Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
BEGUN - THE DRONE WARS HAVE
#31
(05-31-2017, 02:28 PM)MrPeaBody Wrote: Episode 1: The Phantom Menace

[Image: attachment.php?aid=333]

I had a recently outing with my daughter to the top of Schnapper Point in Mornington, we sat watching a couple of recreational drone enthusiasts testing their skills flying around the area and the rocks heading out into the bay.

One was flying the popular DJI Phantom 3; he did not use an app to aid the machine, just the transmitter and the on-board stabilising systems of the drone. He flew it in what could best be described as responsible and safe; not letting the thing get out of sight.

The second fellow had a DJI Phantom 4 Pro. This bit of kit has a control and viewing screen integrated into the transmitter unit. I spotted this drone for a moment with the aid of my daughter’s eyesight; my recently updated corrective lenses from Spec Savers have failed me, they are now up for review. When I lost sight of the machine it would have been around 1,500 feet and heading out into Port Phillip Bay.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=334]

The fellow flying the machine looked unperturbed with the disappearance from view of his prized drone, simply flying onward and outward into the bay by staring resolutely at the camera view he was receiving on the transmitter; every now and then looking up to see if he could actually see the thing. Eventually the drone returned from it’s excursion into the outer reaches.

All the while two of Victoria’s finest were scoffing down a MacMeal in the front of their divvy van, discussing and pointing at the drone activity.

Now some worrying facts:

The DJI Phantom 3 Standard has an operational range of either .5 or 1km depending on certification standard (CE or FCC).

The DJI Phantom 3 Pro has an operational range of 3.5 or 5 km depending on certification standard (CE or FCC)

The DJI Phantom 4 Pro has a maximum operational range of 7km provided there are no obstructions between you and the drone, and has a top speed of around 75kph.

Maximum service ceiling for all these drones is 6,000m.

Can you see anything troubling in this YouTube video?





Here’s a few extracts from Forum.DJI.com; a discussion titled “Line of Site vs How far you can see?” Essentially the Drones that fly Drones, Droning on about what they can and can’t do (very worrying).

Barney Rubble: So I was out flying my P3P the other day and wanted to kinda push the envelope to see how far I could go before losing communication. I got about a half mile out and realized I was flying via FPV and FPV alone. Although there was nothing between myself and my bird, I just can't see the dang thing when it's half a mile away. Heck, I can just barely see it when it's half that far away (even above a skyline). Please keep in mind I am out in the middle of nowhere, so it's not like I'm endangering anyone or anything. So are we limited to flying it only as far as we can still actually see it, or are we OK as long as it is in our 'line of site'? Can anyone see their Phantom when it's a mile (1.6 Kilometers) away? Thoughts?
Thanks!  Barney

Foxy-Stoat: I believe "line of sight" and "being able to see it" are 2 different things.
I lose sight of my quad at around 350-400m but have flown it out to 850m so far, in line of sight.

Greggr1: The FAA requirement is that you have to visually without magnification be able to see the craft.
You can add strobe lights to the Phantom to increase the visual acuity of the unit, which is legal.
Now that we have registration, you signed into the regulations, so if you're caught thru a crashed quad investigation, expect the worst.

Wolfiesden: gregg1r Posted at 2016-3-4 11:11
"The FAA requirement is that you have to visually without magnification be able to see the craft."

Um...no it doesn't

"Keep the aircraft within visual line of sight at all times"

line of sight   See definition in  Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Definition of line of sight in English: A straight line along which an observer has unobstructed vision:

Absolutely NOWHERE in the definition of the phrase "line of sight" does it say you have to be able to SEE it.  By definiton of the phrase, if you keep nothing between you and the bird (such as buildings for example), that IS line of sight.  In the guidelines nor in the PDF of various regulations does it say anywhere in there you must be able to SEE it.  The documents only use the phrase "line of sight".  That phrase does not mean you must have the occular accuity to be able to distinguish the aircraft, its position, nor its orientation.

Also, you agreed to GUIDELINES.  Big distinction.

R&L Aerial: I fly where I want, how far I want, how high I want and when ever I want. I'm not really concerned about what the government says.

These last 2 chaps seem extremely bright; maybe they could go work for Mr Carmedy or should I say Shane's World.

While there are the Wolfiesden and R&L Aerials around, CASA will never be able to enforce the rules they have implemented. The same problems exist all over the world at the moment unfortunately.

So here’s the Peabody take on the fix to the recreational drone problem.

Technology is the cause of the problem; the drones are too affordable and easy to acquire. They are also easy to fly unlike conventional RC aircraft.

That same technology then must therefore be the solution. Changes need to be made at the manufacturing and sales levels to ensure that recreational drone users cannot get their hands on the range capabilities of Phantom Pro series. Limitations built into the software would do the trick; get an operator’s licence and the limitations can be paired back.

It doesn’t seem that hard but of course the horse has already bolted.

We will definitely be seeing more of the Phantom Menace!

Can you recognise the drone in this image?

[Image: 758A9564.jpg]

Chocfrog post Mr P... Wink

For those interested Sterlo was on the ABC Sydney radio this AM, talking to Wendy Harmer about the Senate drone inquiry:

Quote:[Image: 4302162-16x9-large.jpg?v=2]
Listen
11mins 42secs

Image:
ABC 7.30
Drones vs privacy: are they encroaching too far on our personal space?
  • Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • [email=?subject=Have%20you%20been%20spied%20on%20by%20a%20drone%20in%20your%20own%20home%3F%20&body=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fradio%2Fsydney%2Fprograms%2Fmornings%2Fdrone-inquiry%2F8575340]Mail [/email]
 
People are increasingly using drones recreationally in Australia, but what impact do these flying machines have on our privacy and safety? Do you think people should have to sit for a drone licence? Wendy Harmer spoke to Labor Senator Glenn Sterle, chair of a Senate inquiry into drone safety and regulation.

Duration: 11min 42sec
Broadcast: Wed 31 May 2017, 9:00am
Published: Wed 31 May 2017, 12:19pm
  
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#32
“So what” Is not the right answer.

Good Tim Tam quality stuff from Mr.PB, the cross section of responses and the ‘confusion’ raised pretty much maps out some of the problems. The one that gives me pause is the drone ‘up close and personal’ with the SA aircraft – ‘tagging’ is becoming a dark art, with bragging rights. Big aircraft are remarkably ‘tough’, they have to be and the airflow around the airframe provides a buffer, the drone in the photograph is likely to come to grief, long before the aircraft. The wing tip vortex is capable of upsetting other large aircraft, so a piddling 2 kg drone is unlikely to survive the encounter. Which leaves us with a 2 Kg lump of plastic and battery possibly falling to earth – what goes up must come down. Make no mistake, the wake turbulence generated by big aircraft is lethal and a drone will not survive the encounter. Same – same from an actual ‘contact’ the only place a drone could contact a large aircraft is front on, even then the drone is mostly on a hiding to nothing, radomes are vulnerable, windscreens not so much; engines a different lottery. For aircraft landing the ‘hit’ will be an expensive business; repairs, schedules, etc. For a departing aircraft the cost of a ‘hit’ is significant; landing weight considerations for starters, for it cannot continue; the costs are horrendous. Purely on a financial basis, if not for a public safety case, anything floating about in close proximity to aircraft must be strictly controlled and properly separated.

