[Peetwo]

Carmody & the rise of the drones -

One of the many growing & concerning safety issues that Wingnut says he has signed up for is that of policing the rising plethora of drones & rogue drone operators.

Background on the current shenanigans etc on the recently amended CASR Part 100:

Latest on CASA CASR 101 UAV issues -  

Pinocchio Gobson gets his snag in a knot...

Read how PG tries desperately to spin the light fantastic and get the RPA/UAV genie back in the bottle..

Via Junkee:

An Aussie Hero Is Facing A Huge Fine For Using A Drone To Order A Bunnings Sausage
By Matilda Dixon-Smith, 9/11/2016

Read more at http://junkee.com/aussie-hero-facing-hug...3Oro8qQ.99

Update: Drone sausage sizzle legend goes viral -

&..via 9news.com.au

'Aussie legend's' drone video receives international acclaim

By
nine.com.au staff

Melbourne man has been described a “God damn Australian legend” after flying a drone to pick up a sausage sandwich from Bunnings.

Tim from Melbourne, who posted the video of the stunt to Facebook yesterday, told the TODAY Show he got the idea to send a drone shopping after a few beers with mates.

“It was between a couple of us, we bought a drone just having a bit of a muck around and an afternoon beer and we could smell a barbecue a couple of doors down…and we thought we’ll go to Bunnings, get one of their snags, and then one of the blokes said we should send the drone,” he said.

Tim said he and his mates contemplated several different methods of safely transporting the snack almost 2 kilometres back to his house on the drone, but in the end settled on a simple sandwich bag and string.

“I can’t decide if you’re extremely lazy or extremely innovative, or perhaps both,” host Sylvia Jeffreys said after watching the video.

Karl Stefanovic chimed in on the conversation from New York, labelling the Melbourne man a “God damn Australian legend”.

“You’ll be gainfully employed over here when Donald Trump builds that wall, you’ll be able to get all sorts of things in and out of Tijuana,” Karl said as he impersonated a drone lowering a hotdog into his hands.

While the video proved hugely popular, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority said they would be investigating the flight for breach of drone regulations.

However, Tim insisted he didn’t break any laws filming the stunt.

“We made sure the area was clear, we made sure it didn’t fly over any houses… we considered it safe at the time.

Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/11...SGYoAeT.99

MTF...P2

Star Wars had the ‘clone-wars’; CASA is now embroiled, like it or not, in the ‘drone –wars’. Now the FAA decided, wisely, that there would be ‘trouble at mill’ if they did not get a rope on the drones – from the off. DDDD Chester will have another hissy-fit’ and proably bitch slap his advisor for allowing the situation to escalate ‘out of parental control’.

Dear Darren, tosser; please do enjoy the embarrassing situation your ‘expert’, all seeing aviation advisors have created for you to deal with. Get control, take responsibility; or, bugger off. Muppet.

Then yesterday in the Oz Joseph Wheeler is back pointing out the foibles of the Aussie drone rules:

Rein in drone Rafferty’s rules
12:00amJOSEPH WHEELER
The International Civil Aviation Organisation is racing to look at the laws relating to drone operations.

The International Civil Aviation Organisation is scoping the amount of work required to bring the barrelling steam train of technology and legal issues that are drones into a workable set of issues for its legal committee to deal with.

The speed of movement is a necessary evil to ensure that pilotless aircraft’s entry into the world of civilian international flight becomes as seamless as (fingers crossed) flight transfers and baggage delivery. Perhaps that was a bad example …

By the end of next year, the ICAO will know what issues it must prioritise for the making of rules. Issues such as, for example, the law related to drone operations over the high seas, characterising permissions and authorisations for cross-border operations and changes in possession/control of an remotely piloted aircraft during international flight may necessitate an international framework of their own.

To determine what issues to take on, a survey was sent out to all ICAO member states on August 29 and responses from around the world were expected by the end of October.
Whatever the result, the message at the ICAO is clear: the study of legal issues related to RPAs will remain at the highest priority to ensure they safely take their rightful place in the air.

