[Peetwo]

Update: Senate RRAT Estimates & Inquiry news -

In an Additional Estimates update, it would seem that the 'spillover' hearing has been cancelled:

Infrastructure and Regional Development portfolio - spillover hearing program: 20 April 2017: (PDF 37KB) - Cancelled

I guess that means Hoody gets a short reprieve until the main Budget (2017-18) Estimates in May -

Still waiting for the AQON but in the meantime there was a clarification letter from Comardy that was somewhat interesting, more for the ease of weasel worded bureaucratese used to abrogate CASA's responsibility in regards to aircraft noise - all according to the CASA interpretation of the Act of course...

Dear Senator O'Sullivan

Clarification of Statement made at Estimates Hearing on 27 February 2017

I write to clarify a statement I made in response to a question from Senator Rice, which was raised in the course of an exchange involving Senator Rice, Mr Mrdak and me, the pertinent portion of which appears on page 122 of the proof Hansard and is reproduced below.

Senator Rice: I want to move on to airport noise and CASA's role in protecting community amenity and the natural and human environment from the deleterious effect of airport noise.

Mr Mrdak: It is probably an issue managed by Airservices.
Mr Carmody: That would be an Airservices matter.
Senator Rice: CASA do not have a role at all?
Mr Carmody: We do not.

The functions of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), as set out in section 9 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act), do not include either a specific environmental function related to the management or control of the effects of 'airport noise' or a more general environmental function related to 'protecting . ,. the natural and human environment from the deleterious effect of airport noise'. On this basis, it is quite correct to say that CASA has no environmental functions' (or corresponding 'powers') of any kind under the Act, and that was certainly the import of my response to Senator Rice's question.

That said, subsection 9A(2) of the Act provides that 'CASA must exercise its powers and
perform its functions in a manner that ensures that, as far as is practicable, the environment is protected from (a) the effects of the operation and use of aircraft; and (b) the effects associated with the operation and use of aircraft' (emphasis provided). This provision, however, is expressly subject to CASA's obligation to 'regard safety as the most important consideration'

The Airspace Act 2007 similarly provides that the object of that Act is 'to ensure that
Australian-administered airspace is administered and used safely' and specifies a range of
considerations that are expected to be taken into account in the process. These include the efficient use of airspace, equitable access to airspace and national security, as well as
protection of the environment. Significantly, CASA has no specific or explicit functions or
powers in respect of those considerations, and there is no explicit reference in section 12 of the Airspace Act to fostering environmental protection.

Having regard to the affirmative roles the Department of Infrastructure and Regional
Development and Airservices play in connection with environmental issues related to aircraft noise, I trust this explanation clarifies my statement about the very limited role CASA might play in that context.

I apologise for any confusion or misunderstanding my response to Senator Rice's question
may have caused.

Yours sincerely

Shane Carmody
A/g Chief Executive Officer and
Director of Aviation Safety

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:

April 8 2017


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



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.
  
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.
 
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:

Drone Targets Singapore Airlines A350



Geoffrey Thomas - Editor-in-Chief

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

>
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...

Of course according to the Act, when a collision inevitably happens CASA won't be responsible...

 
MTF...P2