Glen Sterle (legend) mentions Chris Manning’s remarks during his ABC interview. Most aircrew would agree with that sentiment, the problem now is how to get that simple message out to the public. Sterle and the committee seem to have a balanced view, the benefits and the risks being considered and weighed. CASA cop a righteous brick bat, their response and performance typifying industry complaint about the piss poor performance; and the arrogance. That Scot’s git’s contempt on display at last Estimates a fine example “down the by-pass” he snarls, then he goes on to dismiss the appalling cost of an engine shut down and the increased risk of an ‘abnormal’ approach and landing – the smug “but not catastrophic” statement attempting to put down the Senator, while posturing as ‘the expert’ exemplifying the terminal arrogance of the CASA mind set.

None of this goes to touch the potential chaos of mass drone traffic delivering stuff and thumping into choppers around the city, the police for example- are vulnerable; or light aircraft; or, cars on the highway; or, Mums with strollers; or, the kids in the pool; or, people who leave their curtains open; or, falling debris from a mid air collision of two drones delivering pizza. Good to see the Senate Committee on the job, very good; cracking the whip, asking the questions and willing to lend a hand. All they are really asking is “what can we do for best, as legislators, to help?”

It takes longer to train an Eagle than it does to load the Purdy which is great for the houseboat; alas, aircraft are not fitted with either; so, it must be a crash helmet to protect against falling debris while walking out to the ship and lots of good luck to protect the aircraft from the insignificant 2 Kg drone as it hammers through the ‘by-pass’ and I have to return, after dumping lots of Jet A1 over the ocean and suburban gardens.

Aye; it’s a hard rain’s A-Gonna fall.

Toot-toot..
Reply
#33
Drone zone update 09/06/17.

First Annabel reports from the IATA AGM... Wink

Quote:
Quote:Call for action on problem drones

[Image: b90d04c7c8cc19a6229fde5e862cc0dc]12:00amANNABEL HEPWORTH

The peak body for the world’s airlines has declared “we all need to do more” to deal with the dangers of drones.


The peak body for the world’s airlines has declared “we all need to do more” to deal with the risks of drones near piloted aircraft.

The International Air Transport Association’s safety and flight operations senior vice-president, Gilberto Lopez Meyer, said that drones created a “huge and very complex issue that we are facing”.

“We all need to do more. And also the drones industry need to do more,” he said at this week’s IATA annual meeting in the Mexican resort city of Cancun.

In Dubai there have been several occasions when the international airport has had to be shut down because of drone-related incidents, costing the aviation industry and prompting the emirate’s civil aviation regulator to require hobbyists and professionals to register.

Mr Meyer said “we have these types of situations all around the globe, all around the world” and often people “don’t know what the risk is”. He said it was crucial to have awareness campaigns for “non-aviation people that with a few hundred dollars can go to the shopping mall and buy a drone and start flying it in just a few hours”.

“So this is not the only area of concern, but it’s one of the most challenging because we have hundreds of millions of people eventually that could buy a drone in the world and start flying it,” he said.

Mr Meyer said much of the focus was on air traffic management because “it is really essential that unmanned vehicles do not have a negative impact on air space safety, capacity or efficiency”.

In Australia, members of a Senate committee have warned that safety rules for drone use have not kept up with the rapid growth in the industry.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has recently released an app to tell users where they can fly after concerns were raised by pilots who have had near-misses with the unmanned vehicles.
  
And couple of other articles via the Oz:
Quote:CASA app clears the air

[Image: 537c0d09330dead5e196fb2602083b05]12:00amCHRIS GRIFFITH

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s new app “Can I Fly There?” offers only part of the ­answer, for now.

Quote:X tests drone delivery platform

[Image: aa7e710f4c3fc4b320f67cf7e2c8bc85]12:54pmChris Griffith

Alphabet’s X has demonstrated technology that will let thousands of drones crisscross the sky delivering goods.

Alphabet’s X has demonstrated sky management technology that one day will allow thousands of drones to crisscross the sky delivering goods to customers.

The technology is necessary if the dream of drone delivery is to be realised.

Demonstrations so far of a single drone delivering a pizza across town being controlled by a single operator is unsustainable on a grand scale. The huge number of drone pilots needed, the clustering of airspace, and the likelihood of collisions, are three issues.

Regulators too are yet to grapple with how they will manage large numbers of unmanned aircraft traversing the skies of the future.

To address this, X, the company’s secretive ‘moonshot factory’ run by parent Alphabet, has publicly demonstrated software that allows one person to operate a number of drones, with collision avoidance and rerouting key features of the system. Alphabet is of course also the parent company of Google.

It’s unclear how Alphabet plans to leverage its UTM system commercially in future. But it does offer competition to Amazon’s Prime Air Delivery which aims to get packages to customers in 30 minutes or less using drones. X seems keen to be at the frontier of development.

It said it was looking to work with other operators and manufacturers to understand what capabilities its sky management platform should offer.

Importantly, X conducted the public test with NASA and the Federal Aviation Administration — the US air regulator — participating. The test took place at an FAA facility.

For its demonstration, X used aircraft from its Project Wing, which are designed to fly pre-planned routes on demand using sensors and software to detect and avoid each other in real time. But the Unmanned Air Traffic Management (UTM) seeks to go much further, offering overall drone management.

“During yesterday’s tests, we showed that our traffic management platform can manage the complex flight paths of multiple (drones) at the same time,” said James Ryan Burgess, co-lead of Project Wing.

“This is an important step that paves the way to a future where many (drone) operators can fly safely together. It also makes it possible for a single operator — a person or organisation — to fly multiple aircraft simultaneously.”

X is by no means the first organisation to develop such a system. NASA tested its own drone navigation system in 2015 and that year hosted a three-day convention so that participants could understand the challenges of a sky filled with drones.

[Image: 60a38a9d22487dedf19543ebd7778436]X's UTM platform plans a vehicle’s route around an airspace restriction (in red).

These systems will be important in agriculture where farmers operate fleets of drones to spray crops, seek out plant diseases and inspect their land.

“If aerial delivery is to become a useful part of everyday life, we’ll need a UTM system to manage the increasing quantity of UAS traffic in the sky — so we’ve gotten started building one that will work for Wing and for other organisations that need to manage fleets of potentially thousands of aircraft,” X says.

The test involved a single operator controlling the delivery of three packages at the same time as two Intel Aero drones and a DJI Inspire drone were conducting automated search and rescue missions.

“Operators have historically had to steer their aircraft away from obstacles manually; instead, we demonstrated yesterday that our UTM platform can automatically manage the flight paths of all these different types of UAS (unmanned aerial systems) planning new, clear routes for each aircraft if and when conflicts arise,” Mr Burgess said.

It was the first time Project Wing had demonstrated the platform.


