. Booth : Indeed, and when we found out about the 150-odd ATSB events in 2016, just prior to the amendment of 101 in September last year, it was alarming from our point of view that there seemed to be a disconnect between the ATSB and CASA in making that rule making in relation to sub-two-kilos when clearly there was a proliferation occurring. I have shared airspace with a drone at 12,000 feet north of Sydney on arrival and have been told 'Hazard alert—UAV in your area,' and it is alarming as an RPT pilot to hear that. Of course, in Sydney Airport, which is a hotspot, probably on fewer than five occasions there has been drone activity on the ADIS on arrival—one time over Kurnell, which is directly on the approach path to runway 34R, and similarly from landings to the south at Sydney Airport. Sydney no doubt is a hotspot as 70 per cent of the activity is around the Sydney area, and I am guessing that a lot of that is sub-two-kilograms.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  Did you happen to hear CASA, in their risk profile, no less than the CEO suggested that if you wanted to have an analogy it was someone riding their bicycle along the footpath—a drone in the air and a man on a bicycle on the ground. In my words, not yours, it is absolutely preposterous to try to make an example of that size. Can any of you justify the argument that the person in charge of one piece of tin requires no training—none—requires no proficiency testing, no medical tests, and no rules about their sobriety or their age or their mental condition, whereas with the other piece of tin—and I don't mean particularly with you gentlemen as it is a lifelong journey of education in your space to get your pilot's licence and progress through and have this privilege to fly in your profession—can you think of even one single remote argument as to why one ought not to be as competently trained and tested for proficiency as the other?

Capt. Butt : The biggest point about that is the proximity of the two pieces of tin. If that person could be contained in an area in which they are the only person affected by that area there may be an argument, but that is not what we are talking about here. The industry has grown so quickly, without regulation, that there is no chance of that being the case.

Capt. MacKerras : I do not want to sound like a proponent for the drone industry, but the reality is that they are working flat out at the moment on a whole bunch of technologies—

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  I am not interested in tomorrow's sunrise. I am talking about the current human capacity and the current technologies.

Capt. Booth : The answer is you cannot do that, because there is pilot deconfliction. Essentially, there is no deconfliction plan. We have read in the media about Amazon and Australia Post doing deliveries. There is no deconfliction plan. Clearly it is an economically driven exercise. It is like driverless cars. It is very appealing for the general population, but as operators we know that there is no way of ensuring there is not a collision risk. Of course, you are quite right, there will be conflict aplenty when you get proliferation of drones in suburbia doing this sort of delivery activity.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  One of the fears I have is that I am watching a regulator who just does not seem to have its head in the space. I am hearing a bit of silence from my side of government. If you want to measure things, it took eight months from when the minister said we will have an inquiry by the regulator to getting that fairly detailed and complex document there with about nine lines on it. Here we are. Honestly I could have knocked that up at breakfast this morning in a more detailed form. I will send a message to you and then I will finish. We need all the loud voices we can get in this space because government only knows one thing, and that is the fear of the masses expressing themselves in a genuine way when there is a matter of concern I think of this magnitude confronting our society. I do not think we have had such a technical challenge in terms of absorbing this IT into our operating days since people started to drive along with a telephone up to their ear from a safety perspective. There is something you can do. You are a very powerful voice. The flying public listen very carefully. They have got a very sensitive ear to the messages that come from you people, given you are at the pointy end and we are all there for the grace of you.

Thank you, Chair.

Capt. MacKerras : The decision not to regulate sub-two-kilo drones says that CASA has identified that they do not believe there is any risk in that weight class.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  We have seen their evidence. They commissioned a peer reviewed academic study on the issue—

Capt. MacKerras : I do not think it was peer reviewed.

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  Well, they had not read it—which had some critical things to say about the prospects. One of the safety officers from CASA talked to us. I have had 20 years investigating catastrophic international flights. He tried to define to me what the difference was between a catastrophic crash and just a crash. He said, 'Well, it's not catastrophic if it just takes the engine out; you've got another engine.' I thought to myself, 'You know, wouldn't it be lovely, sitting there looking out the window and going, "We've only done one. We've got another one here."' It was just a nonsense.

Mr Loney : I can also comment on the assessment of risk and what you do about it. We have heard the references to bird strikes by CASA. And, of course, the airport authorities go to a lot of effort to find the right kinds of grasses and cut them to the right length to scare birds. They do everything in their power to keep birds away from the airport environments and the flight paths of the aeroplanes. So, if we think it is good enough and important enough to deploy teams in that way, how can we say that a two-kilogram drone is of no consequence?

Senator O'SULLIVAN:  We need your organisation's voice, Mr Butt. You should not fear anything from government by speaking out very strongly on this. We are going to; we continue to. The three of us will never be promoted in government, no matter which side is in, because we are a bit strong with our language around this stuff. We just need your voice, seriously.

& today in the Oz Annabel Hepworth also comments on the AusALPA evidence given to the Senate Inquiry:
Quote:Call to use technology to restrict drones
[Image: 8658440968a9b4656d5a30c018e1e158?width=650]
Drone operator Anthony Shorten operating his drone near Brisbane. Picture: Glenn Hunt

The Australian
12:00AM June 30, 2017
[size=undefined]ANNABEL HEPWORTH

[img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/d4b891a093ad6ddc703117011dc4fd61/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
[/size]

The government is being urged by unions to follow the lead of Europe and the US in considering emerging technologies to keep drones away from piloted aircraft.

Amid continued reports globally of devices coming near passenger jets, the Australian Airline Pilots’ Association has declared Australia needs to look to technologies to help minimise the risk of a collision in shared airspace.

AusALPA president Murray Butt pointed to a new blueprint unveiled by the European Commission earlier this month that is aimed at making drone use in low-level airspace safe and a drone tracking system known as Sky­Tracker that has been tested by the Federal Aviation Administration in the US.

“We want a more scientific approach,” he said.

“We want them to take a look at everything that is available ... if they don’t, they’re not going to cover all the possibilities.”

He said that policymakers needed to tread carefully because “this technology is developing all the time” and “so we need to keep our minds open to what’s available and whether they are going to have to put restrictions on what you can do with a drone”.

“We’ve got to be a little bit careful”, he said, noting that it would be important to avoid technologies that disrupted passenger aviation.

The comments come as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority conducts a major safety review that will consider “geofencing” that uses technology that curbs where drones can fly.

Last week, CASA’s new chief executive, Shane Carmody, revealed in The Australianthat the growth of drones posed challenges for the regulator because it now had to communicate with “people who have had little or no exposure to aviation, and for whom concepts such as aviation safety for all users, restricted and controlled airspace and the safety of the Australian travelling public, are not front of mind”.

At the same time, a Senate committee is looking at the use of drones amid warnings by members including Queensland Nationals’ senator Barry O’Sullivan that the safety rules had not kept up with the rapid growth in the industry.

AusALPA appeared before the committee this week.

Earlier this month, the Single European Skies Air Traffic Management Research (SESAR) project proposed creating “U space” that will allow drones to be operated up to an altitude of 150m in urban areas.

Under that proposal, authorities would be able to identify drones using electronic identification and geofencing would be rolled out by 2019. The project envisages more advanced services such as alerting a drone to changes to airspace accessibility.

Chinese drone maker DJI has been including geofencing in its software by setting boundaries around airports, meaning that the devices cannot get within 5km, a spokesman said. The manufacturer’s “Inspire 2” includes an on-board sensor to alert operators to the presence of aircraft.

Anthony Shorten, the managing director and chief pilot of photographic firm Aerial Advant­age, said he wanted to see greater enforcement by CASA and potentially also by police.

It would be important that if technologies like geofencing were used, people did not then find ways of simply bypassing these, he said.

In recent days, the head of TAP Portugal was quoted on news wires warning that if drones kept entering airspace, he would call for them to be grounded, after a TAP plane almost collided with a drone as it was approaching Lisbon Airport, which is located inside the city.

In Australia, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau warned in late 2016 that its data indicated that encounters with drones were likely to double in 2017.

But reviews of the data for the first half of the year are suggesting that the number of encounters has plateaued.

It is expected that the ATSB will review the data from the first half of 2017 and that its predictions on trends will be updated if a continued plateau is seen in the data.

MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#5

[Image: yoda-drone-wars-have-begun.jpg]

REPEAT PAGE 1 -

In an effort to keep those interested in the Senate drone inquiry up to date with developments, while not detracting from the Senate Estimates thread we have decided to start a thread solely devoted to the subject of drones and the Senate Inquiry.

Recent 'drone' posts rehashed for reference...

   (04-10-2017, 06:10 PM)Peetwo Wrote:
   Update: Senate RRAT Estimates & Inquiry news -

   Next somewhat related to the Senate Drone inquiry, I note the following article courtesy the Canberra Times, that should give the committee more food for thought:

       Quote:
       April 8 2017


       'It has the potential to get worse': Mid-air incidents involving drones increases.


       [Image: 1472273878056.jpg]
       Andrew Brown

       According to Mark Will, there's only one guarantee when it comes to flying drones: at some point, they're going to be crashed.

       Having flown drones for almost two years, he also runs a "drone boot camp", which teaches new users how to safely fly the aircraft.
         
       [Image: 1491657950148.jpg] Mark Will said more information should be provided to drone users in order to prevent crashes or near misses with aircraft. Photo: Rohan Thomson  

       However, as the technology becomes more accessible, Mr Will said he was worried there would be an increasing number of incidents such as drones coming into close contact with planes or flying into restricted airspace.

       "My concern is that there's inexperienced hobbyists flying with no regulations," he said.
       
       [Image: 1491657950148.jpg] Mark Will runs courses on drone flying and safety.  Photo: Rohan Thomson  

       "It has the potential to get worse the more they become normal in the market."

       Mr Will's comments follow a recent report released by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau of mid-air incidents involving drones.

       Between 2012 and 2016, more than half of all drone incidents involved near misses with aircraft and more than 60 per cent of those happened in 2016.

       It's predicted there will be a 75 per cent increase in the number of drones being involved in near misses with aircrafts in 2017, with the report finding the number of incidents involving drones "increasing exponentially".

       Most of the incidents happened in capital cities, with Sydney accounting for 37 per cent of all near misses between drones and aircraft.

       The rest of the incidents involved the drones crashing into the ground, either from a loss of control, bird strikes or engine failures.

       The report did not specify how many incidents happened in Canberra, however, data from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority found two had occurred in the capital during the last year.

       One involved a complaint after a drone was seen flying over a Canberra house, while another drone user was fined $900 for crashing his drone at the Australian War Memorial.

       Drone users are not allowed to fly within 5.5 kilometres of an airport, and cannot be flown higher than 120 metres or within 30 metres of a building.

       Restrictions also apply to flying drones over crowds of people.

       Other restricted airspaces in Canberra also include the Majura Army Range as well as the Mills Cross Radio Telescope.

       Mr Will said more information should be provided to drone users in order to prevent crashes or near misses with aircraft.

       "We should consider drone ownership like dog ownership or a car licence. You as the user have to equip yourself with the knowledge and information," he said.

       "An airport is defined as an area with aircraft taking off and landing, so in theory you can't fly within 5.5 kilometres of the South Care base in Hume or Canberra Hospital."