The world federation of airline pilots (the IFALPA) considers this work a high priority, too. Last week in Montreal, the IFALPA’s legal committee looked at the issue and noted that it would contribute to the ICAO’s work program in any way it could to make sure international rules and guidance made sense.

Just because a drone can deliver a package across international boundaries doesn’t mean in any sense that it should be without rigorous rules.

Many states now regulate very small or under 2kg drones used for commercial and recreational purposes.

Last week, the European parliament confirmed it would mandate registration of drones of 250g and above (as the US has done since August), reflecting the likelihood of death and injury from a strike by such a vehicle to a person on the ground, and the fact that no-flight zones and height restrictions are difficult to police.

And yet we are, stunningly now in Australia since September 29, subject to laws that suggest it is “low risk” for a drone of nearly 10 times that weight to be operated by an untrained commercial operator of any age, in a foolish hope that they will not break the standard operating conditions to, for example, do something like fly near an international airport.

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.

Only this week a passenger airliner was forced to make what these pages have predicted will become a common occurrence without adequate controls (regulatory and educative), that is, civilian aircraft dodging drones in terminal airspace resulting in injuries.

Two flight attendants were injured when a Porter Airlines aircraft had to make a sudden dive to avoid a drone at around 9000 feet above ground in Canada. Thankfully the passengers were unharmed and flight crew injuries were minor.

But it goes to show that rules about “no drone zones” are insufficient to curb the problems with presumably untrained, uncaring, or unproven operators (recreational or commercial).

Joseph Wheeler is the principal of IALPG, aviation legal counsel for the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and appointed to the IFALPA legal committee.

Here is a bit more on the Porter Airlines incident via engadget.com:

Airliner's near miss with drone injures two crew members
The Canadian flight had to take evasive maneuvers.

Jon Fingas , @jonfingas
11.14.16 in Robots
25Comments
771Shares
 

Reuters/Mark Blinch

The threat of drone collisions near airports isn't just scary -- it can lead to very real injuries, even if there's no accident. Canada's Transportation Safety Board is investigating an incident where a Porter Airlines flight bound for Toronto took evasive maneuvers in an attempt to avoid a reported drone, injuring two crew members. The exact circumstances (including the nature of the injuries) isn't clear, but it took place near Billy Bishop Airport, an island hub right near Toronto's downtown core. It wouldn't have been hard for someone on the mainland to fly a drone into the path of a low-flying aircraft.

This certainly isn't the first time there have been reports of near collisions with drones, and it's possible that something else may have prompted the emergency change of course. However, the injuries could easily amplify calls for drone-finding systems at airports, not to mention anti-drone defenses. While the chance of a serious collision is slim, it's clear that even a close call can be exceptionally dangerous

As a passing coincidence on the day the Porter Airlines incident was made public Pinocchio Gobson got the twitter guy to put out this tweet:

Want to capture Sydney Harbour for #SnapSydney? Remember you can’t fly your drone there - it’s restricted airspace.pic.twitter.com/BhHyMfXsvG

 
Also somewhat related I intercepted a recent NZ CAA drone prosecution case that I thought gives an interesting perspective on our NZ counterparts parallel rule-set for UAV/RPAs ...

Civil Aviation Authority v Reeve [2016] NZDC 16698 (23 July 2016)


NOTES OF JUDGE G S MacASKILL ON SENTENCING

[1] Mr Reeve, you appear for sentencing on three charges laid by the Director of

Civil Aviation:

(a) First, that on 5 January 2015 at Pines Beach, Kaiapoi you operated a model aircraft, namely a Phantom 2 remotely piloted aircraft system, in a manner that caused unnecessary endangerment to people.

(b) Second, on 5 January 2015 at Pines Beach, Kaiapoi you operated a model aircraft, namely a Phantom 2 remotely piloted aircraft system, in controlled airspace without prior authorisation from the air traffic control unit responsible for that airspace; and

© Third, on 20 January 2015 at Pines Beach, Kaiapoi you operated a model aircraft, namely a Phantom 2 remotely piloted aircraft system, in controlled airspace without prior authorisation from the air traffic control unit responsible for that airspace.