MTF...P2 Tongue

Ps And at Comardy Capers HQ... Rolleyes

[Image: crisis.gif]

Pps Ol'Tom is not going to like this... Undecided

Just an observation - can anyone else see the likeness between wingnut Comardy and Yoda... Huh

[Image: Untitled_Clipping_041617_072544_PM.jpg]

[Image: OlTom.jpg]

Just saying - Rolleyes
Reply
#34
Weather to fly – or not.

The recent bout of seriously nasty weather curtailed ‘drone’ operations, never spotted one. Which got me wondering – will all this whizz-bang technology for ‘delivery’ services, 24/7 be matched by an all weather capability? Serious question. Ask any chopper pilot about wind gusts around city buildings during windy weather; the up and down drafts associated etc. consider the performance required to ensure survival. That, without considering the effect of moisture on exposed electronics; these things ain’t waterproof, let alone weather proof. The effects of moisture on antenna are well known. Then there is the added risk of night operations – the drones may not need to see one another; but we do need to see them (duck Mama, it’s next doors fish and chips inbound – soaking wet). The kid at the McDonalds consul may well be able to keep his fleet separated; but can he see us – in the rain or dark of night? These things will need navigation lights – LED – or something so we can see the wretched things. See and be seen – ain’t that the mantra.

What about power unit failure in bad weather? Or loss of control in heavy rain? Or, separation of the McDonald’s fleet from the pizza crowd and DHL and Fedex etc. Are we have reinforced brollies to protect against uncontrollable plastic parts falling with the rain?

Only a speculative twiddle – but if these things are to become the postman of the future I’d like to know that there are design and certification protocols in place – just for safety’s sake. Mind you, the notion of a UAV pick up from the garden gate to the airport is an appealing notion, zooming over the clogged highways and traffic crawling along at walking pace; no parking to worry about; magic stuff. The governments have done such a wonderful job meeting the increased vehicular traffic demands; you know you can rely on the same foresight and comprehensive approach to drone traffic – dontcha? No chaos, guaranteed?-   I can hardly wait……

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQtwe4uu-L-Ga_HO8HSqI1...7lLRq6qmxw]

Toot – Yeh, right –toot.
Reply
#35
Drone Inquiry public hearing this Friday YMML

Reference post #505 off the Senate Estimates thread:
Quote:At about the same time the RRAT committee Secretariat announced on their inquiry webpage that there will be two public Senate Inquiry hearings to be held this Friday in Melbourne... [Image: rolleyes.gif]
Quote: Wrote:16 June 2017
Program for the drone inquiry hearing:
[Image: Untitled_Clipping_061417_094120_AM.jpg]
The stand out in that witness group for mine is Civil Air who represent the vast majority of active ATCOs in Australia. Here is a link for the Civil Air submission: 21 Civil Air Operations Officers Association of Australia (PDF 145 KB) 

Quote:..Civil Air also submits that private RPAS operators should also be regulated albeit not to the same degree as commercial operators. Education of the regulatory regime under which RPAS operate would be the bare minimum required. Registration could also be used a method of identifying and therefore communicating with private RPAS operators...

...Civil Air strongly submits that clearly defined rules for the separation or segregation of RPAS and manned aircraft must be promulgated by the regulator to ensure not only the safety of pilots, passengers and the public on the ground, but give certainty to ATCOs as to their responsibilities...
   
Definitely be monitoring that part of the public hearing... Wink


MTF...P2 Cool


Attached Files
.pdf   Drone Inquiry program 16 June.pdf (Size: 156.58 KB / Downloads: 1)
Reply
#36
CC finally establishes ToR for drone review - Dodgy

By Annabel Hepworth via the Oz this arvo Wink :

Quote:Limits loom for drone users, as CASA releases review terms of reference

[Image: a1e7fa5e2c0fb6a00b87f64d2f049ad4?width=650]Drone operator Anthony Shorten operating his drone near Brisbane. Pic: Glenn Hunt Requiring recreational drone users to register the devices and using technology that curbs where they can fly will be considered by the nation’s civil aviation regulator as part of a major safety review.

Releasing the long-awaited terms of reference for the review, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority said it would look at the costs and benefits of mandatory registration and training for all operators of remotely-piloted aircraft systems.

CASA will also look at a technology called “geofencing” that stops drones from flying into banned areas.

Last month, during a Senate estimates hearing, it emerged that the terms of reference for the review — announced by the government in October — were still to be finalised.

This prompted Coalition backbencher Barry O’Sullivan, a former air crash investigator, to say that thousands of drones were in airspace “while we’re having a think about how they should operate”. Big Grin

Today Infrastructure and Transport Minister Darren Chester said the government “is committed to fostering an environment that ensures the safety of commercial and privately-owned aircraft, drone operators, and other people and property, while facilitating growth and innovation in the use of drones in Australia”. - 6D playing catch up - FDS Dodgy

“We are already seeing drones being successfully used in agriculture, mining, infrastructure assessment, search and rescue, fire and policing operations, aerial mapping and scientific research,” Mr Chester said.

Last week the peak body for the world’s airlines, IATA, said “we all need to do more” to deal with the risks of drones near piloted aircraft.

In Dubai there have been several occasions where the airport has had to close down because of drone-related incidents, prompting the emirate’s civil aviation regulator to require drones to be registered.

In Europe, authorities have proposed measures including requiring drones to have geofencing installed.


TICK..TOCK miniscule, TICK TOCK indeed... Confused


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#37
(06-15-2017, 05:45 PM)Peetwo Wrote: CC finally establishes ToR for drone review - Dodgy

By Annabel Hepworth via the Oz this arvo Wink :

Quote:Limits loom for drone users, as CASA releases review terms of reference

[Image: a1e7fa5e2c0fb6a00b87f64d2f049ad4?width=650]Drone operator Anthony Shorten operating his drone near Brisbane. Pic: Glenn Hunt Requiring recreational drone users to register the devices and using technology that curbs where they can fly will be considered by the nation’s civil aviation regulator as part of a major safety review.

Releasing the long-awaited terms of reference for the review, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority said it would look at the costs and benefits of mandatory registration and training for all operators of remotely-piloted aircraft systems.

CASA will also look at a technology called “geofencing” that stops drones from flying into banned areas.

Last month, during a Senate estimates hearing, it emerged that the terms of reference for the review — announced by the government in October — were still to be finalised.

This prompted Coalition backbencher Barry O’Sullivan, a former air crash investigator, to say that thousands of drones were in airspace “while we’re having a think about how they should operate”. Big Grin

Today Infrastructure and Transport Minister Darren Chester said the government “is committed to fostering an environment that ensures the safety of commercial and privately-owned aircraft, drone operators, and other people and property, while facilitating growth and innovation in the use of drones in Australia”. - 6D playing catch up - FDS Dodgy

“We are already seeing drones being successfully used in agriculture, mining, infrastructure assessment, search and rescue, fire and policing operations, aerial mapping and scientific research,” Mr Chester said.

Last week the peak body for the world’s airlines, IATA, said “we all need to do more” to deal with the risks of drones near piloted aircraft.

In Dubai there have been several occasions where the airport has had to close down because of drone-related incidents, prompting the emirate’s civil aviation regulator to require drones to be registered.

In Europe, authorities have proposed measures including requiring drones to have geofencing installed.

