[Peetwo]

Bad news for proponents of drone shotgun law #101 -  


Reference posts:

Love it;

"Prominent grazier Graham Elmes said landholders would be worried the drones would stampede their cattle. He said he would not be surprised if graziers used rifles and shotguns to shoot down unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles".

Two choccie frogs to any Farmer who takes out a Drone using a firearm and posts it on Poohtube!

Just a fillip really; you can read the CASA blurb from Gibson – HERE - .  A pointless waste IMO, those who operate responsibly will be aware of the rules and check; those who will not are unlikely to trouble themselves, download an Ap and then check.   I wonder, will this magic  Ap flag and update in real time areas like bush fires then warn of the flight paths to, from and within the working area? Bet the Ag boys would like to think it does.  The ever pragmatic Hurst – as usual - hits the nail on the head.

Phil Hurst – “Now we need an app to let low airspace users know where a drone is operating. Good start though.”

My property – my drone: Purdey 2 - Idiots 0.

Yesterday the Fort Fumble social media stooge answered a question on drones: 

https://twitter.com/CASABriefing/status/...5782140928

'If there's a drone flying over my property, can I shoot it down?' No, no you can't. Learn more: https://www.facebook.com/CivilAviationSafetyAuthority/photos/a.358791474313880.1073741829.314732775386417/628263130700045/ … #aviation #drone

https://www.facebook.com/CivilAviationSa...=1&theater

'If there's a drone flying over my property, can I shoot it down?'

---

No, no you can't.

Under Australian law, a drone is legally defined as an aircraft, and unlawfully interfering with an aircraft—like shooting it down—is an offence that will land you in jail.

Drone operators should always seek permission of the landholder before flying over private property.

If you are concerned about unsafe drone operations, you can make a complaint via our website at casa.gov.au/dronecomplaint

Next they will be defining birds as meeting the definition of aircraft - well they are unmanned...

Damn "K" there goes the idea of harvesting the skies for lunch or dinner...

 "..Beg pardon - Think good GD; wait a while. There are benefits to this all happening; for the price of a dozen shotgun shells I can have my pick of fast food delivery and other goodies. Bang, dinner is served Madam..."

 Finally for those interested here is a link for the Hansard transcript from last week's Dalby Drone Inquiry public hearing - Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee (Senate-Thursday, 16 March 2017) 


MTF...P2

Ps Good to see Senator Fawcett is engaged with this 'drone inquiry':

Senator FAWCETT: Thank you, Councillor Smith. Does the council have any formal position on your role or capacity in reporting or enforcement of compliance with appropriate regulations for the use of ARPAS?

Councillor Smith : Thank you for the question. Not at this point in time. That is not a space that we are playing in at this stage. What will unfold, who knows, but we do not have a position at this point in time.

Senator FAWCETT: We have had some people talk to us about examples, like where the father and son are beside a council operated pool having their first fly of an aircraft out of the Christmas box and putting a number of people at risk. People are there under the duty of care of the council. Yes, there are generic rules—not to be used within 30 metres of a populated area—put down by a federal government agency, but does the council see that they have any role or could have any role in enforcing or reporting breaches of regulations?

Councillor Smith : Certainly, in regard to reporting, I have no doubt, especially if it is involving council infrastructure and facilities—and, indeed, probably non-council facilities. Fortunately, I do not think we have had those incidences yet, but I dare say, as the technology unfolds—a bit like mobile phones, I guess—and until a large number of the population end up with this technology, we probably will not see those issues. Certainly reporting is something that we would do, but, from a policing perspective, I guess we would have to be governed by the act and by legislation.

Senator FAWCETT: The feedback we have had from commercial operators is that probably the biggest risk to them reputationally is an incident involving somebody who is not a commercial operator flying an ARPAS that creates either nuisance or, in the worst case, damage or injury. You have your incidental recreational user, if you like, but also excluded users. There are anecdotal stories—I assume if it happens elsewhere it probably happens within your shire region—where excluded users, for example, fly beyond visual line of sight. If those things continue unchecked, it puts the whole industry at some risk. One of the issues CASA have is that they do not have enough people in enough places to witness and then report and take action. Perhaps on notice, could the council consider what you might do about having a structured policy to work with the federal government on reporting incidents that come to your attention, either through direct observation or through reporting from the community?

Councillor Smith : Our community is No. 1 to us. If it is protecting our community, I am sure council would certainly engage. To what limit, I am not sure, but council would certainly engage in monitoring and reporting. But, ultimately, if we felt as though certain activities were happening that were damaging people in our community, council would engage.

Senator FAWCETT: On a proactive note, has council considered, as recreational use increases—and I think this morning we were told some 50 ARPAS have been sold in the local area in recent times—declaring certain areas as the desired location for people to go and operate these, if they are just for recreational training use as opposed to on-property use?

Councillor Smith : Not at this point in time, but I do know that we have a couple of dog parks—we could probably have these vehicles above and the dogs underneath. But I agree. These are issues, I suppose, that will come to us. For us, it is very early days, but I guess it is probably no different to a kite-flying park, as such.

Senator FAWCETT: I think the dog park might breach the 30 metre rule.