[2] You were found guilty, after a defended hearing, of all three charges.

[3] I reviewed the evidence and stated my conclusions in my judgment of

6 May 2016, subject to some minor corrections at paragraph 38. I need mention only my essential conclusions.

[4] As to the charge of causing danger on 5 January 2015, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that you caused danger to Mr Askin and his helicopter – it is the danger to Mr Askin that I am concerned with – in that the presence of the RPAS (which is the abbreviation I am going to use for your drone) and the helicopter, at the time the helicopter was on its landing approach, in the airspace and in the circumstances, made it possible that the RPAS and the helicopter would collide. That possibility was not so speculative or unreal as not to amount to a danger; the causing of that danger was sufficient.

[5] Furthermore I found:

(a) First, any ability that you may have had to mitigate the risk by reducing the altitude of the RPAS or by landing it, should the helicopter have approached more closely, was not sufficient to negative the danger;

(b) Secondly, the risk of flyaway was not a significant factor that contributed to the danger at this time;

© Thirdly, the RPAS was hovering in very close proximity to you without the risk of a break in the control to the RPAS caused by reduction in signal strength due to distance; and

(d) Lastly, the danger identified was unnecessary. You had no reason for creating the danger beyond videoing the fire and the helicopter for your own personal interest, and perhaps possible sale to news media. Neither reason provided any necessity for causing such a danger.

[6] As to the charge of breach of controlled airspace on 5 January 2015: On

5 January 2015 you operated a model aircraft and you did so in controlled airspace without authorisation from air traffic control. The boundary of the controlled airspace in question runs along the high water mark of Pines Beach. The uncontested evidence was that you operated your RPAS over the fire to the west of the boundary and over the position where you were located, also within the boundary. These transgressions of the controlled airspace were openly close to the boundary.

[7] As to the charge of breach of controlled airspace on 20 January 2015: On

20 January 2015 you again became aware of a fire in the Pines Beach locality. This fire was closer to the beach. You operated your RPAS from the sand hills while videoing the fire. The RPAS trespassed into the controlled airspace without authorisation from air traffic control. These transgressions of the controlled airspace were also relatively close to the boundary.

[8] You have no prior convictions. You have written an essay for submission in mitigation of your offending. You have intituled this, “A Paper on Current Drone Rules in New Zealand and the faults and flaws that accompany them.” The paper does not set out to explicitly satisfy the Court that you have thoroughly grasped the nature of your obligations as an operator of a radio controlled model aircraft, but that may be an error of approach rather than of substance. You do demonstrate an understanding of controlled airspace and what practical steps you must take to comply with the relevant rules, even though you are of the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that the airspace rules are confusing and could be simplified.

[9] It is not appropriate that I critique and comment on the merits of your paper. I

give you credit for the serious attempt. My impression, however, is that the process

of education is not complete. I do accept counsel’s submission that you have

achieved a great deal.

[10] I also note the point made by your counsel today that you are concerned for the education of tourists and others who are not familiar with the rules that control the flight of drones, or even if any relevant law exists.

[11] You have sworn an affidavit in support of your application for discharge without conviction. It is not necessary that I review it. I accept the following points:

(a) First, you have learned from the experience of prosecution.

(b) Second, you did not deliberately flout the law but have sought to comply with it.

© Third, you care for your parents and they support you financially. (d) Fourth, you have no financial resources of your own.

(e) Fifthly, you acquired your RPAS in the hope of producing income.

(f) Sixth, a criminal conviction would likely prejudice you obtaining work using the RPAS.

(g) Seventh, Land Information New Zealand has revoked your access authority to Kairaki Beach. You no longer have permission to fly your drone over the Crown owned residential red zone on the basis of media reports on the Pine Beach fire.

[12] The character references provided satisfy me that you are a person of good character. You are well thought of in your community.