MSM Drone coverage update - Via the Oz today:

Quote:Drone regulations in state of flux as technology changes at a rapid pace
[Image: a1e6525e5c61bc236a4db0f69658d0b4?width=650]Current privacy laws are ineffective against invasive use of drones.
  • David Hodgkinson, Rebecca Johnston
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM June 16, 2017
[url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/drone-regulations-in-state-of-flux-as-technology-changes-at-a-rapid-pace/news-story/ff5e408e1213abddd3c1a110632a3d4f#comments][/url]
The integration of drones into everyday life has received significant attention from communities and governments around the world. Unmanned aviation has been a phenomenon for thousands of years. The Archytas Pigeon in the fourth century BC is understood to be the first autonomous flying machine (a steam-powered “pigeon”).

However, it is the rapid new developments in drone technology that are changing aviation. To keep pace with these developments, aviation regulatory authorities across the globe have devised different methods to regulate drones in their airspace.

Most significant common law jurisdictions, including the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, manage drone operations through national regulations. The purpose of these is to ensure safety and security in national airspace and on the ground.

Different rules apply to different operations. The type of rules that will apply to an operation depends on the weight of the drone. Operating rules also often differentiate between drones flown for commercial gain and for recreational purposes.

Australia, New Zealand and the US categorise their drones by weight, while Canada is developing a new system that takes a risk-based approach.

Most jurisdictions with drone regulations in place require some form of pilot or operator qualification or certification. Generally, the heavier the drone, the more qualifications an operator will require.

In Australia, the regulations are relaxed for drones that weigh less than 2kg, such that drones can be used by anyone without training, insurance or certification. This is provided CASA’s straightforward safety rules (known as its standard operating conditions) are followed. In New Zealand, licensing requirements only apply to drones weighing more than 15kg.

In Canada, if a drone is flown for recreational reasons, certification is not required unless the drone falls within a weight class above 35kg. Drones flown for commercial purposes require certification unless an exemption applies.

The US makes a clear distinction between drones flown for commercial and recreational purposes; drones used for recreational purposes do not require any operator qualifications. In fact, the US laws specifically prohibit the Federal Aviation Authority from promulgating any rules or regulations regarding drones flown for hobby or recreational purposes.

There are, of course, inherent safety risks in allowing untrained drone pilots to operate these drones — including the potential for collision with a passenger plane. In most countries, there is no mandatory registration system for drones flown for fun or recreation. Recently in the US, the FAA’s Registration Rule, which required all owners of small drones to register with the FAA or risk civil and/or criminal penalties, was deemed unlawful as it applied to drones operated for hobby or recreational purposes.

Absent any registration system, no real accountability or deterrent for reckless behaviour exists. Privacy issues arising from drone operations are becoming an increasing concern. The pace at which drone technology is evolving has resulted in a gap between privacy laws and drone use. Most jurisdictions have tended to retrofit existing privacy laws.

In Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US, the approach has been to apply existing legislation to drones. However, as existing legislation does not contemplate drones, the scope of these privacy laws, and powers to enforce them, is generally less than satisfactory.

A common element among jurisdictions is that their national aviation authorities have generally rejected the proposition that they are responsible for addressing privacy issues. Unsurprisingly, the key focus is safety.

And reports of drones violating the privacy of individuals are commonplace.

In the US, a woman reportedly threw what appeared to be stones before aiming a gun at a drone flying above her while she was in her garden. In Australia, a woman reported a drone spying on her as she was swimming in her backyard pool.

Current privacy laws are ineffective against invasive use of drones. Privacy and its regulation will be one of the critical legal issues to be resolved.

Germany and Portugal are among the few countries that have directly implemented privacy considerations into their drone regulations. Drones aren’t permitted unless regulatory authorities are satisfied illegal surveillance activities will not
be conducted.

An interesting method that China has taken to enforce its rules is to require all drones to be equipped with an “electric fence”, which prevents them from entering specific airspace.

It also requires drones to be connected to a “cloud”, which features an alarm function that activates when drones cross the “electric fence”. And in an Australian first, the Victorian Government is looking to amend state-based laws to establish no-fly zones near or above prisons to try to stop contraband (including drugs and mobile phones) being delivered via drone.

With diverse — and often deficient — rules managing the use of drones in different countries, there have been calls for regulation of drones at a global level in a way that balances safety and commerce. Part two of this series will examine what this global framework might look like.

David Hodgkinson and Rebecca Johnston are partners with aviation and aerospace law firm HodgkinsonJohnston.


TICK..TOCK miniscule, TICK TOCK indeed... Confused


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#38
Next episode of the drone wars - Rolleyes

Senate hearing Can'tberra 23/06/17:
Quote:23 Jun 2017

Canberra, ACT
[Image: pdf.png] - Program
[Image: pdf.png] - Submissions

Quote:[Image: Untitled_Clipping_061917_091448_PM.jpg]

Hmm....maybe it's just me but WTF is Hoody doing on the witness list, doesn't he trust his minions to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - UDB! Dodgy  


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#39
P2;

Hmm....maybe it's just me but WTF is Hoody doing on the witness list, doesn't he trust his minions to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth - UDB!  

The hi-vis homosapien is a control freak Peetwo. He needs to have a hand in everything.The guy has a severe 'lack of trust' issue. He actually has some minions that interact rather well with the Senators and can articulate and put up a somewhat reasonable argument or line of defence. The control freak issues are made manifest by his embarrassing 'correct the record' pony pooh, donning a hi-vis vest and investigating every incident where a 1980's Caravan or 152 drops a pint of oil on the Tarmac, or fronting the media every time an airline pilot breaks wind.

The above will be Hoody's downfall. He will either stuff something up big time due to being trapped in the weeds and not operating at the higher level where he ought be, or he will burn out and become his own casualty of the system.

Just trying to help you Gregory....
Reply
#40
Heat up the drone wars have - Confused

For the record: Hansard - 16 Jun 2017 Melbourne, VIC (HTML & PDF)

Quote:[Image: Gold-Sterlo-gold.jpg]
Besides the shot across the bow of Carmody and by association 6D by Sterlo (above), there was some excellent evidence given at last week's drone war inquiry.. Wink
Here are some noteworthy Hansard extracts:
Quote:CHAIR: Mr Tyrrell, we know that, but that does not stop stupidity.
Senator O'SULLIVAN: And ignorance. I know drone owners. I have taken a new, keen interest in this. They get a little yellow strip of paper, now printed in China, and that comes with their birthday drone. It says nothing about this. It does not talk about whether they need to be inebriated or say that if you are blind you should not operate this. There is absolutely nothing. We are at risk. If we had—and I loathe to use the term—some catastrophic event, this government is really good at completely botching things. We have a catastrophic event, and then government reacts. The next day, all the rifles are taken off everyone in Australia and bent up and burned and crushed and smothered because of an event. My greatest fear is that we are going to have a catastrophic event here. I find with evidence that people are careful around particular interests. Everyone wants to see—they are putting a higher price on the evolution of this technology and its application in life. We have had evidence from people who want to deliver pizzas in backyards and from real estate agents, surveyors and valuers—all sorts of people.