       While no aircraft have been hit by a drone in Australia, Mr Will said the outcome could be disastrous if a plane was struck.

     
    However far more concerning for the Senators should be this dramatic headline, story and in particular photo by expert (cough - ) aviation commentator GT:

       Quote:
       Drone Targets Singapore Airlines A350

[Image: 758A9564.jpg]

       Geoffrey Thomas - Editor-in-Chief

       06 Apr 2017
       A drone has flown close to an A350 performing an flyby in Perth, Australia
       >

       [Image: 758A9564.jpg]>
       Singapore Airlines A350 flies past a drone. Credit Daniel Kitlar of DK and CK Photos

       The future of low level plane fly-pasts in Australia is in jeopardy after a drone came within an alleged 300ft of a Singapore Airlines A350 on Wednesday afternoon in Perth.

       Singapore Airlines, celebrating its 50th year of operating to Perth launched an online photographic competition of its new A350 and had publicized the air route and altitude of the fly-past.

       The dramatic picture taken by Daniel Kitlar of DK and CK Photos was shot from the Mend Street jetty in South Perth and captures the drone approaching the A350 as it flew over Heirisson Island.

       Mr Kitlar, an experienced drone operator, said he was stunned when he reviewed his photos later to see the drone.

       “In my experience, that drone would have to been at 1200ft and the A350 was flying at 1500ft," said Mr Kitlar.

       And the angle that the photo was taken related to the flightpath confirms that height assessment.

       Drone enthusiasts reported that two people were illegally operating a DJI Phantom 4 drone with a camera attached from Langley Park adjacent to the flightpath of the A350.
       When challenged that they were operating outside regulations for height they hurled abuse.

       Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said that the perpetrators could face a fine of AUD$9000 for operating the drone above 400ft in controlled airspace.

       “There are clear safety rules covering the operation of drones and stiff penalties for breaking these rules.”

       “Drones must never be flown in a way that causes a hazard to an aircraft and must not be flown over populous areas in a way that could pose a risk to people and property,” Mr Gibson said.

       The reckless incident is expected to curtail or even end fly pasts by commercial and even military aircraft officials within CASA and the Australian crash investigator say.

       In fact, air traffic control congestion limited what the pilots could do and the planned fly-past of Langley Park, Elizabeth Quay and over Kings Park was curtailed.

       Instead, the A350 flew down the Swan River over Maylands, Heirisson Island and South Perth.

       Last month the Australian Transport Safety Bureau warned that the number of close encounters between drones and planes is forecast to jump by 75 per cent this year.
       
       A report by the ATSB on the safety of drones found there had been 180 safety incidents involving drones between 2012 and 2016, including crashes.

       High capacity air transport accounted for 45 per cent of the reports.

       Source : http://www.airlineratings.com/news.php?id=1151

   
   Hmm...TICK..TICK..TICK..TICK...
   [Image: untitled.png]
   Of course according to the Act, when a collision inevitably happens CASA won't be responsible...


   (04-19-2017, 09:33 AM)Peetwo Wrote:
   Barry O continues pressure on drones -

   Via North QLD register:

       Quote:
       Animal activist drone use exposed in Senate inquiry
       [Image: w100_h100_fcrop.jpg]
       Colin Bettles @ColinJBettles

       19 Apr 2017, 6 a.m.
[Image: r0_42_2288_1329_w800_h450_fmax.jpg]


       Queensland Nationals Senator Barry O’Sullivan.

       CONCERNS have been raised about unregulated access to drones that can carry high powered surveillance equipment and be used by animal rights activists.

       CONCERNS have been raised about unregulated access to drones that can carry high powered surveillance equipment and be used by animal rights activists to expose loopholes in farmers’ private property rights.

       Several farm-based submissions to the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee’s inquiry into regulatory requirements underpinning drones - or remotely piloted or unmanned aircraft systems - have called for more support to protect farmers including from extreme political attacks, by animal liberationists.

       Committee Deputy Chair and Queensland Nationals Senator Barry O’Sullivan has also called on the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) to immediately enforce training and licensing requirements for all recreational and small commercial drone operators while the ongoing Senate inquiry completes its list of recommendations.

       Senator O’Sullivan said if CASA failed to act on introducing training and licensing requirements it may be necessary to temporarily remove all recreational drones from sale across Australian retail outlets.

       He said he was concerned that animal rights extremists could exploit loopholes in the current drone use regulatory regime, pointing out the potential dangers to livestock farmers in politically-motivated attacks.

       “We know that animal activist groups are able to purchase a recreational drone off the shelf at an electronics shop and put it into the air to hover around a farmer’s property to spy on any landholder,” he said.

       “Not only is this a blatant invasion of the privacy of landholders across the nation, but it is also a form of vigilantism that should not be tolerated in a civil society.

       “This basically treats landholders as criminals who cannot be trusted to run their operations in an ethical manner.”

       Senator O’Sullivan said he was uncomfortable with the idea of thousands of so-called recreational drones flying around the nation’s airspace without appropriate training, licensing and registration with CASA, “especially when we know some of these drones are being used to harass farmers and push an extreme political agenda”.

       Senator O’Sullivan said drones had the potential to be a serious “game changer” in rural industries - but the right balance needed to the sought.

       “One of my primary reasons for establishing this inquiry was to allow us to conduct a serious examination that strikes the right balance between ensuring people with questionable motivations for operating these drones are made aware of their responsibilities and are appropriately registered with CASA while also ensuring this technology continues to assist our rural industry,” he said.

       The Senate inquiry is due to report in December 2017 and its terms of reference include examining state and local government regulations and the overseas experience of drone use.

       It’s also looking at issues with public safety and privacy and the potential recreational and commercial uses of drones, including in agriculture with submissions raising issues around the technology’s potential use in farm chemical applications.

       Senator O’Sullivan said while the Senate inquiry continued, all recreational and small commercial operators employing drones under 2 kilograms should be immediately required to complete the same training and licensing arrangements as bigger commercial operators or those over 2kgs.

       He said there was a strong need for all regulations and requirements placed on recreational and small commercial drone operators to be given careful consideration.

       “I must stress this is a personal view and I do not want to anticipate the final recommendations of the senate inquiry,” he said.

       “However, you can currently purchase these machines in an electronics shop for a few hundred dollars and we have a regulatory environment in place where drone operators who claim to be using these machines for recreational purposes are not regulated by CASA.

       “I have serious concerns about the impacts to public safety from having potentially thousands of unregulated and unlicensed drone operators in our air space.

       “While it is correct that there are specific rules that prevent these drone operators from flying at night or flying any higher than 120 metres in the air in built up areas, there is currently no requirement placed on these smaller operators to become schooled in the relevant rules.

       “Each of these drones are generally equipped with video cameras and some are capable of carrying payloads of equipment through the skies, yet we don’t know how many are in our skies or who is operating them.

       “They threaten secure airspace, public safety and privacy - that should be a concern for every Australian.”

       The National Farmers’ Federation (NFF) and other groups like Australian Pork Limited (APL) have also made inquiry submissions calling for regulatory action regarding drone use over farms; including by animal rights activists.

       APL Policy General Manager Deb Kerr said Australia’s $2.8 billion pork industry had about 1500 producers producing around five million pigs for slaughter annually and needed protection from “perverse privacy invasion” by Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs).

       Ms Kerr said UAVs were becoming increasingly applied to agricultural operations - but there was an interest and increasing use of the technology by animal activists for surveillance of animal agriculture.

       She said the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs 2014 report, “Eyes in the Sky”, identified a number of gaps in current surveillance laws and made recommendations to modernise and harmonise this legislation in Australia.

       But unfortunately, many of these recommendations are yet to be actioned and this posed a great risk to Australian animal agriculture industries, she said.

       APL suggested CASA work with the Australian Privacy Commissioner to review current legislation to ensure there was adequate protection against emerging technologies, such as UAVs, which could be used for perverse privacy invasion.

       “Additionally, APL would suggest surveillance laws contain technology neutral definitions given the range of surveillance devices and emergence of new devices, such as UAVs fitted with listening devices or advanced optical surveillance devices and may not be covered in current definitions for surveillance devices,” Ms Kerr said.

       In his group’s submission to the Senate inquiry, NFF Rural Affairs Manager Mark Harvey-Sutton said a system for drone use that allowed farmers to increase productivity on farm while maximising safety was strongly supported.

       He said transformative technologies like drones had the capacity to change the way food and fibre was produced and can provide farmers with valuable data to better monitor conditions on farm.

       “These sophisticated tools will enable farmers to manage ever larger areas of land and assist them with decision-making,” he said.

       “It is to be expected that digital technologies can improve risk management approaches on farm, predicting weather and yields with greater accuracy.

       “Drones could, potentially, be used to assist farmers in monitoring fencing or to spray plants. In turn, farmers will spend less time driving through paddocks as they will be able to manage larger areas of land by analysing data.”

       But Mr Harvey-Sutton said the NFF was concerned about the use of drones by trespassers, flying over rural properties without the permission of farmers.

       “The NFF suggests to design a safe and efficient system to monitor drone movements and to ensure the privacy and safety of rural landholders,” he said.

       “It is vital that drones are appropriately controlled and that farmers do not need to fear the entry of unwanted drones on their property.

       “Technological solutions such as geo-fencing could prevent trespassing on farm, protecting people, stock and wildlife on properties.

       “The NFF recommends that a communication campaign be developed to inform the agricultural sector of safety considerations, public liability concerns and insurance requirements relating to drone use for primary production activities.”

       The Victorian Farmers Federation’s inquiry submission said further consideration should be given to the regulatory mechanisms necessary for ensuring the establishment of regulatory controls around drone use, to maintain farm security, protect privacy and prevent unauthorised surveillance, within an agricultural context.

       VFF said the Victorian Surveillance Devices Act failed to adequately protect agricultural business from unauthorised surveillance as regulatory stipulations only prohibits the use of drones and associated systems in recording private conversations or activities within the confines of a private residence.

       However, taking video footage, without recording audio, within an open space on private property, such as a backyard or farm property, does not contravene the Act, the submission said.

       “The lack of clear regulatory guidelines is a significant risk to agricultural businesses, specifically leaving small agricultural businesses open to unauthorised surveillance without the support of regulatory mechanisms,” it said.

       NSWFarmers said farm innovation aside, the question its members constantly raised about the use of drones was that of privacy and security as they can be used for criminal activity and surveillance.

       “Our members are constantly asking us what they can do when an unwanted (drone) enters their property or attempts to surveil their business,” the submission said.

       “Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to police such activity.

       “If this Senate inquiry achieves anything, it should address the difficulty of regulating such ‘disruptive’ technology to protect the public in their homes and on their farms.”

       Senator O’Sullivan said the Senate Committee had heard from witnesses ranging from universities to pizza delivery companies and all had strong views that the nation’s skies will one day look like a scene from “The Jetsons” cartoon.

       “It’s important we build a regulatory environment that acknowledges the serious technological changes taking place and the likely congestion, and potential public safety hazard, it is going to cause in the air space above us,” he said.

       The story Animal activist drone use exposed in Senate inquiry first appeared on Farm Online.

