[Peetwo]

Hoody testiculates.

Testiculation – the art of talking of bollocks with hand gestures. Which, on sober reflection, was exactly what Hood was doing during his smug, smart assed finale to the ‘drone’ discussion. In the video segment ‘Sterlo on drones’ after Goatly does his nervous little party piece at 0845 Hoody, fairly aggressively and quickly, steps in with a “perspective” - pure party line – and tries to parallel bird strikes with drone strikes.

Bird strikes do happen and something like a big wedge tail eagle at an average weight of about the 4.5 kg can certainly spoil your day, but birds will, for the most part try to avoid contact – even when ‘hunting’ in the vicinity of an aerodrome, they ain’t stationary; but then flying in ‘wedge tail country’ is a whole other subject (not taught).  Gods alone know how many birds Australia has and how many species there are (Google does). ATSB should know how many bird strikes there are in a year, of those the percentages which occur at different location should be available (city, town, country, rural and GAFA).  Want to bet where most occur; then compare that to 'known' high density drone populations? Nah, didn't think so.

On my own account, I’ve never met with a bird that deliberately got in my face – never met any form of airborne threat that was controlled, remotely by some mutt with NFI of closing speed; and, I can’t think of a time where a bird was loitering on the approach or take off without the intention getting out of my path a.s.a.p, (provided they ‘see’ you). Birds don’t loiter – they are on the move – both in random (in transit) and predictable (hunting) patterns – the mathematics of percentage strikes make it a fair bet that unless you operate into a known ‘hazard’ area (LHI tip for example, bloody seagulls) the chances of a contact are fairly remote. Birds don’t hover about airports approach paths at busy city destinations taking pictures or buggering about being funny – they do try very hard not to get hurt and are a damn sight smarter than some uneducated, unaccountable yokel with an Aldi toy showing off.

It is silly to even try and align making the rules and controls for recreational drone operators with  accidental bird strike; totally different animals.  it’s glib, smart arsed and a badly considered approach to what is rapidly becoming a serious, growing threat. No CF for Hoody, demerit points for behaviour unbecoming.  

Tweet tweet.

Addendum: Need to wait for Hansard – but, there was a neat piece of ledgerdemain and fancy, defensive footwork about Hood’s conflict of interest in the Pel-Air debacle, which is worthy of some attention. That, and the invisible manning’s glib excuses for the further delay in releasing ‘that’ report to the public.  MTF.

Keeping in mind the RRAT Committee UAV inquiry is now under way but to add to the Hoody smug platitudes on drones - this was the last segment where Barry-O was lightly quizzing the Hoodlum on the subject of air safety & drones:

Again like "K" I eagerly await the Hansard because I believe in that very first line Hoodlum has contradicted his subordinate Godley, who basically indicated that until the drone related incident/accident actually occurs there will be no review or research into whether the rule set (CASR Part 101) may or may not be contributory to any currently or future reported drone incidents/accidents.
 
Funny how Godley's ATSB independent view is so contradictory to the World aviation safety view: References - Carmody & the rise of the drones &  Carmody & the rise of the drones Part II - The French connection.

Joseph Wheeler - The Senate inquiry now taking submissions will go a long way to finding out why Australia has become the outsider in terms of regulating this size and class of drone. Then, the nearly 2000 “commercial operators” who have emerged since September 29 (up from about 700 at that date) will come to learn the laws that let them to fly without aeronautical knowledge and the development “airmanship” will likely be restruck in coming months and years, to allow a return to practical legislation in this field.

At a time when the rest of the world is unified on the wisdom of regulatory drones controls, the “red tape” reduction of saving operators $1400 in application fees in Australia will no doubt head the way of the dinosaur as practical common sense returns.

It can’t come soon enough..."

I guess one positive to come out of the comments from the ATSB 'research' Guru Godley is that he has in affect already answered the NX written QON:

Noting the current consideration with respect to Drone regulation changes, what data did ATSB provide CASA with respect to Drones incidents and accidents?
a) Was this data provided to the Minister?
b) Was this data provided to any MPs in the recent briefing to MPs and Senators on the Drone regulations?