But for me it is this first question about the value of these two bits of tin in certain circumstances. If we are agreed that they are of an equal value, with an equal potential to cause a catastrophic event, then that for certain is going to guide my thinking about my contribution to our committee. I am really interested for people who are in the space to talk me down off the ladder. Tell me. Tell me that the value of the 10-kilo drone is less than—and if it was not for that big silly aircraft that ran into it we would not have had the catastrophic outcome. That is what I want to hear.

Mr Roberts : But your opening part said that you—I do not use the exact words—were neutral, that the terms did not mean much to you, or words to that effect, in terms of recreational versus commercial.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Yes, it does not matter to me. That piece of tin—when I am about to fly into it in a 747, I do not go, 'Shit, it's a recreational drone; things are going to be fine.'

Mr Roberts : No, my point is that this piece of tin, which from Parrot's perspective is actually either EPP or plastic, of 50 grams, which is probably the weight of a pigeon or a seagull, compared to something that is 10 kilos, commercially operated for economic gain, is very, very different.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: I understand the risk profile, but there is peer-reviewed work out there that suggests that that does not matter in certain circumstances—that it simply does not matter. CASA has commissioned some of its own work that says that in certain—if you want to take the risk profile and say, 'Listen, the chances of a crash are this big; the chances of it getting into the turbine are this big; the chances of it getting between fins 52 and 53, where there is a vulnerability, are this big,' I understand that, and I will not ignore that as we go along. Every day we make decisions in government that take that into account. But this starting point about how somehow these are recreational, so we might treat everyone differently in terms of the test of competency and the registration and insurance, just defies some base logic for me. It will guide me. At the moment, my views have now been expressed. I am waiting for someone to talk me down so I can abandon it and join some of the mass view about it.

Mr Roberts : But then, if we started to put that into everything that could cause a controversy or a catastrophe, this would be in terms of vehicles on the road and everything else.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Except if you want to use your risk profile. I am not here to debate, but, if you wanted to use your risk profile, we have a motor vehicle that has a human being at the wheel who can see the context of where they are. They are operating on one plane. They are not going up and down and sidewards. They have parameters of where they are driving. There is a kerb and a kerb and then everything else that goes with it—stop signs and all these incentives and disincentives for driver behaviour. They have a big registration plate on the front and the back. Even if you want to cover that, the engine has a stamp on it. We know who it is. It is all properly insured. Those people have been competently tested for their driver's licences. There is training involved and, as time goes on, they get better at it. I do not want to compare the motor cars and the tin in the air—

Mr Roberts : No, but my point there is that then you get back to the registration, the training, the rules and the education process, which is what—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Yes, but a couple of you have applauded CASA's measures, which reduced these requirements. They revisited the regulations and made them less for recreational drones, if you like.

Mr Roberts : Yes?

Mr Tyrrell : They did not make them less for recreational drones. They made them less for commercial drones operating in certain conditions. Recreational drones have been untouched in the regulations, and that to us is an issue. Picking up on your point before, I think that all drones, recreational or commercial, should be treated the same, and there should be a risk based approach to what hoops they need to jump through.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: That is in accordance with my thinking.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: No, my question is more specific. Let me go back to the original one that no-one has been able to answer because apparently I do not communicate it well. There are two bits of tin in the air. I say they have the same value when there is a catastrophic event. I cannot blame one because it was lighter or smaller. There are two bits of tin in the air. There are 13½ thousand fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft that your people deal with. For every one of them there are four more of these on the base of what we know at the moment, 50,000. If you have never been on a radar screen my question to you is: why would be bothered to continue to try to manage that 13½ thousand? Why don't you all just go home, turn off the radars, flick off the lights and save the Crown a hell of a lot of money if we think that the system is not under threat from the 50,000. I am coming back, Mr Perks. You can spend the next 12 months going out to learn about this that or the other. How will that aid you to be able to make a statement that your people can and will cope with the proliferation in the hundreds of thousands, not dozens. It is not possible. I do not want to spend my energy on this committee tracking down roads to try to find a bit of geotech and finding that there is a GPS solution, and we will scratch a number into the arse of the thing and so on and so forth. I am at a point where I do not believe they should leave the ground over built-up areas.

Mr McRobert : I will put it this way: without a reclassification of these units being not classified as aircraft, we cannot cop that many aircraft in CTA—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Thank you.

Mr McRobert : unless they are defined 'not as aircraft'.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Well, that can never be can it?

Mr McRobert : We are limited by the fixed aircraft.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: That can never be.

Mr Perks : I think the simple answer to your question is what Tom has said, 'No, you cannot guarantee the safety.' I am sorry, I am probably going to get into some acronyms here.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Mr Perks, with respect, I think your statement needs to be stronger. You cannot cope. You do not have the technical or human ability to cope with this when the volumetrics kicks in. That is not an ambiguous question. It is not as if you are going to suck it and see and maybe cope with it. You cannot cope with it. If you want to contradict my statement, tell me that you can. There is no interim measure here.

Mr Perks : I certainly cannot contradict that statement because, certainly in the starker sense, that is correct. I have been giving some thought to your analogy and it comes back to the way that we look at risk. I think we all agree what that consequence is. I do not think there is any argument there. That risk is, as I think we have said in the submission, a product of likelihood and consequence. It is that likelihood of that of that pea going through the windshield of the car that really is what we have to look at. If there is one pea flying around out there, then I think that likelihood is very low, five 10, 20 or whatever. That is where we have to manage it. Yes, we can ground all these things. I daresay that will be other parts of the industry that will argue commercial imperative, safety imperatives and all that sort of thing. That is where we get into, Senator Back, the acronym ALAR—as low as reasonably practical.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: I am interested in all they have to say. If they are a manufacturer or a retailer, I will be to give it the weight I need. But you guys are where the rubber meets the road. You are the last thing between a passenger and God. I have sent spent 20 years investigating catastrophic air crashes all over the world with international flights. You and the pilot are the last people. These people sitting down the back reading the paper have no control over the environment, none whatsoever.

Mr Perks : We are facing, obviously, growth in aviation. We are fighting to keep airspaces getting more congested with just manned aircraft.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Sure.

Mr Perks : Your proposal that we are going to launch more aircraft into the same airspace without a change to the rules, then we cannot—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Even with a change to the rules, how is a change to the rules going to allow that to happen?

Mr Perks : If they are not deemed to be aircraft for example. We have obstacle clearance rules.

Senator RICE: Does that make it any safer?

Senator O'SULLIVAN: No.

Mr Perks : They can put up 100 cranes and, as as long as they follow the obstacle clearance rules, we can process the aircraft safety.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: The volume is the issue, Mr McRobert.

Senator BACK: Hang on for a sec, Senator O'Sullivan, what about the contrary argument that you have two kilogram, three kilogram or five kilogram birds? They do not have transponders of their clackers.

Mr McRobert : We spend millions of dollars trying to keep birds away from our airports.

Senator BACK: That is the answer, is it?

Mr McRobert : They are still treated as a risk.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: There is nothing you can do about that. You cannot ban the birds.
Mr McRobert : We treat them the same.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Within the scope of human behaviour we cannot ground birds. We can certainly ground these things.