   
   Meanwhile in the virtual world of miniscule_NFI_6D... :

       Quote:
       The 2 'box sets' which made this morning's #roadtrip possible @rharris334 @lyndalcurtis @ColinJBettles @davidlipson
       [Image: C9psZArVYAADccE.jpg]


   The minister is obviously stuck in an 80's time warp - "Nothing to see here move along..." FDS!


And last week off the Oz:

   Quote:
   Flying a drone not all fun
   [Image: 9c71852457b2748138be0f4740400e80]12:00amGavin Simms
   Drone training involves an intensive seven-day practical and theoretical course.


Finally in recent days there has been much coverage and subsequent comment on the following article off conversation.com...

   Quote:
   Backyard skinny-dippers lack effective laws to keep peeping drones at bay
   April 26, 2017 11.59am AEST

   [Image: 8472462-3x2-940x627.jpg]

    Brendan Gogarty

   Disclosure statement

   Brendan Gogarty does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond the academic appointment above.

   New technologies make it easier than ever for peeping Toms – and the law isn’t much help to stop them.


   Recent advances in technology mean we can no longer rely on fences or barriers around our homes to protect our privacy. This was certainly the case for Darwin resident Karli Hyatt, who on Tuesday explained to the ABC’s Law Report how a drone invaded the security and privacy of her suburban backyard.

   Hyatt had returned home last week from an evening gym session, undressed and jumped into her secluded backyard pool. She thought she was “skinny-dipping” in private. Within minutes, though, a small camera-mounted quadcopter drone was hovering close overhead. Hyatt is certain it was watching her, although there was no operator to be seen.

   She describes the experience as initially shocking and has ongoing concerns about who might have been flying the drone and why. The result is an erosion of trust and cohesion in her neighbourhood and a feeling of insecurity in her own home. You can listen to the ABC interview here.

   What laws might apply to this case?

   [Image: file-20170425-13411-1u4p9dz.jpg]

   A camera-mounted drone quadcopter can now be bought and flown without a licence in Australia.

   The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) relaxed rules on privately operated drones last year, although some restrictions remain. However, flying a drone over private property isn’t illegal under CASA rules, nor is filming someone from it. Aircraft are generally permitted overflight of properties; otherwise they could fly only over public land.

   In fact, most Australian states have barred home owners from suing aircraft operators for causing “nuisance” by overflight.

   Although the Northern Territory is one of the few exceptions, the courts are still resistant to claims of nuisance against aircraft without proof of persistent and continuing interference with the property. One or two overflights (even on the same day) are unlikely to be enough to establish this.

   Unlike its common-law cousins, Australia lacks a tort of privacy. This is based on the conventional view that it would effectively prohibit people looking over each other’s fences. If you don’t like that happening – the old reasoning goes – you should build a higher fence.

   Although most common-law countries have moved past this view, Australia hasn’t. This means Karli Hyatt couldn’t sue the drone operator (if she could find them) for a breach of privacy.

   What all Australian jurisdictions have criminalised is harassment and stalking, however conducted. But these laws generally require a “pattern of behaviour”.

   In the NT, for instance, it would have to be proved that the activity involved intentionally watching Hyatt “on at least two separate occasions” with the “intention of causing harm” to her or causing her to “fear harm”. Given she doesn’t know who was flying the drone or why, this will be hard to prove.

   That said, this case does appear to involve a breach of the relaxed CASA flight rules; the drone was being flown at night, within 30 metres of her and out of sight of the operator. But because she doesn’t know who was flying the drone she can’t identify someone to report to CASA.

   If it happens again she can’t prove it is the same drone – as would be needed to apply nuisance, harassment and stalking laws – nor the intentions of the operator.

   One of the reasons drone rules were relaxed is that CASA simply cannot monitor every privately operated drone. CASA also insists it cannot be responsible for policing privacy breaches by drones. But there isn’t another agency that can effectively do this.

   With no regulatory agency, no tort of privacy, (nearly) no nuisance and inapplicable harassment and stalking laws, there isn’t much law when it comes to peeping Toms using drones around our homes and private spaces.

   Technology has left law behind

   Critics of increased protections against “privacy-invasive technologies” such as drones argue that we are already subject to surveillance by CCTV and satellites. They also point out that neighbouring properties often overlook modern dwellings.

   In those situations, however, the person being observed is put on reasonable notice or can easily identify the observer. We can build a higher fence, plant a hedge, or install a blind. If someone has filmed us from a neighbouring apartment, the footage will likely reveal who was doing it or from where. If we are accidentally recorded on Google Earth, there is a single company to negotiate with or put pressure on.

   However, technologies like drones really do seem to change the privacy landscape. The sheer number of them, their mobile nature and the inability to identify who is operating them limit our ability to protect ourselves from prying eyes.





   Off-the-shelf drones allow users to fly around neighbourhoods filming in high resolution.

   As Karli Hyatt’s case shows, simply expecting home owners to build higher fences is no longer really applicable, so it might be time for the law to step in.

   What can be done to protect privacy?

   In 2014, a Commonwealth parliamentary committee delivered a report, Eyes in the Sky. It recommended reforming laws on harassment and stalking and introducing a tort of privacy for unreasonable interference into private spaces – as did the Australian Law Reform Commission the same year. Yet such rules depend on proving who was operating the drone in the first place.

   Commercial operators must notify CASA of their intention to fly a drone. Untrained non-commercial operators do not, which means there is no record of who is flying drones and where.

   Almost all off-the-shelf drones contain GPS and flight recorders. One technical/legal solution might be to require that they also be fitted with a mobile SIM card (just as your tablet can have a cloned SIM card from your mobile). Flight data would then be automatically uploaded to the cloud-based government database whenever the drone was within reach of a mobile network.

   Tampering with the recorder would be illegal. This would allow CASA, the police or private citizens to establish who was flying a drone.

   While there might be some technical or logistical obstacles, and some infrastructure costs for government, this proposal would not overwhelm CASA with the burden of directly regulating the increasing number of drones.





   Drones have many positive uses, such as firefighting. (Note: this video is from before the relaxing of drone rules.)

   Most drone owners act in good faith and respect others, but a few rogue ones misusing the technology may turn the public tide. Drones have many socially positive uses, but spying on people in their own homes is not one of them. The law needs to help residents protect themselves against such invasions.



MTF...P2

RECOVERY PROCESS SLOW - We may not get it all back..
Reply
#6

REX COI on UAV/RPAS - Confused

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

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

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

Quote:Senator O'SULLIVAN:  But we need one voice on this. It would seem to me that this little yellow sheet of paper does not go far enough. There are the rules that your pilots operate under, and drone manufacturers can fit their rules into a sheet of paper that the Chinese do and put in the box. It is not even that long. That is the contrast that we have got. I do not think that they are adequate or sufficient. I think they are grossly insufficient. The only message I have got for you is we need all of you in this space to really have a thorough review of what is going on and join us, if you are as concerned as we are with respect to the circumstances.

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

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

CHAIR: Sorry, they were my words.

Mr Tessarolo : There is room for improvement.

CHAIR: You said it was 'adequate'.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above short Tessarolo statement is interesting in the context of the following quote from the latest Ferryman post on the PelAir thread (see HERE): 
Quote:– The final report will (must) most certainly present ‘just the facts’; but only those related directly to the incident. While this is reasonable, fair and proper; it will not answer the questions of many. We know, essentially, the what’s and why fore’s, we have an inkling that the CASA oversight and audit process was ‘over easy’, we know the system was slack and lip service only was paid to the Safety Management System and pilot ‘education’. We even know that the Sydney CASA ‘approved’ by acceptance, the operation as it stood. Manning’s report will, no doubt, reflect this, with all the trimmings. All well and good and, by the way, it is what the ATSB should have done many years and millions of ago.
The 'board member' referred to is none other than one Ronald Bartsch (aka Iron Bar off the UP)... Rolleyes - https://au.linkedin.com/in/ronbartsch
Quote:Chairman

UAS International

February 2014 – Present (3 years 6 months)
Free drone seminar : drone friends hope you can make it - dinner after - need to register now https://www.eventbrite.com.au/e/unmanned...5?ref=ecal

http://southpac.biz/rpas-lead-auditors-course


...Ron is an independent Director of Regional Express (Rex) Holdings Limited and Chair of the Board’s Safety and Risk Management Committee... 
Independent my ass -  Dodgy

It is also worth noting that before Iron Bar in 2010 became a 'independent' director for REX he consulted directly to REX on the implementation of their SMS and before that was the CASA Manager responsible for oversight of all Sydney based airline AOCs, which included REX:
Quote:Manager Airline Operations

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

March 1996 – June 2007 (11 years 4 months)Sydney, Australia
Regulatory and safety oversight of all airline AOCs and MROs based in Sydney including Qantas Airways, Regional Express, QantasLink


Hmm...no further comment -  Dodgy


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#7

We apologise - the original thread fell victim to a gremlin and cannot be recovered. However, the mighty Google has cached the thread which provides the lost posts.

The link is virus free and takes you to the AP library.

Begun- the drone wars have - MkI.
Reply
#8

Somebody must've fed it after midnight...

[Image: 350?cb=20120622121031]


I’d like to know who. Nah, was a series of things, but the back up let us down. Anyway, most of the important stuff is still there. "K".








Angel
Reply
#9

TICK, TOCK - goes the drone airprox clock - Confused

While we wait for the next round of the Drone Wars, today at Gatwick international airport there was another close encounter with a UAV/RPAS/Drone, which temporarily forced the closure of one of the World's busiest airspaces, via the BBC online... Wink
Quote:Drone causes Gatwick Airport disruption
 
[Image: _96769511_9351fe0c-b8d7-4068-bff6-c31281987295.jpg]Image copyright PA Image caption Five flights were diverted because of the drone flying near the runway

A drone flying close to Gatwick Airport led to the closure of the runway and forced five flights to be diverted.

An airport spokesman said the runway had been closed for two periods of nine minutes and five minutes on Sunday evening after the drone was sighted.

Easyjet said four of its flights had been diverted, while British Airways said one aircraft had been sent to Bournemouth. Other flights had to fly holding patterns as a precaution.
Sussex Police is investigating.

The airport said: "Runway operations at Gatwick were suspended between 18:10 BST and 18:19, and again from 18:36 to 18:41, resulting in a small number of go-arounds and diverts.

"Operations have resumed and the police continue to investigate."

Channel circles

Passengers have told the BBC how their flights were diverted away from Gatwick.

Craig Jenkins, who was flying with Easyjet from Naples, Italy, said: "We were crossing over the Channel and it started circling.

"It did four or five circles, heading further east, before the captain said we were landing at Stansted.

"First, they said Gatwick was closed because of an incident. Then, shortly after, they said it was a drone."

Mr Jenkins, who is from Greenwich, south-east London, said passengers were given the choice of disembarking at Stansted or waiting an hour and flying back to Gatwick.

Aborted landing

Niamh Slatter, from Sussex, was flying home from Valencia, Spain, when her BA flight was diverted to Bournemouth.

"We were due to land 15 minutes early, but ended up circling over the south coast for a while," she said.
[Image: _96774026_gatwick3.jpg]Image copyright Twitter

"Our attempted landing at Gatwick was aborted quite late as the drone had been spotted again, so we were told that the flight was being diverted to Bournemouth Airport."