 Somehow I get the feeling that NX already knew the answer -


MTF...P2

Ps It should be remembered that the CASA safety case for the amended CASR Part 101 is based on a research paper compiled by an individual who was sponsored by CASA:

Drone deaf and bone idle.

Has anyone actually sat down and read; I mean really read the 2013 ‘model’ on which CASA based their rule set – 101.  I find the ‘101’ descriptor amusing; for indeed it is.  I expect I could rattle on about this ‘model’, produce logical argument and drag out the many flaws; those which would add fuel to the Senators little pyre. But not today. The Senators have people of wit and intelligence on tap – what I will do is give them a starter for 10 points; two paragraphs; to pick the bones out of.

This report presents the findings of a study carried out by Alexander Radi M.Sc.during a four months research internship at CASA (Canberra). The aim of the study is to provide the Standards Development branch at CASA with an assessment of injury severity from the impact of small Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) into a person on the ground.

Of particular interest are combinations of RPA mass and impact velocity which cause non-severe injuries.

Due to the complex geometry of the RPA and the non-trivial biomechanics of the human body, major simplifications and assumptions had to be made during the adaptation of the BC. The current model ignores the collision dynamics and the RPA material’s frangibility and elasticity, making its predictions over-restrictive.

Wingnut's arrogant view on drones -

With all of the above in mind it is worth noting Wingnut's (the acting CASA DAS) view on the current rule set on the governance of drones...    


Courtesy FF:

RPAS (AKA Drones)

• The CASR Part 101 changes that commenced on 29 September 2016 will reduce the regulatory burden for low risk unmanned aircraft operations and facilitate growth and innovation in the sector. P2 since when does CASA give a rat's about industry's regulatory burden...
  
• This is a proactive step and frankly, a great amendment. It provides direct savings to affected individual businesses as a result of the amended regulations are estimated to be more than $5,000.
  
• RPAS operators will still need to comply with the strict operating restrictions which dictate where an RPAS can be operated, the maximum height of operations, that they be operated within visual line of sight only and that they not be operated near people, property or aircraft. The rules remain unchanged with this amendment.
  
• The clear safety benefit of this amendment is that now more operators who were previously operating in a non-compliant manner are readily subscribing to the regulatory system and the much simpler notification requirements (very similar to the Canadian system). Between the time the capability to report sub 2kg operations became available¾29 September 2016, and Wednesday this week¾over 1 350 notifications from sub 2kg operators have been received by CASA.
  
• By bringing more operators under the regulatory system, CASA is able to more effectively educate and inform operators of their safety responsibilities.
  
• However, as you might expect and in common with other regulatory proposals, again the positions are polarised. Some existing RPAS operators (and other interested parties) have raised concerns over the latest amendments, claiming that it will increase safety risk because not all commercial operations will need to be licensed or certified by CASA. Frankly, I consider this to be a nonsense-given the free availability of recreational drones-but the issue must be dealt with. P2 - The arrogance of this statement IMO beggars belief.
  
• Also, one Senator has recently moved a disallowance motion for the below 2kg amendment, which has been deferred until late November.
  
• Nevertheless, to address the concerns raised, Minister Chester has announced a review of aviation safety regulation in relation to the operation of remotely piloted aircraft systems.  This review will be undertaken by CASA in early 2017 and will examine the regulations governing RPAS regulation in Australia, looking closely at aviation safety enhancements.
  
• Finally, the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee, just last week, moved that an RPAS inquiry be undertaken and reported by 27 April 2017. Of course, we welcome the opportunity for CASA to participate in this inquiry and tell the real story. Let’s hope the number has grown to 5000 by then! P2 - Again the sheer arrogance of this statement is UDB, but then again what would we expect from yet another of M&M's favoured minions...
  
• With all this happening in the background, let me be clear that amended regulations still apply until the outcomes of any disallowance process are known
  

 
MTF...P2