Mr McRobert : I do not necessarily like that analogy. I have heard CASA use it too. Because, if you have a jet doing 120 decibels down the runway, the bird is going to try to move out of the way. Whereas, if you have 40,000 road operators—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Blind to the aircraft.

Mr McRobert : they are not going to listen to the aircraft and think to get out of the way for their own safety. It is not a like-for-like risk in that case. We still spend millions of dollars. At Melbourne Airport they spend millions of dollars to get the birds out of the way. We treat them the same. If we see an eagle off the end of the runway from the tower we will advise the pilot. Although we cannot remove that this we still try to manage it as best we can.

Senator RICE: Can I put to you that, as we get this exponential increase in RPAS, is it a matter of traffic management and a similar challenge as we are going to deal with on the roads with autonomous vehicles mixing it with the human driven vehicles? If we are going to consider drones for delivering pizzas and parcels, they are going to have to have set flight paths.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: To do that you would have to factor in these cars that you want to put on the road as having no driver in them, being operated by someone, who may or may not be skilled, four kilometres away in a house. So a kid sending the car over to pick dad up does not work. Again you cannot compare the risk profiles, in my mind.

Mr Perks : You cannot but, Senator, I think it some ways you make a point. Even with manned vehicles we put all those controls such as road signs and we still have catastrophic accidents every day, but we are prepared to accept that as a cost for cars driving on the road. Potentially, and that is for the good senators here to decide, where that risk sits and what risk is acceptable for that is the question.

Senator RICE: And what traffic management is needed to lower that risk.

Mr Perks : As low as reasonably practical—ALARP.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: But even if the risk profile—that is, the potential for an event—remains the same, this event is going to run over a pedestrian or hit a car with four passengers in it, while this other one is going to bring down a 600- or 700-passenger airline. I mean, there are risks and then there are risks. I would be prepared to drive in the car—I do every day—but if I was getting into an aircraft with 700 other people and I thought it was going to hit a drone on take-off I would not be not climbing on board. I am happy to navigate the traffic of Melbourne, but I am not prepared to navigate that.

Mr Perks : Agreed, Senator; there is a risk. What that risk is and what risk people are willing to accept is what is at issue, I believe.

Mr McRobert : But that is the whole reason why we have the controlled airspace around these high-density airports; it is so we can control the environment. So, if you are going to allow uncontrolled use of these drones in that environment, we are not going to be able to provide that safety.  

Very much related to the issues being discussed in that hearing, I note the following article courtesy of the Albany Advertiser, via the West Oz online:

Quote:Rules govern drone use at beauty spots
John Dobson and Tayler Neale
Tuesday, 20 June 2017 9:56AM
[Image: GOK13HB4P.1-0.jpg?imwidth=800]AGENDA - Remote control quadcopter drone with a camera in flight, Jember, Indonesia.

Great Southern beauty spots such as Bluff Knoll and The Gap lend themselves to aerial photos but the rapid rise of drone photography has left many drone users with no knowledge of the strict regulations of filming in such locations.

Flying drones in or over any national park or reserve requires written permission from the Department of Parks and Wildlife.

While a spokeswoman for DPaW said it had not received any official complaints about drones in Great Southern parks, there were strict regulations in place.

The spokeswoman said drones were popular, particularly for filming and photography.

“In parks and reserves these craft can pose potential danger to visitors, other air users and operators if they crash,” she said.

“There are also environmental concerns relating to visual and noise impacts that may affect wildlife, as well as the increased risk to wildfire if craft crash, particularly if they have combustion engines.

“These craft may detract from other visitors’ experiences, places of cultural significance as well as impact on visitor privacy.”

The spokeswoman also said traditional landowners had raised concerns about the use of drones and their cultural values.

Under Civil Aviation Regulations, anyone wishing to launch, land or make a touchdown of any kind must have written permission from DPaW.

However, the rapid rise of drone use in the recreational and commercial sectors has caught authorities and local governments off guard.

All drone users are required to comply with rules set out by the Federal Civil Aviation Safety Authority, but some councils are getting proactive in the face of safety and privacy concerns.

Albany Aerial Imaging owner Brad Harkup said many drone users did not know the current regulations.

“It’s stated that any populous area is restricted by any drone, unless certified — this includes beaches and residential areas,” he said.
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#41
(06-22-2017, 01:16 PM)Peetwo Wrote: Heat up the drone wars have - Confused

For the record: Hansard - 16 Jun 2017 Melbourne, VIC (HTML & PDF)

Quote:[Image: Gold-Sterlo-gold.jpg]
Besides the shot across the bow of Carmody and by association 6D by Sterlo (above), there was some excellent evidence given at last week's drone war inquiry.. Wink
Here are some noteworthy Hansard extracts:
Quote:CHAIR: Mr Tyrrell, we know that, but that does not stop stupidity.
Senator O'SULLIVAN: And ignorance. I know drone owners. I have taken a new, keen interest in this. They get a little yellow strip of paper, now printed in China, and that comes with their birthday drone. It says nothing about this. It does not talk about whether they need to be inebriated or say that if you are blind you should not operate this. There is absolutely nothing. We are at risk. If we had—and I loathe to use the term—some catastrophic event, this government is really good at completely botching things. We have a catastrophic event, and then government reacts. The next day, all the rifles are taken off everyone in Australia and bent up and burned and crushed and smothered because of an event. My greatest fear is that we are going to have a catastrophic event here. I find with evidence that people are careful around particular interests. Everyone wants to see—they are putting a higher price on the evolution of this technology and its application in life. We have had evidence from people who want to deliver pizzas in backyards and from real estate agents, surveyors and valuers—all sorts of people.

But for me it is this first question about the value of these two bits of tin in certain circumstances. If we are agreed that they are of an equal value, with an equal potential to cause a catastrophic event, then that for certain is going to guide my thinking about my contribution to our committee. I am really interested for people who are in the space to talk me down off the ladder. Tell me. Tell me that the value of the 10-kilo drone is less than—and if it was not for that big silly aircraft that ran into it we would not have had the catastrophic outcome. That is what I want to hear.

Mr Roberts : But your opening part said that you—I do not use the exact words—were neutral, that the terms did not mean much to you, or words to that effect, in terms of recreational versus commercial.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Yes, it does not matter to me. That piece of tin—when I am about to fly into it in a 747, I do not go, 'Shit, it's a recreational drone; things are going to be fine.'

Mr Roberts : No, my point is that this piece of tin, which from Parrot's perspective is actually either EPP or plastic, of 50 grams, which is probably the weight of a pigeon or a seagull, compared to something that is 10 kilos, commercially operated for economic gain, is very, very different.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: I understand the risk profile, but there is peer-reviewed work out there that suggests that that does not matter in certain circumstances—that it simply does not matter. CASA has commissioned some of its own work that says that in certain—if you want to take the risk profile and say, 'Listen, the chances of a crash are this big; the chances of it getting into the turbine are this big; the chances of it getting between fins 52 and 53, where there is a vulnerability, are this big,' I understand that, and I will not ignore that as we go along. Every day we make decisions in government that take that into account. But this starting point about how somehow these are recreational, so we might treat everyone differently in terms of the test of competency and the registration and insurance, just defies some base logic for me. It will guide me. At the moment, my views have now been expressed. I am waiting for someone to talk me down so I can abandon it and join some of the mass view about it.

