Passing strange coincidences on drones - 
On the 15 December the time expired for making submissions to the Senate RRAT Committee inquiry into :- Regulatory requirements that impact on the safe use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems, Unmanned Aerial Systems and associated systems.
IMO the only submission of real merit that tackles the significant safety issues and shortcomings of the recently amended CASR Part 101 is the VIPA submission:
VIPA in recommendation 8 mentions a number of Alphabet groups but beside the AAA there appears to be no other submissions from these stakeholders...
I find this quite surprising especially given that the AFAP (the Feds) were very proactive in lobbying Nick Xenophon and the Senate committee to have an inquiry and/or put forward a disallowance motion, both of which happened. Apparently NX has withdrawn his disallowance motion but the miniscule has tasked CASA with a review and the inquiry is still very much live.
Which brings me to Joseph Wheeler, a man who happens to be the legal counsel for the AFAP & ACUO and who was one of the main proponents for disallowing the Part 101 legislative instrument - see HERE & HERE. In in his end of year wrap on aviation safety legal issues for 2016 in the Oz, JW would seem to indicate that amongst other relevant issues that a deal has been made in regards to regulating drones (check the part in bold):
Remembering that the AFAP is in itself somewhat compromised by the fact that a large % of their membership reside within the walls of Fort Fumble. So have the Feds struck a compromise deal with the government or is there some other factor at play here?- just saying...
MTF...P2
On the 15 December the time expired for making submissions to the Senate RRAT Committee inquiry into :- Regulatory requirements that impact on the safe use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems, Unmanned Aerial Systems and associated systems.
Quote:SubmissionsNow it could be there are still more to be put up on the webpage but the response so far is certainly underwhelming...
1 Mr Don Raffaele (PDF 35 KB)
2 Mr Ian Fraser (PDF 70 KB)
3 Nitestar Security Group (PDF 83 KB)
4 Mr John Cook (PDF 35 KB)
5 Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia (PDF 2095 KB)
6 Mr Michael Fawcett (PDF 102 KB)
7 Mr Vince Sofia (PDF 51 KB)
8 Elevo Pty Ltd (PDF 371 KB)
9 Mr Egon Kuster (PDF 84 KB)
10 Mr Edward Browning (PDF 53 KB)
11 Virgin Independent Pilots Association (PDF 251 KB)
12 Australian Airports Association (PDF 265 KB)
IMO the only submission of real merit that tackles the significant safety issues and shortcomings of the recently amended CASR Part 101 is the VIPA submission:
Quote:9.0 REGULATION
VIPA is opposed to deregulation or non-regulation of light-weight RPAS devices. The role of CASA is to ensure safe skies. We believe the abrogation of that responsibility is unacceptable especially given the rigour that CASA applies to regulatory enforcement in other sectors of the aviation industry.
It is acknowledged that enforcement poses an enormous burden on CASA requiring considerable resources.
VIPA acknowledges that licensed operators have invested considerable funds to establish compliance and equip their operations. They therefore have a vested interest in protecting that investment and their business.
Virgin Australia, like other airlines, focuses considerable resources and places enormous emphasis on safety. Failure to create and enforce legislation and regulation that compliments that commitment is therefore counter-productive and not in the public interest.
Regulatory requirements that impact on the safe use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems, Unmanned Aerial Systems and associated systems.
10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
VIPA therefore makes the following recommendations:
1. All RPAS owners be required to register their drones
2. All RPAS operators be required to complete a basic air law examination
3. Licensed RPAS operators be delegated by CASA as compliance Inspectors with the power to impose statutory on the spot penalties for breaches.
4. An exclusion zone of 10 kms be established around all controlled airports with the requirement to obtain clearance from ATC or the aerodrome controlling authority to operate within that exclusion zone.
5. All RPAS operators be required to obtain public liability insurance.
6. Penalties equivalent to those imposed for endangering an aircraft be legislated for breaches of regulations by unlicensed UAV owners.
7. CASA increase its resources to protect licensed RPAS operators.
8. CASA, Air Services Australia, the RPAS representative associations, the airlines, airport operators and the pilot unions and other relevant bodies work collaboratively to address the issues raised in this submission.
VIPA in recommendation 8 mentions a number of Alphabet groups but beside the AAA there appears to be no other submissions from these stakeholders...