An Easyjet spokeswoman said three flights would continue on to Gatwick, while passengers from a fourth, diverted to London Southend Airport, would be provided with coach transfers.

"While the circumstances are outside of our control, Easyjet apologises for any inconvenience caused," she added.

Rules on flying drones
[Image: p04m6kld.jpg]

In November 2016, the UK's drone code was revised and updated to help pilots ensure they fly the gadgets safely.

The revised code turned the five main safety tips into a mnemonic, spelling drone, to make it easier to remember.
  • Don't fly near airports or airfields
  • Remember to stay below 120m (400ft) and at least 50m (150ft) away from people
  • Observe your drone at all times
  • Never fly near aircraft
  • Enjoy responsibly
UK revises safe flying drone code

Former senior air traffic controller Doug Maclean told BBC News aviation authorities had to "act on the safe side" in incidents involving drones.

"Drones are really very small. They are not designed to be spotted on air traffic radar."
But he added: "Airports like Gatwick and Heathrow are very busy places, so there are lots of people aware of what a drone looks like.

"As soon as anyone sees anything like that, I am sure there is going to be a very instant report to air traffic control, who would then have to make a judgement on how dangerous the situation was."

The British Airline Pilots' Association's flight safety specialist Steve Landells said the threat of drones flown near aircraft "must be addressed before we see a disaster".

"We believe a collision, particularly with a helicopter, has the potential to be catastrophic," he said.

The union has called for compulsory registration of drone users and said new technology should be considered, including a system where the drone transmits enough data for the police to track down the operator.

[Image: _90315850_drone_aircraft.jpg]Image copyright Getty Images Image caption The Civil Aviation Authority says drone use has increased significantly (File photo)

In April, the UK Airprox Board, which monitors near-miss incidents, said there had been five such incidents in one month.

This included one on the approach to Edinburgh Airport on 25 November 2016, in which a drone came within 75ft of an aircraft.

In another incident last November, a near-miss involving a passenger jet and more than one drone was reported in the UK for the first time near Heathrow Airport.

How common are near misses involving drones?

There were 70 Airprox reports involving drones coming close to aircraft over the UK in 2016. This is more than double the number for 2015.

There were 33 incidents up to May 2017. An Airprox is the official term for a situation where the distance between aircraft and their relative positions and speed were such that the safety of the aircraft may have been compromised.

Only one drone has actually struck a passenger aircraft. This happened in April 2016 to a British Airways flight approaching Heathrow. The plane, an A320 Airbus carrying 132 passengers and five crew, landed safely.

The Civil Aviation Authority recommends drones be flown at no higher than 400ft.

However, the highest Airprox involving a drone was at 12,500ft.

Of the 142 Airprox incidents involving drones recorded since 2010, 40 of them were near to Heathrow. Six of them, up to May, had been near to Gatwick.


Drones near aircraft
12,500 ft

Highest near miss, over Heathrow in February 2016
400ft

Maximum height drones should fly
  • 50 metres Closest drones are allowed to anyone or anything
  • 70 Near misses involving drones in 2016, more than double the year before
Source: UK Airprox Board
Getty Images

'Severe penalties'
The Civil Aviation Authority said there were serious consequences for people who broke the rules when flying drones.

"Drone users have to understand that when taking to the skies they are potentially flying close to one of the busiest areas of airspace in the world.

"[It is] a complex system that brings together all manner of aircraft including passenger aeroplanes, military jets, helicopters, gliders and light aircraft," a spokesman said.

"It is totally unacceptable to fly drones close to airports and anyone flouting the rules can face severe penalties including imprisonment."
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#10

A witches brew.

Across the world – from Dubai to Hong Kong, from London to LA; the game of ‘tagging’ aircraft will continue for ‘You-tube’ cred or even on the ‘dark web’. Then there is the temptation to catch the ‘perfect’ aircraft shot; or to be ‘first-on-scene’ at an accident. It is a hellish brew for law enforcement, sheer weight of numbers before you even start to work out how to trap the drone and then how to prosecute. Even if you manage to trap and prosecute will that prevent future offences? How long will it be before those wishing to play Russian roulette with aircraft and peoples lives develop ‘ways and means’ of avoiding being nabbed?

It’s all well and good saying “thou shalt not” even the gods tried that – ten simple rules and look at the mess (and legal fees) that created. Should ‘drone’ incursion into airspace be given the same weight as an act of terrorism? Would that stop the ‘random’ - got bored and went over to the airport to play idiot? Probably, but will the dedicated, persistent offenders just get more cunning?

These are questions I cannot answer and I feel sorry for the poor sods who must.  But I do know one thing for certain sure – I do not want one going down my ‘by-pass’.

Toot toot.
Reply
#11

(07-04-2017, 08:09 AM)kharon Wrote:  A witches brew.

Across the world – from Dubai to Hong Kong, from London to LA; the game of ‘tagging’ aircraft will continue for ‘You-tube’ cred or even on the ‘dark web’. Then there is the temptation to catch the ‘perfect’ aircraft shot; or to be ‘first-on-scene’ at an accident. It is a hellish brew for law enforcement, sheer weight of numbers before you even start to work out how to trap the drone and then how to prosecute. Even if you manage to trap and prosecute will that prevent future offences? How long will it be before those wishing to play Russian roulette with aircraft and peoples lives develop ‘ways and means’ of avoiding being nabbed?

It’s all well and good saying “thou shalt not” even the gods tried that – ten simple rules and look at the mess (and legal fees) that created. Should ‘drone’ incursion into airspace be given the same weight as an act of terrorism? Would that stop the ‘random’ - got bored and went over to the airport to play idiot? Probably, but will the dedicated, persistent offenders just get more cunning?

These are questions I cannot answer and I feel sorry for the poor sods who must.  But I do know one thing for certain sure – I do not want one going down my ‘by-pass’.

Toot toot.

Update Gatwick UFO/UAV incident, via BALPA:

Quote:Pilots say more must be done before drone causes aircraft disaster, following incident at Gatwick
[b]Release date: 02/07/2017[/b]

Pilots say more must be done before drone causes aircraft disaster, following incident at Gatwick

A drone flying close to aircraft at Gatwick causing flying to stop twice has prompted the UK pilots’ association to renew calls for better regulation and education. 

The incident on Sunday (2nd July) led to the airport closing the runway for two periods of nine minutes and five minutes.

The British Airline Pilots’ Association (BALPA) has for some time been voicing its concern about the rise in near misses involving drones. 

It’s calling for better education of users, compulsory registration during which the rules are made clear and more high profile prosecutions for offenders.

BALPA Flight Safety Specialist, Steve Landells, said: 

“Yet another incident at Gatwick involving drones shows that the threat of drones being flown near manned-aircraft must be addressed before we see a disaster.

“Drones can be great fun, and have huge commercial potential, but with a significant increase in near-misses in recent years it seems not everyone who is flying them either know or care about the rules that are in place for good reason.

“While we take no issue with people who fly their drones in a safe and sensible manner, some people who fly them near airports or densely populated areas are behaving dangerously. 
 
“We believe a collision, particularly with a helicopter, has the potential be catastrophic. 
 
“Measures should be put in place that will allow the police to identify and locate anyone who flies a drone in an irresponsible way. 
 
“Owing to the huge numbers of drones being sold, more technological solutions will undoubtedly be required to address this problem and should be mandated. 
 
“These should include, amongst other things, geofencing as standard and a system whereby the drone transmits enough data for the police to locate the operator when it is flown in a dangerous manner.

“If the user has endangered an aircraft, we would like to see the culprit prosecuted; endangering an aircraft has a maximum sentence of five years in prison.”
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#12

DW1 - Tabled docs etc.

Via RRAT Committee inquiry webpage:

Quote:Tabled Documents
DOWNLOAD ALL


1 [Image: pdf.png] - Document tabled by One Giant Leap at a public hearing held in Sydney on 26 June 2017.
2 [Image: pdf.png] - Photo tabled by Captain John Lyons of VIPA at a public hearing held in Brisbane on 28 June 2017.
3 [Image: pdf.png] - Results of a survey tabled by Mr Ross Meadows at a public hearing held in Brisbane on 28 June 2017.
4 [Image: pdf.png] - Document tabled by Australian Certified UAV Operators Inc. at a public hearing held in Brisbane on 28 June 2017.



See Also
Other information presented to the inquiry
Still waiting for the 28 June Public Hearing Hansard to be released, in the meantime here is the drone related QON from the last Budget Estimates that are due to be answered by 7 July 2017... Wink :

Quote:117
000256
CASA
RICE
DRONE STRIKES/BIRD STRIKES

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Carmody: We can certainly take it on notice.

118
000257
CASA
RICE
COMMUNITY KNOWLEDGE


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

Mr Carmody: We are communicating constantly—

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

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

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

Mr Carmody: I am not aware, so I will take it on notice.


CHAIR: I am familiar with when it was. You referenced that. You would, no doubt, have information about who you consulted and what the breadth of the consultation was. Could you take that on notice and provide us with who you consulted and if there are any documents where they made a submission to you, you exchanged or a file note—could you also produce that for us?

Mr Carmody: I am happy to. We have a pretty standardised process for consultation. We are very happy to take it on notice.
119
000258
CASA
RICE
COMMUNICATION COST

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

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

Mr Walker: In terms of total spend, I would have to take that on notice. In terms of social media, we manage that in-house—that is, the staff, relying on the expertise we have with our own subject-matter experts, and the content is all generated and delivered in-house as part of our normal communications packages.
120
000259
CASA
RICE
AVALON AIR SHOW


Senator RICE: Getting to my other question, it is all very well to be putting that communication out there. And with the drones, you have also got the information in the yellow leaflets—is that what you were referring to? Is it the leaflet that we saw at our drones inquiry?

Mr Carmody: It is a leaflet; I have seen multiple ones, but yes—

Senator RICE: It is a DL-size yellow leaflet. But I think for your average 15-year-old, once they get their drone out of the package from Harvey Norman, the leaflet would end up with the wrapping paper and it would not even be looked at. I want to know what sort of analysis you are doing of the effectiveness of your communications program. How are you evaluating whether you are indeed reaching your target audience?

Mr Walker: In answer to that, we intend to go out to market and actually test that via survey.

Senator RICE: You intend to go out to market—so you have not tested it as yet.

Mr Walker: Not as yet, but we do monitor a number of things on a weekly and a monthly basis, specifically around our website and around the internet traffic. In a couple of the other forums that we attend, we also do a high degree of exit polling of those attendees. If I could give you an example of that, recently at the Avalon air show, we happily participated in and were very supportive of what was called the 'Drone Zone'. On the public days at the Avalon air show, they specifically targeted mums and dads and kids that were turning up, to provide education around drones. We had members of our staff there to answer questions and provide information, and we also then asked people on the way out whether or not that information had been useful, as we do in all our forums.

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

Mr Walker: Over the three days, I would have to take it on notice to give you precise numbers; obviously, it tends to be a little bit anecdotal. I know I had three staff on the stand and they were literally hammered for the three days.
121
000260
CASA
RICE
DRONE FIELD WORK


Senator RICE: I would like to go back to what you said before—that you intended to go to market to do some evaluation of your effectiveness. Can you tell me more about the time lines and about what you are proposing to take to market in terms of evaluating the effectiveness of your communications?