Mr Roberts : But then, if we started to put that into everything that could cause a controversy or a catastrophe, this would be in terms of vehicles on the road and everything else.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Except if you want to use your risk profile. I am not here to debate, but, if you wanted to use your risk profile, we have a motor vehicle that has a human being at the wheel who can see the context of where they are. They are operating on one plane. They are not going up and down and sidewards. They have parameters of where they are driving. There is a kerb and a kerb and then everything else that goes with it—stop signs and all these incentives and disincentives for driver behaviour. They have a big registration plate on the front and the back. Even if you want to cover that, the engine has a stamp on it. We know who it is. It is all properly insured. Those people have been competently tested for their driver's licences. There is training involved and, as time goes on, they get better at it. I do not want to compare the motor cars and the tin in the air—

Mr Roberts : No, but my point there is that then you get back to the registration, the training, the rules and the education process, which is what—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Yes, but a couple of you have applauded CASA's measures, which reduced these requirements. They revisited the regulations and made them less for recreational drones, if you like.

Mr Roberts : Yes?

Mr Tyrrell : They did not make them less for recreational drones. They made them less for commercial drones operating in certain conditions. Recreational drones have been untouched in the regulations, and that to us is an issue. Picking up on your point before, I think that all drones, recreational or commercial, should be treated the same, and there should be a risk based approach to what hoops they need to jump through.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: That is in accordance with my thinking.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: No, my question is more specific. Let me go back to the original one that no-one has been able to answer because apparently I do not communicate it well. There are two bits of tin in the air. I say they have the same value when there is a catastrophic event. I cannot blame one because it was lighter or smaller. There are two bits of tin in the air. There are 13½ thousand fixed- and rotary-wing aircraft that your people deal with. For every one of them there are four more of these on the base of what we know at the moment, 50,000. If you have never been on a radar screen my question to you is: why would be bothered to continue to try to manage that 13½ thousand? Why don't you all just go home, turn off the radars, flick off the lights and save the Crown a hell of a lot of money if we think that the system is not under threat from the 50,000. I am coming back, Mr Perks. You can spend the next 12 months going out to learn about this that or the other. How will that aid you to be able to make a statement that your people can and will cope with the proliferation in the hundreds of thousands, not dozens. It is not possible. I do not want to spend my energy on this committee tracking down roads to try to find a bit of geotech and finding that there is a GPS solution, and we will scratch a number into the arse of the thing and so on and so forth. I am at a point where I do not believe they should leave the ground over built-up areas.

Mr McRobert : I will put it this way: without a reclassification of these units being not classified as aircraft, we cannot cop that many aircraft in CTA—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Thank you.

Mr McRobert : unless they are defined 'not as aircraft'.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Well, that can never be can it?

Mr McRobert : We are limited by the fixed aircraft.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: That can never be.

Mr Perks : I think the simple answer to your question is what Tom has said, 'No, you cannot guarantee the safety.' I am sorry, I am probably going to get into some acronyms here.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Mr Perks, with respect, I think your statement needs to be stronger. You cannot cope. You do not have the technical or human ability to cope with this when the volumetrics kicks in. That is not an ambiguous question. It is not as if you are going to suck it and see and maybe cope with it. You cannot cope with it. If you want to contradict my statement, tell me that you can. There is no interim measure here.

Mr Perks : I certainly cannot contradict that statement because, certainly in the starker sense, that is correct. I have been giving some thought to your analogy and it comes back to the way that we look at risk. I think we all agree what that consequence is. I do not think there is any argument there. That risk is, as I think we have said in the submission, a product of likelihood and consequence. It is that likelihood of that of that pea going through the windshield of the car that really is what we have to look at. If there is one pea flying around out there, then I think that likelihood is very low, five 10, 20 or whatever. That is where we have to manage it. Yes, we can ground all these things. I daresay that will be other parts of the industry that will argue commercial imperative, safety imperatives and all that sort of thing. That is where we get into, Senator Back, the acronym ALAR—as low as reasonably practical.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: I am interested in all they have to say. If they are a manufacturer or a retailer, I will be to give it the weight I need. But you guys are where the rubber meets the road. You are the last thing between a passenger and God. I have sent spent 20 years investigating catastrophic air crashes all over the world with international flights. You and the pilot are the last people. These people sitting down the back reading the paper have no control over the environment, none whatsoever.

Mr Perks : We are facing, obviously, growth in aviation. We are fighting to keep airspaces getting more congested with just manned aircraft.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Sure.

Mr Perks : Your proposal that we are going to launch more aircraft into the same airspace without a change to the rules, then we cannot—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Even with a change to the rules, how is a change to the rules going to allow that to happen?

Mr Perks : If they are not deemed to be aircraft for example. We have obstacle clearance rules.

Senator RICE: Does that make it any safer?

Senator O'SULLIVAN: No.

Mr Perks : They can put up 100 cranes and, as as long as they follow the obstacle clearance rules, we can process the aircraft safety.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: The volume is the issue, Mr McRobert.

Senator BACK: Hang on for a sec, Senator O'Sullivan, what about the contrary argument that you have two kilogram, three kilogram or five kilogram birds? They do not have transponders of their clackers.

Mr McRobert : We spend millions of dollars trying to keep birds away from our airports.

Senator BACK: That is the answer, is it?

Mr McRobert : They are still treated as a risk.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: There is nothing you can do about that. You cannot ban the birds.
Mr McRobert : We treat them the same.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Within the scope of human behaviour we cannot ground birds. We can certainly ground these things.

Mr McRobert : I do not necessarily like that analogy. I have heard CASA use it too. Because, if you have a jet doing 120 decibels down the runway, the bird is going to try to move out of the way. Whereas, if you have 40,000 road operators—

Senator O'SULLIVAN: Blind to the aircraft.

Mr McRobert : they are not going to listen to the aircraft and think to get out of the way for their own safety. It is not a like-for-like risk in that case. We still spend millions of dollars. At Melbourne Airport they spend millions of dollars to get the birds out of the way. We treat them the same. If we see an eagle off the end of the runway from the tower we will advise the pilot. Although we cannot remove that this we still try to manage it as best we can.

Senator RICE: Can I put to you that, as we get this exponential increase in RPAS, is it a matter of traffic management and a similar challenge as we are going to deal with on the roads with autonomous vehicles mixing it with the human driven vehicles? If we are going to consider drones for delivering pizzas and parcels, they are going to have to have set flight paths.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: To do that you would have to factor in these cars that you want to put on the road as having no driver in them, being operated by someone, who may or may not be skilled, four kilometres away in a house. So a kid sending the car over to pick dad up does not work. Again you cannot compare the risk profiles, in my mind.

Mr Perks : You cannot but, Senator, I think it some ways you make a point. Even with manned vehicles we put all those controls such as road signs and we still have catastrophic accidents every day, but we are prepared to accept that as a cost for cars driving on the road. Potentially, and that is for the good senators here to decide, where that risk sits and what risk is acceptable for that is the question.