I find this quite surprising especially given that the AFAP (the Feds) were very proactive in lobbying Nick Xenophon and the Senate committee to have an inquiry and/or put forward a disallowance motion, both of which happened. Apparently NX has withdrawn his disallowance motion but the miniscule has tasked CASA with a review and the inquiry is still very much live.
Which brings me to Joseph Wheeler, a man who happens to be the legal counsel for the AFAP & ACUO and who was one of the main proponents for disallowing the Part 101 legislative instrument - see HERE & HERE. In in his end of year wrap on aviation safety legal issues for 2016 in the Oz, JW would seem to indicate that amongst other relevant issues that a deal has been made in regards to regulating drones (check the part in bold):
Quote:Year of safety list changes, mental health issues and rise of drones
Joseph Wheeler
The Australian
12:00AM December 16, 2016
December marks the start of the silly season for many but for those who hold aviation dear it’s also the month of ICAO’s International Civil Aviation Day, which fell on December 7.
As part of events this year, ICAO reminded us to “not leave any country behind”.
So, in celebration of our industry’s special day, let us spend a moment pondering some of the many achievements sky-faring nations have made in 2016 in the never-ending race for the fare-paying passenger’s dollar.
The European Union’s air safety list names those airlines banned from European skies on the basis of a failure to meet international standards.
Removal from that list marks a significant step forward in recognition of improved safety standards by developing nations.
This year all airlines certified in Zambia were cleared from the list, along with Air Madagascar and three airlines from Indonesia (Citilink, Lion Air and Batik Air).
Further to that, most aircraft of Iran Air are now allowed to fly to the EU, and all Kazakh airlines were taken off the list.
Indonesia also fared well in terms of an upgrade under the US International Safety Assessment (IASA) rating system.
It now sits at Category 1, reflecting compliance with ICAO standards.
This was also a year in which moves to more stringent rules for European carriers in respect of pilot mental health was advanced.
The knee-jerk “two in the cockpit rule” was relaxed somewhat in July, permitting carriers to assess the risk of leaving one crew member alone on the flight deck.
Carriers have been slow to let down their guard in the absence of finalised EASA rules to fix those shortcomings that allowed the tragic Germanwings flight 9525 deaths to occur.
In perhaps less well-known but truly retrograde fashion, India published a law this month permitting airline doctors to verify whether “sick” pilots off work are really sick (and putting in jeopardy their licences should they be found bunking off).
On this side of the globe, Australia delayed implementation of new and science-based pilot fatigue prevention regulations, instead deciding to review the matter in light of contrary opinions on the utility of the regime by air carriers, largely on economic grounds.
ICAO has all this time been working on making the skies even freer and open to airlines through its Air Transport Regulation Panel, which is mooting the mother-of-all multilateral air services agreements to free airline market access globally. Its work is expected to conclude next year.
Finally, the world continues to wrestle with drones. The US began its new rules in August, with ambitions of keeping separation between airliners and enthusiasts at the controls of small but powerful aerial vehicles.
Notwithstanding that development, the skies became much more open for similar drone enthusiasts in Australia in September.
Qantas, meanwhile, took a minor step backwards in its business goals with the US Department of Transport denying its proposed alliance expansion with American Airlines, but then leapt forward with its latest announcement of non-stop Dreamliner flights from Perth to London, come 2018.
In a year which was punctuated by some tragic and unforgettable air disasters, let’s hope 2016 will be remembered most for the crowning successes of aviation.
This year pilots joined air traffic controllers and other professional associations against the Australian legislative imprimatur that a minority of lawless drone pilots can now hide behind.
And the Australian government released a plan for the development of Sydney’s long-awaited second airport. It will be needed now that we have a fresh Open Skies agreement with our biggest trading partner, China.
Nhoxin shijie (hello new world) and have a safe and happy holiday season, wherever you may be flying.
Joseph Wheeler is the principal of IALPG, national head of aviation law at Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, and aviation legal counsel to the Australian Federation of Air Pilots
Remembering that the AFAP is in itself somewhat compromised by the fact that a large % of their membership reside within the walls of Fort Fumble. So have the Feds struck a compromise deal with the government or is there some other factor at play here?- just saying...
MTF...P2