Mr Walker: The intent is that later this year we will be going to market to do a further sample of our stakeholder engagement relationship with industry. As part of that, we are in early discussions with the service provider that does that for us as to whether we can include a component around drones and drone awareness and also drone safety. It is early days, but I would like to think that we will be going out before the end of this year to do that.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Walker: Certainly, happy to.
128
000265
ATSB
GALLACHER
DRONE OWNERSHIP


Senator GALLACHER: I am really curious about how you protect your property. There are people capable of writing programs to take over anything, particularly remote controlled aircraft. How do we know that your drone is your drone, if someone else takes it over?

Mr Hood: Senator, I am not the drone expert for ATSB but certainly I will take your question on notice. I know that with any electronic frequency spectrum you can jam, you can interfere and potentially, if you found the right frequency, my understanding of basic electronics is that you could actually take over the control of that drone.
  

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#13

Full story here

Quote:'Strewth Pauline, take this video down quickly!': One Nation supporters warn the senator she may have broken the law after posting a video of herself flying a drone in North Queensland

Pauline Hanson shared a video of herself flying a drone from a balcony online
Supporters said she may be breaking laws around where you can fly a drone
CASA states you cannot fly a drone in a populated area or near a building
It is not clear if Ms Hanson has broken any laws in the video, filmed in Townsville
By Hannah Moore For Daily Mail Australia

Pauline Hanson has been warned by supporters she may have been breaking the law after she shared a video of herself flying a drone.
The One Nation leader posted the video to Facebook and Twitter just after 6:30pm from Townsville in North Queensland.
In the clip, she has a remote control for a drone in her hands before the camera pans to the object in the sky.

'I'm up in Townsville for the next 2 days for meetings with locals and on [Sky News'] Paul Murray Live tonight from 9:00pm,' she said in the caption.
'Tune in for a long chat about some major issues here in North Queensland and the rest of the country.'
But supporters were quick to point out Senator Hanson may be breaking the law.

Twitter users slammed the Senator for her actions, with one woman writing under the post: 'That's illegal, you fool'.
Another follower was even more unimpressed, telling Ms Hanson: 'Flying a drone over a populated zone is illegal and dangerous. I hope CASA fines you'.
On Facebook, the comments were more panicked than critical.

'Strooth [sic] Pauline! Don't let CASA see this video! Regulations!!!! Take the video down quickly,' wrote one man.
Others questioned whether Ms Hanson was flying in a no-fly zone, thus breaking a law.
The video opens to show Ms Hanson controlling the drone from the balcony of a an apartment or hotel building.
The camera then turns to show the drone move up and down as the Senator commentates in delight.
'Oh, you're probably wondering what I'm doing,' the Senator opens joyfully.
'Actually, I'm flying a drone here, first time ever.'
The Civil Aviation Safety Association prohibits flying within 30 metres of buildings, and flying over heavily populated areas.
Much of Townsville does appear to be a no-fly zone from what is available on the CASA app, but it is not clear where exactly she was at the time.

She is seen giggling and grinning as she plays with the expensive unmanned plane.
'Oh golly, as long as I keep it under 400 feet I'm right,' she exclaims.
'But anyway this is the first time I've ever done this, but, it's just having a go at it.'
Senator Hanson's spiel then takes a turn for the political, as she moves on to crack jokes about the light plane scandal that engulfed the party in May.
'Actually, it's not my drone, it's not my plane, it's James' drone! As it's James' plane,' she says.
'The plane the plane! The drone the drone!'
'Quite interesting,' she concludes.

(I'm not even gonna try to put in the videos!)

Here you go Cap'n - Wink



And from the Courier Mail:

Quote:Pauline Hanson social media video sparks concerns she may have broken aviation regulations
Clare Armstrong, The Courier-Mail
July 6, 2017 10:09am

THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority is looking into whether Pauline Hanson defied regulations after her latest video sparked concerns.

Ms Hanson’s latest social media video features the senator flying a drone in Townsville.

The One Nation leader posted the video on Wednesday night which showed her standing on the balcony of a high-rise building in Townsville flying a drone.

The video was removed a few hours later.

Quote:Civil Aviation Safety Authority - CASA
· 3 hrs ·

Thanks to all those who have reported a potential breach of the drone safety rules in Townsville by Senator Hanson.
We’re reviewing the video and will take appropriate action.
Drone operators are reminded to make themselves aware of the drone safety rules and download our ‘Can I Fly There?’ app.

[Image: 19305130_683270805199277_295075981931891...e=59C3211E]

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,…
casa.gov.au

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority today said it was “reviewing the video and will take appropriate action”.

“I’m flying a drone here, first time ever … as long as I keep it under 400ft I’m right,” Ms Hanson said in the video.

“It’s the first time I’ve ever done this but I’m just having a go at it, and actually it’s not my drone, it’s not my plane, it’s James’ drone as it’s James’ plane.

“The plane, the plane, no now it’s the drone the drone,” she said.

[Image: 3c8931ea816b3728356eb3f546c7d96b?width=650]Pauline Hanson with a One Nation plane that has raised questions about gift disclosure rules. Picture supplied

The Facebook video attracted several comments calling the legality of the drone use into question.

“Most of Townsville is a no flyzone, 400ft is only one of the rules,” one person wrote.

“Strooth (sic) Pauline, don’t let CASA see this video! Regulations! Take the video down quickly,” warned another commenter.

Others said Ms Hanson was “flying a drone in direct contrast to the civil aviation rules” and was illegally “flying over a populated area”.

It is not known why the video was taken down.

A spokesman for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority told The Courier-Mail recreational drone operators do not need a certificate or license but must abide by regulations.

“This includes not flying within 30 metres of people or property, you can’t fly over crowds and must not fly higher than 400 feet (120 metres) in controlled airspaces,” he said.

The spokesman was unable to comment on Ms Hanson’s drone use.


The Courier-Mail understands there are parts of Townsville covered by a “no fly zone” but it is not known if Ms Hanson’s location falls within this regulated area.

Ms Hanson’s chief of staff James Ashby told The Courier-Mail late last night that the senator’s actions complied with CASA regulations.

Senator Hanson was flying the DJI Mavic drone outside of the three nautical mile radius of the Townsville control tower.

“The drone the Senator was operating is classified as very small RPA and weighs approximately 600 grams.

“We appreciate the concerns some Facebook users may have expressed, however safety was the Senator’s first priority,” he said.
Reply
#14

(07-06-2017, 09:43 AM)Cap\n Wannabe Wrote:  Full story here

Quote:'Strewth Pauline, take this video down quickly!': One Nation supporters warn the senator she may have broken the law after posting a video of herself flying a drone in North Queensland

Pauline Hanson shared a video of herself flying a drone from a balcony online
Supporters said she may be breaking laws around where you can fly a drone
CASA states you cannot fly a drone in a populated area or near a building
It is not clear if Ms Hanson has broken any laws in the video, filmed in Townsville
By Hannah Moore For Daily Mail Australia

Pauline Hanson has been warned by supporters she may have been breaking the law after she shared a video of herself flying a drone.
The One Nation leader posted the video to Facebook and Twitter just after 6:30pm from Townsville in North Queensland.
In the clip, she has a remote control for a drone in her hands before the camera pans to the object in the sky.

'I'm up in Townsville for the next 2 days for meetings with locals and on [Sky News'] Paul Murray Live tonight from 9:00pm,' she said in the caption.
'Tune in for a long chat about some major issues here in North Queensland and the rest of the country.'
But supporters were quick to point out Senator Hanson may be breaking the law.

Twitter users slammed the Senator for her actions, with one woman writing under the post: 'That's illegal, you fool'.
Another follower was even more unimpressed, telling Ms Hanson: 'Flying a drone over a populated zone is illegal and dangerous. I hope CASA fines you'.
On Facebook, the comments were more panicked than critical.

'Strooth [sic] Pauline! Don't let CASA see this video! Regulations!!!! Take the video down quickly,' wrote one man.
Others questioned whether Ms Hanson was flying in a no-fly zone, thus breaking a law.
The video opens to show Ms Hanson controlling the drone from the balcony of a an apartment or hotel building.
The camera then turns to show the drone move up and down as the Senator commentates in delight.
'Oh, you're probably wondering what I'm doing,' the Senator opens joyfully.
'Actually, I'm flying a drone here, first time ever.'
The Civil Aviation Safety Association prohibits flying within 30 metres of buildings, and flying over heavily populated areas.
Much of Townsville does appear to be a no-fly zone from what is available on the CASA app, but it is not clear where exactly she was at the time.

She is seen giggling and grinning as she plays with the expensive unmanned plane.
'Oh golly, as long as I keep it under 400 feet I'm right,' she exclaims.
'But anyway this is the first time I've ever done this, but, it's just having a go at it.'
Senator Hanson's spiel then takes a turn for the political, as she moves on to crack jokes about the light plane scandal that engulfed the party in May.
'Actually, it's not my drone, it's not my plane, it's James' drone! As it's James' plane,' she says.
'The plane the plane! The drone the drone!'
'Quite interesting,' she concludes.

(I'm not even gonna try to put in the videos!)

Here you go Cap'n - Wink



And from the Courier Mail:

Quote:Pauline Hanson social media video sparks concerns she may have broken aviation regulations
Clare Armstrong, The Courier-Mail
July 6, 2017 10:09am

THE Civil Aviation Safety Authority is looking into whether Pauline Hanson defied regulations after her latest video sparked concerns.

Ms Hanson’s latest social media video features the senator flying a drone in Townsville.

The One Nation leader posted the video on Wednesday night which showed her standing on the balcony of a high-rise building in Townsville flying a drone.

The video was removed a few hours later.

Quote:Civil Aviation Safety Authority - CASA
· 3 hrs ·

Thanks to all those who have reported a potential breach of the drone safety rules in Townsville by Senator Hanson.
We’re reviewing the video and will take appropriate action.
Drone operators are reminded to make themselves aware of the drone safety rules and download our ‘Can I Fly There?’ app.

[Image: 19305130_683270805199277_295075981931891...e=59C3211E]

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,…
casa.gov.au

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority today said it was “reviewing the video and will take appropriate action”.

“I’m flying a drone here, first time ever … as long as I keep it under 400ft I’m right,” Ms Hanson said in the video.

“It’s the first time I’ve ever done this but I’m just having a go at it, and actually it’s not my drone, it’s not my plane, it’s James’ drone as it’s James’ plane.

“The plane, the plane, no now it’s the drone the drone,” she said.

[Image: 3c8931ea816b3728356eb3f546c7d96b?width=650]Pauline Hanson with a One Nation plane that has raised questions about gift disclosure rules. Picture supplied

The Facebook video attracted several comments calling the legality of the drone use into question.

“Most of Townsville is a no flyzone, 400ft is only one of the rules,” one person wrote.

“Strooth (sic) Pauline, don’t let CASA see this video! Regulations! Take the video down quickly,” warned another commenter.