Councillor Smith : It may do, it may do.

---

Senator FAWCETT: A part of the conversation we have been having is about the recreational user set and how we can use technology. For most airspace use, putting a technical limit on their liberty to fly above 400 feet appears desirable but, clearly, in your case, that is not going to help you nor would it help the Army flying at 250 feet around any of their training fields. Do you have any proposed solutions to that? Is there anything as an operator you look at and go, 'Gee, I wish someone would do this.'

Mr Smart : We have got to look at technology, the apps and things like that, I suppose. But that comes back to the private fellas. How are we going to get to them first? The hobbyists are probably the most dangerous ones—if you want to call it that. How do we educate them? Yes, we obviously have to educate them, like Mr McWatters was saying, so we need some literature out there. We have to get in touch with them and then try to get them onto something like an app. But I think for my area in the Darling Downs, if we had an app just for this area, and if you buy a drone and you are in this area, you have to be involved with that app and you have to let that app know when you want to launch your drone. So for an agronomist, or someone who uses it like that, the NOTAM system is no good because he will be in one paddock, and then half an hour later he will be in another paddock, and then he will be in another paddock. To try and put that out on a NOTAM through CASA where we can see it is not going to work. So it has to be something live with an app somehow.

Senator FAWCETT: Do I take it from that that you see your greatest risk as not being the 15-year-old kid who got one for Christmas but someone who is an excluded user using it on their property or an agronomist, or somebody who is using it as part of an ag-related or industry-related role, even if it is not for profit, as opposed to the purely recreational user?

Mr Smart : No, I think the recreational user is my biggest concern.

Senator FAWCETT: How many recreational users would you have flying into places where you are spraying?

Mr Smart : I could not put a number to it, but the kids have got them. There would be quite a few farmers' kids out there that would have them. There are quite a few farmers that have them that just want to flyer over their crop and have a look at it. I could not put a number to it, but I reckon there would be a fair few out there. And whether they get inquisitive when you flying around, you do not know. But how do you educate the children too?

---

Senator FAWCETT: Can I just ask Insitu something. You mentioned some of the regulatory reform that you would like to see. I notice that you are a member of the UAS Standards Sub-committee. Has that been an effective vehicle from your perspective for industry to get their voice heard by CASA and to essentially put forward the concepts and the safety cases underpinning them for regulatory reform?

Mr Donald : Yes, I think it is. My chief pilot is sitting right behind me. He may want to interject at any time. Rhys, our chief pilot, sits on those committees day to day, almost. We support all of those kinds of committees that are involved in grappling with regulation and oversight. We want to do it because we believe we are a very responsible member of the aviation community—not just the RPAS community but the aviation community. We see ourselves as an aviation player, and on top of that, by understanding those rules and how the rules and the legislation are developing, we can tailor our technology and our business approach to take advantage of that so that, in a competitive sense, we can operate and support our customers like QGC. So we find that that and others are very effective platforms.

Senator FAWCETT: I notice that in the list of industry members there are a number of members represented. Is there any attempt across the commercial RPAS operators to reach consensus on positions that those members of that subcommittee then take to the meetings and work through with CASA?

Mr Donald : If I could refer to Rhys, I think that is the case.

Mr Mudford : Absolutely. Across these committees and working groups there are a range of stakeholders, and they all bring a lot of ideas and opinions to the table, and at times it can be difficult to reach a consensus. Has there been a drive to consolidate those thoughts through a single unified voice? Probably at this stage, no, but I think in the future it is more likely that the industry sees that we can work as one to achieve our goals and grow the industry for everyone, rather than everyone going their own way and perhaps not reaching a consensus.

Senator FAWCETT: At the risk of asking you to do something on behalf of other members of the committee—and perhaps we will approach them as well—are there any areas where there has been broad consensus amongst the industry members but you have not seen progress in an area of regulatory reform? I am happy for you to take that on notice.

Mr Mudford : No, I think that, obviously, in the areas where we have made a lot of progress, everyone accepts that, as an aviation operator in the modern world and as an RPAS operator, you are a risk manager. It is your responsibility to manage risks, so I think that is done very well. The industry accepts that they are responsible for managing risk. The future areas where we do need to make progress are into the certification space and allowing both the small and the very large aircraft to reach the requirements for certification.

Senator FAWCETT: So, clearly, many of the things that you are talking about from a commercial perspective are sort of looking forward at opportunities and the most recent change—where we now have sub-two kilogram commercial operations based essentially on a notification to CASA. Is the committee relaxed about that?

Mr Mudford : Again, I think there are many views but, in my opinion, the views of these committees, broadly, are very positive that the approach is a good one and that the assessment of that—the risk that those standard operating conditions pose—is a good balance between commercial operation and safety.

Senator FAWCETT: And my final question on that particular topic: you have seen a lot of the discussion today revolve around the safety implications to the recreational users. Has the committee considered this issue and how the whole of government—and not just CASA as the regulator but import restrictions et cetera et cetera—could be brought to bear? Has the committee come up with a preferred solution?

Mr Mudford : Again, there are many imports and it is a very complex issue. It is something that we discuss a lot, and I do not believe there is a unified consensus yet.