Senator RICE: And what traffic management is needed to lower that risk.

Mr Perks : As low as reasonably practical—ALARP.

Senator O'SULLIVAN: But even if the risk profile—that is, the potential for an event—remains the same, this event is going to run over a pedestrian or hit a car with four passengers in it, while this other one is going to bring down a 600- or 700-passenger airline. I mean, there are risks and then there are risks. I would be prepared to drive in the car—I do every day—but if I was getting into an aircraft with 700 other people and I thought it was going to hit a drone on take-off I would not be not climbing on board. I am happy to navigate the traffic of Melbourne, but I am not prepared to navigate that.

Mr Perks : Agreed, Senator; there is a risk. What that risk is and what risk people are willing to accept is what is at issue, I believe.

Mr McRobert : But that is the whole reason why we have the controlled airspace around these high-density airports; it is so we can control the environment. So, if you are going to allow uncontrolled use of these drones in that environment, we are not going to be able to provide that safety.  

Very much related to the issues being discussed in that hearing, I note the following article courtesy of the Albany Advertiser, via the West Oz online:

Quote:Rules govern drone use at beauty spots
John Dobson and Tayler Neale
Tuesday, 20 June 2017 9:56AM
[Image: GOK13HB4P.1-0.jpg?imwidth=800]AGENDA - Remote control quadcopter drone with a camera in flight, Jember, Indonesia.

Update 23/05/17.

Presumably because of the Senators debating and voting in the Senate Chamber into the wee hours this AM, today's drone wars inquiry public hearing has been cancelled - Undecided


Meanwhile the Edens Landing constabulary put out a BOLO for a rogue drone... Rolleyes

Via the QPS... Wink :

Quote:Drone activity in Edens Landing, no flying joke
Senior Constable Luke Turner on Jun 15, 2017 @ 5:38pm

It has been brought to the attention of Edens Landing Police Beat that there has been a recent number of incidents involving a Drone flying low and entering the rear of properties in and around Castile Crescent, Edens Landing. Police would like to bring to the attention of residents/occupiers and the operators of the said Drone the following.
What is a Drone? An unmanned aerial vehicle, commonly known as a drone, is an aircraft without a human pilot aboard. UAVs are a component of an unmanned aircraft system; which include a UAV, a ground-based controller, and a system of communications between the two.

The Drone in question is described as White, with green and red lights attached. Furthermore there is a camera hanging from a gimbal underneath the Drone.
[Image: phatom-300x200.jpg]
Australia’s safety laws for drones, as defined in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations, vary whether you are flying commercially or recreationally for fun.

You should only fly in visual line-of-sight, in day visual meteorological conditions (VMC).

What does that mean? No night flying (generally). No flying in or through cloud or fog. Be able to see the aircraft with your own eyes (rather than through first-person-view [FPV, binoculars, telescopes]) at all times, (unless you operate under the procedures of an approved model flying association.

You must not fly closer than 30 metres to vehicles, boats, buildings or people. You must not fly over populous areas such as beaches, heavily populated parks, or sports ovals while they are in use. In controlled airspace, which covers most Australian cities, you must not fly higher than 120 metres (400 feet) above the ground. You must not fly in a way that creates a hazard to other aircraft, so you should keep at least 5.5 km away from airfields, aerodromes and helicopter landing sites.

You must not fly your Drone in or over prohibited / restricted area, unless you have the permission of the authority controlling the area. In restricted airspace, aircraft movements are reduced to those with certain specified permissions. Examples of restricted airspace include airspace around military installations or military controlled aerodromes, over Sydney Harbour, high-density flying operations or at an air show or other large public event. Restricted airspace may also be imposed by police for safety or security reasons near bushfires or major crime scenes. It is illegal to fly your Drone in these areas without permission.

If you have information in relation to this matter and believe that you can assist Police please do not hesitate in contacting Edens Landing Police Beat by attending in person, contacting us by phone on 3884 2050 or alternatively via email EdensLanding.Beat@police.qld.gov.au

If you have information for police, contact Policelink on 131 444 or provide information using the online form 24hrs per day.
You can report information about crime anonymously to Crime Stoppers, a registered charity and community volunteer organisation, by calling 1800 333 000 or via crimestoppersqld.com.au 24hrs per day.

[Image: StaticMapService.GetMapImage?1m2&1i77628...oken=91154]
Categories
South Eastern Region



MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#42
“K” and I, both, have a ‘curiosity’ bump, which, on occasion, can itch. In truth, I only heard ‘snatches’ from the Senate broadcast (some have to earn a living) – however; it got me thinking. For instance – the Hi Viz Hood loves the ‘limelight’ dashing about from carnage to carnage; looking windswept and interesting, having photo’s taken and babbling on public media: so why not do a ‘fireside chat’ on national media about the perils of ‘irresponsible’ drone operations. Maybe even with Shameless O’Carmody in tow. Point out to a mass audience that there are some real dangers associated with haphazard 'drone' operation and that while a ‘catastrophic’ event may be in the outer realms of probability – it is deuced  expensive; and, bloody inconvenient (to a lot of folk) – to have to shut down an engine, when ‘drone’ missed the convenient (CASA approved) ‘by-pass’ option.

A couple of hundred passengers inconvenienced; a big repair bill for the operator, schedule shot to hell, etc. It all begs the question; why, for the sake of a five minute ‘chat’ on national TV is no one talking to the ‘wannabe’ sky gods. Not as if a bit of real value (proactive like) PR could hurt – hells bells, it may even help. Maybe even press Daren 6D into service - gratis make up D6D, done by pro's - got to be a plus.

[Image: 300?cb=20131130142326]
Reply
#43
A good idea Tom,
but, but, that would be a proactive approach, CAsA doesn't do proactive, they do knee jerk.
Seems incongruous that the "Guvmint" can spend probably what you and I would love to earn, for
a few years of toil, on smart Adds telling everyone what a great job their doing, but a public interest
campaign promoting safety? For goodness sake, what about the budget deficit?.

Bankstown Airport should be commended for at least attempting to be proactive by erecting one of those
electronic roadside billboards on Marion Street with "no drones within 5Km of the airport". Unfortunately
not very effective, because less than two Km North, is a little park along the river where most afternoons
you can find enthusiasts and their drones buzzing about. I asked one of them if they realised they could
be prosecuted for flying there. They didn't.

I understand there will always be irresponsible people who will ignore the rules, but perhaps a wider
mass education campaign on the dangers, and the liabilities, not only of heavy fines, but the enormous
liability if, god forbid, their drone bought an aircraft down might galvanise the law abiding majority of drone flyers
to do the right thing.

Now we know wing nut is a busy man, writing mother goose statements, figuring out inquiries that come to the same conclusions as the last one, then figuring out how to avoid doing anything, so they can move on to the next inquiry is a taxing business and given his enormous salary his time is valuable, but an hour or two of his time to conduct a few interviews across the media with education in mind rather than putative threats might do a lot of good.
But then again I suppose not, CAsA doesn't do education, they do big stick. After the event.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)