Others said Ms Hanson was “flying a drone in direct contrast to the civil aviation rules” and was illegally “flying over a populated area”.

It is not known why the video was taken down.

A spokesman for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority told The Courier-Mail recreational drone operators do not need a certificate or license but must abide by regulations.

“This includes not flying within 30 metres of people or property, you can’t fly over crowds and must not fly higher than 400 feet (120 metres) in controlled airspaces,” he said.

The spokesman was unable to comment on Ms Hanson’s drone use.


The Courier-Mail understands there are parts of Townsville covered by a “no fly zone” but it is not known if Ms Hanson’s location falls within this regulated area.

Ms Hanson’s chief of staff James Ashby told The Courier-Mail late last night that the senator’s actions complied with CASA regulations.

Senator Hanson was flying the DJI Mavic drone outside of the three nautical mile radius of the Townsville control tower.

“The drone the Senator was operating is classified as very small RPA and weighs approximately 600 grams.

“We appreciate the concerns some Facebook users may have expressed, however safety was the Senator’s first priority,” he said.

Well at least Pauline knows at least one of the rules... Wink

According to Mr Ross Meadows from ProFlight UAVs Part 101 quiz results (3 [Image: pdf.png] - Results of a survey tabled by Mr Ross Meadows at a public hearing held in Brisbane on 28 June 2017.), Pauline is in amongst a select group of 1.8% of drone owner/users who knows at least one of the rules for sub 2kg drones:
Quote:[Image: ProF-quiz-1.jpg]
   
However thank God Pauline is in the vast majority who correctly know the answer for the maximum operating height a drone can be operated at without prior approval... Big Grin

Quote:[Image: ProF-quiz-2.jpg]

MTF...P2 Rolleyes
Reply
#15

Scarecrows and bird-pooh.

I wondered, who pays for the services of the airport scarecrows? The reason being that ‘the expense’ of this operational necessity is often mentioned in despatches.

ABC [Phil Shaw] from Avisure, the company contracted to keep birds away from Gold Coast Airport, said remnants of a bird had been found on the runway.”

Seems as though the operators of Coolangatta airport do; in this instance;

“A report released by the ATSB in February this year found the level of bird strikes in high capacity operations have increased dramatically in 2014-15.The largest increases were found in Cairns, Canberra, Darwin, Sydney and the Gold Coast.”

A suspicious mind, one used to the venal thinking and profit driven motivation of the modern aerodrome operator may entertain thoughts of minimum service to minimum costs. It is not enough that operators must pay for use of the airport but now must bear the costs of turn back, engine and airframe repairs – dodging drones and birds – all part of the cost imposed SOP.

"Strategic Aviation Solutions chairman Neil Hansford, who consults with commercial airlines and airports, said the explanation from AirAsia X was suspicious, especially when airports spend large amounts of money to keep birds away from the air strip."

On the other hand, I can agree that the Air Asia alleged ‘strike’ is bloody suspicious; just don’t believe the birds 'done it'; or, that the ‘large ‘amount being spent’ is for a full service option.

The carefully constructed barriers around passenger safety are not crumbling, so much as being slowly eroded away; dollar saved here, penny pinched there; all very clever until someone else rediscovers (again) that whilst safety is expensive – accidents cost a shed load more.

No matter; I’m sure Darren 6D has a solution for us – probably want to use drones to scare off the birds – which ain’t such a bad idea; when you think about it. Mind you, being so PC and all, he’d probably invite the anorak’s to bring their drones and ‘assist’.

Toot toot.
Reply
#16

Sen Hanson drone rule (complimentary) education program cont/-

Via the ABC online:
Quote:Pauline Hanson says drone investigation by Civil Aviation Safety Authority does not worry her
By political reporter Henry Belot
Updated yesterday at 9:33pmThu 6 Jul 2017, 9:33pm

Related Story: Labor refers One Nation to Australian Electoral Commission

One Nation senator Pauline Hanson says she is not worried by a possible investigation into her use of a recreational drone, which has sparked a debate about aviation rules.

Key points:
  • Pauline Hanson says she has "ticked all the boxes" and has not done anything wrong
  • The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is considering whether any rules have been broken
  • Fines for misusing drones range from $900 to $9,000 in more serious cases
The Queensland senator posted a video on Wednesday of her flying the drone from a balcony over a street in Townsville.

"Oh golly, as long as I keep it under 400 foot I'm right," the senator said in the video.

But what appears to have been a bit of fun has drawn the attention of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), which will now consider whether any rules were breached.

CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said there are strict rules about the use of drones and the authority would seek an explanation from Senator Hanson.

"It is too early to say if any safety rules may have been breached," Mr Gibson told the ABC.

"You must fly recreational drones more than 30 metres from people, not over crowds or groups of people, not cause a hazard to people, property or aircraft and stay under 400 feet in controlled airspace."

The rules around drones
[Image: drone-over-a-beach-data.jpg]
Beginner or enthusiast, here's what you need to know about how to operate a drone safely and what laws you need to follow.

Senator Hanson insists she has done nothing wrong and is not worried about the possibility of a fine ranging from $900 to $9,000 in more serious cases.

"Throw the cuffs on me, take me away, drag me away, I've been there done that, it's nothing new for me," Senator Hanson told Sydney radio station 2GB.

"I don't need a fine, I don't want a fine.

"It was not anywhere near a public place, it was not over a public field, it was not within 30 metres of anyone, it was over gravel, there was no danger to anyone, it was not near an airport.

Quote:"As far as I'm concerned I've ticked all the boxes."

In the video, Senator Hanson said the drone was owned by her chief of staff, James Ashby.

Drone users call for Hanson to be fined if she erred

CASA has a history of issuing fines to those who breach aviation rules with recreational drones.

In April last year, a man was fined $900 after he crashed his drone during a Last Post ceremony at the Australian War Memorial.

[Image: 8572384-3x2-340x227.jpg] 
Photo: One Nation leader Pauline Hanson could face a fine of up to $9,000 if CASA finds she breached aviation rules. (ABC News: Marco Catalano)      
 
The drone landed near the memorial's director Brendan Nelson, who handed it to security.

The Australian Certified UAV Operators group, which represents drone users who have CASA approval, said the senator should be fined if she did breach the rules.

"In such circumstances, it is reasonable to expect that public safety agencies like CASA will appreciate a higher level of public interest in the outcome of such investigations," the group's president Joe Urli said.

"The individual concerned is a member of the Senate — the same house that is presently conducting a formal inquiry into regulations on the operation of remotely piloted aircraft system."
Quote:[/url]

[url=https://twitter.com/PaulineHansonOz][Image: fnD6Qhgd_normal.jpg] Pauline Hanson


@PaulineHansonOz
THE DRONE! | Pauline Hanson takes a drone for a spin before heading off to meet @PMOnAir for Paul Murray Live in #TOWNSVILLE #auspol #qldpol
6:36 PM - 5 Jul 2017

[Image: gr_0h7m3Rhjj2YQd.jpg]
Could CASA possibly have cooked up a better way to reach out and publicly educate, the average recreational drone user, on the rules a sub 2kg drone operator must adhere to? - I think not and a choccy frog for Pauline... Wink

 MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#17

Some idle Sunday morning musings...

With all the noise being made about drones, I don't recall any such noises when the so-called "park flyers" came about. For those not familiar, it's a term used to describe a radio controlled model aircraft, generally made of foam, and powered by an electric motor. The selling point for these models was they could be flown in your local park.
If memory serves, CAsA's definition of a model aircraft is one that weighs 110 grams or more. There are some regulations that cover different weights - I think anything above 25kg? has to be properly registered. Now that's a *big* model. Just to give you an idea of size, I have, in my shed, a scratch-built Ugly Stik. This particular model has a 54" wingspan (1371.6mm) and weighs a touch over 2kg fully fueled. I also have a number of park flyers stored in my shed and around the house. These days, I don't fly them, because I can never seem to find the time. In fact, there are 5 models that have never flown....
Anyhow, the point being, when these parkies hit the market, I recall seeing a number of videos of them being flown from the street, with nary a thought given to any sort of regulation. When I lived in Perth in 2008, there was one infamous case of an F4U Corsair model getting caught up in the wake turbulence of a Virgin flight on final approach to Perth Airport. The video, taken from the cockpit of the model, shows it getting fairly close to the 737 before crashing. The pilot (of the model) had put his name on the side of his model, too.....I sometimes wonder what (if anything) happened to him..

I'll post a little more on this subject when I think of it...
Reply
#18

DW 1 update: CASA - "Your busted" & BrisVegas Hansard. 

Courtesy Spacial Source today... Wink :

Quote:Fun police issue drone fines for Easter egg hunt, wedding videos
By Anthony Wallace on 10 July, 2017 in Unmanned
[Image: drones-fines-target-630x331.jpg]
Almost any wedding you attend these days will be accompanied by the high pitch buzz of a drone trying to capture the romantic moment.

However, often such activity is done in breach of the regulations set out by authorities. In Australia, the responsible body is beginning to issue thousands of dollars in fines to crack down on the pilots in breach of the regulations for using drones to film occasions like weddings and even Easter egg hunts.

In Australia, Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) administers the rules and associated penalties for remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS, or drones). CASA today announced details of some of the behaviour that is being witnessed, and—in some cases—penalised.

One drone pilot was fined $900 for putting at risk a group of children at a Canberra Easter egg hunt by flying a drone flown at a height from which if the drone malfunctioned it would not have been able to clear the area.

Another pilot has also been fined $1440 for flying in Sydney Harbour restricted airspace and flying within 30 metres of people.

The third announced by CASA was $900 fine for hazardous flying at and near guests at a wedding in regional NSW. All three drone pilots paid the penalties issued by CASA.

[Image: drones-rpas-uav-spatialsource-senselfy-630x331.jpg]Drones/RPAS/UAS: Surveying’s new fact or another passing fad?

In September 2016, CASA passed regulations that allowed more people to fly RPAS without qualifications, subject to a number of rules. Under these terms, operators are not allowed to fly aircraft over two kilograms; within 30 metres of people; in restricted airspace; or, beyond line of sight.

Getting your tech-savvy relative to film your wedding with a drone, therefore, may make your wedding an even more expensive affair. However, if the drone is being flown by a qualified operator or on private property, the operator may be able to perform more advanced flying, subject to additional terms.

Admittedly, it is not easy to determine where or how you are able to fly. To make it easier, CASA recently launched a free drone safety app which maps restricted air spaces and other operating guidelines. CASA’s website also has a host of resources detailing the regulation for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.

CASA’s Director of Aviation Safety, Shane Carmody, said fines will continue to be issued where people break the drone safety rules.

“The rules protect people, property and aircraft from drones,” Mr Carmody said.
“If you fly a drone it is your responsibility to fly by the rules and stay safe at all times.
“Every drone pilot should download CASA’s drone safety app, which will help them fly safely.”


