[Peetwo]

Woebegone and disinterested, the ministerial look.



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



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

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

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




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

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

Toot – Plonker – toot.

Still waiting for Hansard -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Additional Documents

---

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

Mr Gumley: Correct.

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

CHAIR: Illegal?

Dr Aleck: Yes.

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours sincerely

Dr Jonathan Aleck

General Manager, Legal Affairs, Regulatory Policy
and International Strategy

 
MTF...P2