[13] The principal rural fire officer for the Waimakariri Rural Fire Authority says that aerial observations of fires can be invaluable as an alternative to a helicopter. You have provided some excellent footage that has been used in operational debriefs.

[14] I shall not review all of the prosecutor’s submissions. I take them into

account. I shall make the following points:

(a) First, I do not accept that your offending can fairly be described as moderately serious.

(b) Secondly, I do not accept Land Information New Zealand’s response is not indicative of likely reactions by governmental and quasi government agencies and of commercial concerns to the entry of a conviction.

© Third, the Court does not require that you specifically prove that persons considering engaging you for drone services might reasonably be influenced by the entry of a conviction. To require a defendant to provide evidence from potential customers in such an emerging market would be unrealistic and unreasonably burdensome. Such a common sense inference may reasonably be drawn on the basis of the Court’s experience. I am satisfied that there is at least a real and appreciable risk of such consequences.

(d) I am not persuaded that there is a strong need to denounce and deter this type of behaviour when the prosecution is novel and when your conduct was at the lower end of the scale of risk.

(e) The fifth point is that the causing danger offence is not reasonably comparable to the deliberate and highly dangerous attacks on aircraft.

[15] I agree with our counsel, Mr Glover, that you have learnt the proper procedures and are motivated to observe them, as evidenced by a transcript of a telephone conversation between you and the Christchurch tower on 4 July 2016. The writing of your paper has made you fully aware of the nature and complexity of the requirements of the legal operation of drones. That is so, even if the CAA is right to think that you have not yet completely mastered the requirements.

[16] I agree with your counsel that my finding of danger as to the principal charge was not a finding that there was imminent danger. Although the helicopter pilot was rightly concerned to hear of the presence of the RPAS, there was no near miss in the general sense. I distinguish that from the aviation use of that word, where near misses can be of a different kind, with aircraft more widely spaced. In terms of actual risk it was at the lowest end of the scale.

[17] As to the amendment referred to by counsel relating to shielded operations, that would not have exonerated you, had it been in force at the time.

[18] As to the lead charge of causing danger, I am satisfied that the direct and indirect consequences of the entry of conviction would be out of all proportion of the gravity of the offence. Those consequences are the probable loss of work using your RPAS, especially from agencies sensitive to convictions relating to air safety.

[19] I have already discussed the gravity of the offence.

[20] In a different context, an opportunity for diversion might have been available. You have already suffered the consequence that this prosecution has given rise to a widespread false public belief that you flew your RPAS in close and dangerous proximity to the helicopter over the fire. That is not correct.

[21] However, while your paper has sufficiently satisfied an educative need, there should be a financial imposition. You will be discharged without conviction upon proof being supplied to the Registrar of the payment by you of a donation to a charity of your choice of the sum of $500. Your counsel has indicated that that proposal is in fact made by you. You will be remanded to a date to be fixed in a moment for that to occur.

[22] As to the two charges of breaching controlled airspace, the breaches over the fires pose no actual risk to any aircraft. The infringements were relatively minor. They were very close to the boundaries. Cautions might have sufficed. No convictions are entered on such offences. On each charge you are fined $250 and ordered to pay Court costs of $130.

[23] I perhaps need not emphasise, although I shall take a moment to do that, that the breaches of controlled airspace were, I think, highly exceptional, in that you infringed the boundaries; in fact you were flying just outside the boundary and just inside it. In my view, as I have stated, these infringements were relatively minor and, as I have also sought to make absolutely clear, the helicopter was not in the vicinity at the time you made the breaches over the fire.

[24] There will be no order as to costs.

[25] I will formally adjourn until 2.15 next Friday in the sentencing list. The defendant need not appear, if the donation has been paid.

G S MacAskill

District Court Judge

Imagine a half dozen of these sort of cases popping up every other week in Federal courts around the country?? Could be a good little revenue earner for CASA provided they can catch the culprits -

Oh well at least we have a Ag CEO/DAS in Wingnut who is apparently prepared to take ownership of this potential regulatory clusterf#*k...

tick..tick..tick..Herr Wingnut...    


MTF...P2