For those interested and/or monitoring the Drone Wars inquiry, the Hansard for the BrisVegas public hearing has finally been released (Ps thank you DPS... Wink ):

 Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee
(Senate-Wednesday, 28 June 2017)


Some extracts of note:
Quote:VIPA:

Capt. Lyons : Thank you for the opportunity of consolidating our submission, which you are no doubt familiar with at this stage. There are a couple of things I would like to reiterate from that submission. Since it has been put in, I have been trying to elicit from the ATSB some information relating to statistics, essentially for the last few years, for the increase in the number of near misses or reportable incidents. I had a bit of difficulty getting accurate information from them, but the most relevant I have come up with so far is the document, which you are probably familiar with, A safety analysis of remotely piloted aircraft systems for 2012 to 2016. It has an array of very interesting statistics in it, but I question the basis of some of their analysis.

It is important in this overall subject to understand or to see the issues from an airline pilot's perspective and to appreciate some of the issues relating to operating a large aircraft—and also from the point of view of the operators. One of the matters that the report, and also CASA, has alluded to is the impact. What happens if an airliner is impacted? To say that it might lose an engine but that it can fly on one engine is palpably ridiculous. If an airliner is impacted by a UAV, irrespective of the size, there is going to be potentially significant damage.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: You have obviously heard this said.

Capt. Lyons : I have heard that said in a number of places.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: It was given in evidence.

Capt. Lyons : To that point, I raise the questioned with the ATSB—and I stress that it is a question, because I know there is an ongoing investigation and there is no preliminary report out. Recently there was an event in Sydney where a China Eastern A330 on departure from Sydney had sustained engine damage; there was significant structural damage. I raised the question: could it have been a UAV impacting that aircraft, because the damage that is shown from that, and I have got some pictures to illustrate it—

CHAIR: So you are tabling some photos, some evidence there?

Capt. Lyons : Yes, I will tabled that with it. To me, that damage, from a layman's point of view, appears inconsistent with a fan blade departure from the engine. I have asked the question—

CHAIR: Sorry, Captain Lyons, just so you can assist those of us who have no aviation experience, although Senator O'Sullivan has vast aviation experience, just tell us why you said 'blade damage'?

Capt. Lyons : If a fan blade separates from an engine, it is likely to do serious damage to the engine and go through the engine, causing greater damage. That damage on that engine seems to me inconsistent with a fan blade failure, and I postulate that it may have been hit by a UAV. Contained in that safety analysis report are a number of statistics that say there are a number of reports associated with departure tracks, arrival tracks and UAVs being reported above 1,000 feet in that particular controlled airspace. We are obviously concerned about the prevalence of these things in that airspace and the potential damage they could do. That could be catastrophic. But to put out a report that says, 'It's okay; you've got another engine', is palpably ridiculous from a safety point of view.

CHAIR: And who said that?

Capt. Lyons : It has been said by—CASA based their safety case on it, and also the ATSB allude to that.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: You might remember there was evidence given at our estimates hearing to this effect.

CHAIR: Yes. That was a loaded question. We were treated with less contempt, actually. We were treated like, 'Why are you worried about it, because we've not had a strike'. That was from CASA.

Capt. Lyons : From an airline perspective, and from a pilot's point of view, it is a very serious issue. It obviously is underlined by the whole safety thing, which is what airlines are all about. It is all about safety.

CHAIR: Captain Lyons, please continue, because we will have questions.

Capt. Lyons : Okay, from VIPA's perspective, we would like to see the reintroduction and reinforcement of regulation to try to control the use of RPAS and UAVs. We have suggested that the protected airspace boundaries be increased beyond the current five kilometres that is around airfields, but this also applies to both controlled and non-controlled airspace.

I also suggested in the submission that licensed operators be given some form of authority to help reinforce the situation, because clearly CASA is under-resourced and the exponential expansion of the number of UAVs in recent years has extended way outside their capability to be able to control them. There needs to be legislation to monitor and restrict the number of UAVs around.

CHAIR: All right, Captain Lyons, before I go to Senator O'Sullivan I want to come back to this photo that you have tabled, this China Eastern Airlines A330. It would be really interesting to hear from the AMEs and LAMEs, I think it is—I apologise if I have it wrong, but the aircraft mechanics—as to how regularly they see this sort of damage. You have written to the ATSB, did you say, with a question?

Capt. Lyons : I have asked the question: did they consider that that was a possibility? It is really important to put this in perspective. It may well have been some mechanical failure within the engine. They do not know at this stage.

CHAIR: Sure. When did you write to them?

Capt. Lyons : Two weeks ago. And the response that I have had is that the matter is under investigation, and they cannot make a comment.

Australian Certified UAV Operators:

CHAIR: An absolutely valuable part of this inquiry was the exhibition day we had in Dalby. It actually opened my eyes, because I have not been around drones. That is why I am keen to get the positive side of it. There is absolutely a role. There is no argument here, but I just needed to clarify that. That is why I want to hear the positive stories. The positive stories are that you are all trained, you are aware and you know what is going on. You represent people who have commercial interests—and that is fine.
But I cannot accept that someone can just walk into a retail outlet like JB Hi-Fi or Harvey Norman and get one. I go back to an example that I use all the time of being at the Hotel Grand in Kununurra. For those of us who know Kununurra, this is God's country. The Hotel Grand is less than a kilometre from the end of the runway, and I am watching junior and senior playing with their new toys whizzing around the swimming pool area—and this is before the inquiry started—and I am thinking, 'What is that thing?' And now I am thinking, thank God junior did not say to senor, 'Hey, Dad, how high can this thing go?'

Mr Mason : That is a natural reaction.

Mr Urli : We want a baseline industry in terms training certification and minimum knowledge. That is very, very important. It is like operating a small vehicle. You have to have exposure to the civil aviation regulations. For somebody to just tick a box to say, 'We'll fully comply with the civil aviation regulations,' and not understand the volume, content and history that goes behind that is significant.

CHAIR: Absolutely. I am not casting aspersions on the next generation, but if I had had one of them when I was growing up in Langford I would have wanted to know how high I could go with this thing.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Have you seen the terms of reference published by CASA in the last fortnight?

Mr Mason : Yes.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Do you think that they are in any way adequate to address the challenges?

CHAIR: This is the one on the napkin in the restaurant?

Senator O'SULLIVAN: That is right. This is the result of nine months of deliberation on their part to get these sophisticated terms of reference. Do you think there is any capacity within the scope of those terms of reference to address some of the challenges that you have identified in your submission?

Mr Mason : I do not believe so, no.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Well, you need to say so out loud, because we will.

BUTLER, Professor Des, Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology

WHEELER, Mr Joseph, Principal/Managing Partner, International Aerospace Law & Policy Group


Mr Wheeler : Thank you for your indulgence and thank you for the opportunity to address this committee. I congratulate the senators and this committee for tackling such a challenging issue. I do have some introductory remarks I have prepared and welcome questions thereafter.

I would like to start by disclosing my various roles as noted in the submission. I am as a lawyer engaged issues facing pilots, passengers, remote pilots and, in time, the space industry and its proponents. I act as aviation legal counsel to the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, which is the largest professional association of airline pilots in the country by membership number. I am the national head of aviation law at Maurice Blackburn Lawyers. Through the Australian Air Line Pilots' Association, which you saw on Monday. I am a member of the legal committee of the International Federation of Airline Pilots Association, of IFALPA, which represents over 100,000 international pilot members and flight engineers and their professional interests. I am also a member of the Professional Government Affairs Committee of IFALPA. I also disclose that I previously acted for and am now appointed to the management committee of ACUO, whom you heard from this morning through Mr Urli and Mr Mason. I am also a regular commentator on aerolegal and aeropolitical affairs for The Australian in the aviation section.

The views I express today I believe are consonant with what AusALPA, IFALPA, ACUO and Maurice Blackburn have variously either put to this committee or have been referred to in submissions to the committee. That being said, I today appear for and on behalf of my practice, IALPG, guided only by a desire to preserve aviation safety through and with the assistance of law driven by well-considered policy.

I have some views to share on approaches to drone laws in this country, and the first is we need to go back to first principles and commit to a policy framework of integrated drone and manned aviation operations that ensures drone use will not degrade Australia's current enviable safety record. In short, Australia needs to figure out what it stands for in this space.

Following written declarations made in Europe in 2015—I am holding up the Riga Declaration made in the European Union—Europe set itself a goal of harmonisation now expressed in proposed model rules on drones backed by a concept they call U-Space, which clearly indicates Europe's direction. It wants safe and sustainable integration that should evolve gradually. Without agreement on more than the hollow or empty phrase of safety, we in Australia stand powerless to maximise the technology and progress that drones provide and are unprepared for the safety risks that inaction will bring to our backyards. I will come back to how I believe Australia should record its commitments.

The second thing is we need immediate urgent commonsense mechanisms in place. We need to slow the proliferation of reckless drone usage through better enforcement against misusers or criminal users of drones. We also need to roll back relaxations made in September last year that send a dangerous message from the air safety regulator that small drones are no-risk drones. This is not a question of impeding commercial freedoms or innovation but of sending the right message to the community: drones are not toys. Enforcement is not, simply, a matter of setting up standard operating procedures and threatening with fines; it requires a range of surveillance options coupled with a commitment to educate, discipline and deter.

Technologies like geofencing must be the subject of legislative airworthiness type restrictions on drone manufacturers to ensure that aircraft do not breach airspace they should not, but also to allow the regulator to implement monitoring to help them take corrective action. And why? Because it is irresponsible to let amateurs and children loose with powerful vehicles with no guidance other than to 'follow the rules'. Many do not appreciate the implications of breaching the rules—if they even know them or know where to find them. Regulating manufacturers allows for the preservation of compliance with the standard operating conditions. That cannot be guaranteed when left to those who are untrained in aviation. This approach has kept aviation safe and it should do the same for RPAS and drones.

The third thing I want to suggest today is urge the committee to make recommendations, to take a whole-of-government approach so views across government can inform and add to this challenging debate. This is needed, given the cut-through of issues that drones raise. Air safety is but one of them. There are import controls, security, including national security, privacy, insurance and liability, and international obligations of Australia as a party to the Chicago Convention. There are state, federal and local level enforcement options and questions that need to be addressed and should be addressed in any new fresh rethink or policy framework when we go back to a clean slate.

Fourthly, I would urge the committee to recommend as a minimum that CASA be charged in an appropriately binding way to prioritise the resolution of the drone legislative challenge. I suggest before the next 2018 update by the minister of Australia's airspace policy statement that that be done. This legislative policy statement is a reflection of our priorities and commitments on airspace management as a member of the international aviation community. Section 11A of the Civil Aviation Act requires CASA to exercise its powers consistent with that statement. The latest iteration was made after the consultation for the September rollbacks on CASA part 101, relaxing drone laws, but does not reflect any prioritisation of integrating unmanned aircraft systems safely or sustainably into Australian airspace.

I would suggest that this is where Mr Carmody's recent commitment—made in a comment to a newspaper a few days ago—'to make drone users part of the wider aviation community' should be recorded. Right now the statement says as its first government policy objective:

The Government considers the safety of passenger transport services as the first priority in airspace administration and CASA should respond quickly to emerging changes in risk levels for passenger transport operations.

Whether or not that policy has changed, I strongly believe that that commitment to the safety of fare-paying passengers in this country needs to be demonstrated strongly through tighter laws regulating drones, which represent the quintessential emerging change in risk levels for air travel in Australia.

By way of conclusion of my remarks, I hope it has been made clear that my views are centred around not only what the law says and does but also around what sort of a message it sends to drone users, the community in Australia and the international aviation community. Right now, our message is we are short-sighted and economically not safety focused. I implore this committee to send a message that our laws should not bend to concepts of red-tape reduction but rather facilitate safe and sustainable integration of drones into our airspace once a proper policy determination is made to do so and is defined and agreed upon.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Have either of you looked at the terms of reference that was recently published by CASA?

Mr Wheeler : I did see them. They were quite brief.

CHAIR: They only just came out.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: You need to be careful. There is a lot of effort—nine months of intellectual energy gone into the development of it. I think there is a general consensus. I would ask for your professional opinion. They are grossly inadequate deal with—even though they are a regulator, and they will say, 'Look, I really am going to go down this path'. But to do that, without having consideration about potential liabilities and insurance responses, would be irresponsible to say the least, I suspect. They have no capacity on their current terms of reference of being able to address most of the issues that both of you have provided to us today.

Mr Wheeler : Yes. I would say that is correct. I think it portrays a fact that this needs to be something that is beyond CASA's remit. CASA will always argue that their functions are set out in this act—the Civil Aviation Act—narrowly defined and that they are headed pre-eminently by safety. It is all well and good, but, as we have just discussed, this traverses more areas than safety and requires the thoughts of other people and some government direction, which is lacking at this time. That is also why I mention the Australia Airspace Policy Statement, which CASA has to be directed by. It is one of the means by which the government can say, 'This is what you need to do. This is our government policy objective. You need to assist us with fulfilling it....

...Senator O'SULLIVAN: Look, this might seem a burden, and you can crack me off if you like, but I am wondering whether the two of you could—and it is a burden—contemplate what the terms of reference for CASA probably should have looked like, in terms of the space of your expertise. I think we are even capable now of helping them draft the other elements of the questions we want answered—but in this area, given that they are already in the insurance space in one form or another. Anyway, take that on notice, and if we happen to get some correspondence we will feel blessed; if not, we will know that you are very busy.

CHAIR: Mr Wheeler, in your opening statement you mentioned that CASA should roll back the regulations they changed. Can you go into that a little bit deeper? What is the big drama of rolling it back? What would it take?

Mr Wheeler : I do not believe that the genie is truly out of the bottle or that is a major thing in a legal sense. Yes, there are drones out there and there are operators using under two kilograms and up to 25 kilograms as landholders in the excluded category. That being said, the status quo before that was that there was licensing and training, but recreational operators could still use those drones in those categories. Not a great deal would change, except those barriers to commercial operation would be back. The risk that has been in place since September last year to Australia's air safety performance would be back to the level it was in September last year. You would not have heard of many, if any, commercial operations going awry in drones in Australia since 2002. In my view, it does not matter that the genie is out of the bottle. A repeal of that legislation could and should happen. Once that happens, the bigger picture should be looked at with a clean slate and a whole-of-government approach.

CHAIR: From your experience, would a click of a pen achieve that? We would not need to have Senate fights. Just so everyone out there understands that what you are suggesting is not so hard.

Mr Wheeler : I do not believe it is so hard. It just requires the wherewithal to pursue it—government support and the recommendation that it happen—and then it can be done.

MANNING, Mr Michael John, Director, Drone Solutions

MARTIN, Associate Professor (Adj), Terrence, Queensland University of Technology
THYNNE, Mr John, Director, JT Aviation Consulting Pty Ltd

Mr Thynne : On that particular one, when I was running the CASA team and doing sector risk profiles for sectors of aviation, I did one on agricultural aviation as the test case. I got representatives from that side of the industry together and I sat down and said, 'Tell us what your hazards are; we're going to identify the hazards.' The very first one they said was impact with a drone. That was their highest risk and concern. We then went through and looked for history of events and that sort of stuff, and we found one event at that stage, in Victoria, where there had been a proximity event between an agricultural aircraft and a drone. That had occurred when the drone operator, a commercial operator, had submitted a NOTAM for his operation somewhere near Traralgon and the agricultural operator had seen the NOTAM and seen that there was a drone there and had flown his aircraft into the NOTAMed area of operations to have a look at the drone. That was the only case where there had been an event. The responsibility under the old rules was clearly on the remote pilot to get his aircraft out of the road and so on. They do that. The element of—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Hold there, because this goes to the heart of it. If the aircraft comes up behind the drone, the operator on the ground has no visual of an approaching aircraft, and there is no technology in that device to let them know, 'Hey, buddy: there's a big lump of tin coming up behind you at 500 kilometres an hour'—or 400 kilometres an hour.

Mr Manning : That is not the way we fly.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Guys, guys—it is not the way you fly, but—

Mr Manning : This is the way we are trained as professional pilots—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: No, we are not talking about you guys. We have had every responsible aviator in the nation come and give evidence to us. It is not about you. I am talking about the drongo out of sight who is on his seventh can of beer and second joint. That is the individual I am interested in, because they are out there, I promise you. You have seen them; you gave evidence to this effect, Mr Manning. So, Mr Thynne, I am interested to hear a response to that. I mean, one swallow—your example—does not a summer make. We have had experts here today who say that the risk profile—and I have an incredible interest in the use of this technology in agriculture, because I sit with the Nationals—I am interested to see it develop to its fullest potential, but no-one can answer that question.

Dr Martin : I often think, don't get involved in things that are not within your sphere of control. The argument in and around recreational UAVs and sub-two-kilo thresholds and the consequence of that—there is so much uncertainty and political stuff involved with it that I leave it to you and CASA.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Well, don't leave it to CASA!

Mr Thynne : I pose a question, Senator, about determination of what the acceptable level of risk is. How you determine to treat a risk depends on what is an acceptable level of risk, and the values you place on various things. The Kiwis, for example, actually have a dollar value on the lives of people, and they use that in determining acceptable risk for their aviation rules. What is the acceptable level of risk in Australia for aviation?

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Well, the head of CASA told us that it is like a man on a bicycle going into the traffic—evidence before the Senate estimates inquiry. So, you are 100 per cent right. But we do not share that view; we have another view, a different description of the risk profile, as do any number of peer reviewed studies from around the world, on the precautionary principle: sub-two-kilo, if it hits the nose cone of a passenger aircraft, could penetrate it, and all that comes with that. Do you want to know CASA's risk profile? They said to us that if it goes into a turbine engine, 'Don't fret; you'll only lose that engine, and the other one will still be going.' I mean, you wonder why we have a rash, why we break out in a sweat in this space. This is the sort of attitude we are confronting from our regulators. And what we are trying to get from the community—we are doing exactly what you have called for. You have to be able to answer the tough questions. You have to be able to tell us that we can allow for the proliferation of an industry....

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#19

Helicopter vs drone near miss - TICK..TOCK Confused  

Courtesy Heliweb and 7 News (Channel 7)... Wink :

Quote:Australian Drone Misses Helicopter by Less Than Ten Feet

[Image: Drone-Near-Miss-Cover-730x480.jpg]
1

A helicopter carrying five passengers missed a drone operating less than ten feet below the altitude of the helicopter as it flew over a beach during a coastal flight on July 9th, sparking renewed calls for increased penalties.

In footage released to Australian Television network 7 News, Sydney, a DJI Phantom drone flies less than ten feet under a helicopter that is captured in video footage shot Saturday July 8th, 2017, as a small dot quickly approaching from directly in front of the helicopter at a similar altitude quickly becomes identifiable as a drone. The helicopter, flying southbound along the beach in Coogee, New South Wales on a route called the “Sydney helicopter 5 route” had no time to react as the drone captured in video footage passes underneath the helicopter at an estimated separation of less than ten feet below the helicopter.

The unidentified pilot of the helicopter posted the video footage after the near miss to social media with a warning aimed at other hobby drone operators that “It is only a matter of time before a collision takes place” according to a Channel 7 news story that aired on the networks nightly news broadcast Sunday. Pilot concern over hobby drone operations has escalated recently with several incidents involving emergency service helicopters that have also reported several near misses in recent months, including two incidents with the Gold Coast based Westpac LifeSaver helicopter that had also reported coming within ten feet of a drone operated within the last 30 days.

“This is a big, big wake up call to anyone flying drones. It’s their responsibility to follow the rules at all times” said Peter Gibson, a representative for Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in relation to Sunday’s incident in an interview with Channel 7 Sydney. 

Australian drone regulations are less strict than in many other nations, with fines for improper usage that could endanger others ranging from $900 to $9000 depending on the severity of the offense. To date, drone regulations that currently carry no threat of imprisonment for improper or dangerous use have rarely been used to fine a drone operator as the incidents to date that have involved helicopters have been helicopters in the process of performing a mission, making it unsuitable for the helicopter to assist by staying in the area to assist law enforcement with apprehending the operators involved. A recent incident involving a Westpac rescue helicopter on March 26th of this year forced the helicopter to take evasive action to avoid a collision with a drone flying at 1000 feet.

[Image: Westpac-AW139-Max-Mason-Hubers.jpg]A Westpac Rescue helicopter similar to the pictured AW139 above was involved in a recent near miss incident when a drone was seen flying at 1000 feet. Photo by Max Mason-Hubers.

“There is very little doubt indeed that that aircraft would have been brought out of the sky” said Stephen Leahy from the Westpac Rescue Helicopter Service, after reviewing the footage of Saturday’s incident. Westpac Rescue helicopters in multiple states have been involved in near miss accidents more than other operations due to the frequency of flights some of the helicopters fly over coastal areas performing shark patrols in areas popular also for drone operators. Australian regulations mirror those of the U.S in some aspects; Australian authorities also restricting drone flights to a 400 foot ceiling. However, in contrast to the wide reaching punishments available to use as consequences in the United States, Australia has more lax penalties for improper use and does not require hobby drone operators to register their drones with Australia’s CASA, as was the practice until recently with UAV and drone operations in the USA.

Video Player
http://www.heliweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Helicopter-Near-Miss-with-Drone-Sydney-Australia.mp4

Or via Youtube:



Video courtesy Channel 7.

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#20

And so it begins...

Quote:ATSB to investigate potential drone collision with light aircraft in Adelaide
Updated about 11 hours ago
[Image: 8699278-3x2-340x227.jpg]
[b]PHOTO:[/b] The pilot believes he struck a drone while approaching Parafield Airport in his light aircraft. (ABC News: Isabel Dayman)
[b]RELATED STORY:[/b] How drone laws apply to a new breed of high-flyers
[b]MAP: [/b]Parafield 5106

A pilot who believes his light aircraft was struck by a drone ahead of landing in Adelaide's north has prompted an investigation by Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) officers.

Police said they were contacted just after 7:00pm on Tuesday by a pilot who believed he may have struck a drone on approach to Parafield Airport.

The ATSB said they would review the area during daylight on Wednesday to try to find remnants of a drone before confirming it was an unmanned aerial vehicle and not a bird.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority rules prohibit the flying of drones above 120 metres and within 5.5 kilometres of a controlled aerodrome with an operating control tower.

Drones are not allowed to be flown at night.

Fines range from $900 up to $9,000 for breaching operating conditions.
Topics: law-crime-and-justiceair-and-spaceparafield-5106adelaide-5000sa
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)