Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Begun-the drone wars have_MKII.
#31
At last!

The real risk assessors step in: it had to happen. When insurance risk assessors set to work they don’t mess about, every possible risk – to them – is weighed, measured and quantified – from every angle. Their in depth analysis are the complete opposite of the CASA scribblings. The insurers will carefully evaluate the risk associated with a ‘drone’ slipping past the fan blades of a large turbine engine and disappearing down the by-pass and define the cost, in the dollars and cents, that will be required to cover the bet they have taken. Bookmaking – down to a science.

The other angle is the ‘speed’ at which they will complete the task – they exist in the ‘here and now’ – real risk, in real time, in the real world; solutions provided within that time frame. Any insurer worth the title will have made a profit from the research and risk assessment before CASA even acknowledge that there may be risk worthy of their consideration.  

“With an increase in the number of drones in operation, there is also an increase in the potential for third party liability claims,” says Aaron Stephenson, Director, AV Cover.

“Drone insurance can cover public liability for the operation of the machine, and hull (the actual machine itself – while in use or transit). Licensed operators require this cover,” Aaron Donaldson, Managing Director, Allsure, says.

"[Jones] specifies that in terms of hull losses the most significant risks relate to loss of the drone and its payload. For example: sometimes through unforeseen perils such as bird strikes, or the drone simply failing to follow controller direction resulting in it never being found after leaving line of sight.

Reading through the article above the stark contrast between the dynamic approach of industry and insurer, in comparison to the CASA denial of responsibility for the risk is clearly visible. It’s got me beat how the likes of Carmody, the mad professor and the Scots Git can sit and play word games with the RRAT committee while the risks escalate.  Attitude adjustment required; lots of and often.

Toot toot.
Reply
#32
THE DRONES ARE COMING!
[Image: 3_image.jpg?]Larry Pickering
Four-time Walkley Award winning political commentator and Churchill Fellow, has returned to the fray over concern that the integrity of news dissemination is continually being threatened by a partisan media.
BLOG / FACEBOOK

[Image: images%20(2).jpg]Tweet
Mon 31 Jul 2017 04:46:30 pm/678 COMMENTS


Perhaps only one innovation is equal to the effects of the computer and that could be the drone. It is already encroaching on every part of life from serious weapons of war to kids’ toys.

[Image: 9c56c198c4224ea2254b58eb89aaa0f911b2183b.jpg]                                       
From this to no bigger than a match box

Helicopters are experiencing extensive downtime due to far cheaper drones replacing them on commercial jobs that were once the domain, and the lifeblood, of the hard working chopper and its pilot.

Even dumb terrorists have finally worked out that it's not necessary to blow the crap out of themselves. “Those 72 virgins will just have to wait until we collar some more infidels.”

Aviation authorities are on triple time and a half trying to update civil regulations that apply to these increasingly sophisticated drones. But it’s not regulations applying to civilians that we need to worry about. It’s the unregulated enemy who is becoming aware of just how valuable drones can be

[Image: 25ac043110c89471177af99bd838a44d79e0714f.jpg]                                 

Aged Phantoms are now being used as drones

One thousand pilots can be sitting opposite the White House, in Arlington County’s Pentagon, launching one thousand GPS kitted-out drones and ordinance-laden pilotless old Phantom Jets from South Korea into the North to hunt down and destroy every nuclear facility in the country while smaller drones are pinpointing every haunt the mad Zika Kid frequented in the past year.

All complete with high res cameras to ensure we get to see the fat guy’s surprised, contorted, face as he frantically tries to finish his third helping of crepe suzettes.

In case anyone survives the initial drone or Phantom blast, every bombed site is followed up with one MOAB each to suck the oxygen out of the air for miles around before setting it all alight … this will be the way of modern warfare, no soldiers, no pilots, no weaponry at risk, where the greater technology is always the winner.

Oh, the little piglet might get one or two of his ICBMs off the ground if he’s lucky but the Iron Dome defence already deployed in the South will take care of them before they get warm. And guess where they will be landing. Every day that Trump delays dealing with this, the more difficult the task.

[Image: 7d9c22cd726c661c0ea1ffecb1ff7f7454cd7aba.jpg]

The next concern is civilian use of drones and, you know, delivering pizzas (above) and other stuff like drugs, smokes and alcohol. Of course the paedophiles will be able to hover near the windows of toilets at child-care centres and the normal pervert soon knows who likes to sunbathe starkers in the "privacy" of their own back yard or a workplace roof (below).

[Image: 86cc46080337161c871d2c8757c79100c90338b7.jpg]

[Image: 663661f5cb586cbf0a608f1a4a21a210d5082278.jpg]

The serious voyeurs can get footage of famous divas on the toilet or in the shower or even shagging someone they shouldn’t be shagging. Media will pay good money when the voyeurs are finished with that footage. 

Unfaithful husbands are easy meat, as grubby private eyes learn to operate the things. Get the film evidence, point the drone toward Chile and let it go. It will run out of fuel somewhere in the Pacific leaving no evidence… but so what, they are as cheap as chips anyway.

CASA, who still doesn’t understand why planes fly, says this of drones: “Australia’s safety laws for drones or remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) generally depend on whether the operator is flying commercially or recreationally.” The idiots believe people will tell them what they are up to if they intend operating a drone illegally. Hmmmm.

[Image: 353715478215d891244088a104953635ad561fc7.jpg]

Public Servant, Shane Carmody (above) is yet another dickhead CASA CEO without a commercial pilot's licence

But good ‘ol incompetent CASA has updated the rules to include terminology, so they say: “It must now align with the International Civil Aviation Organization, for example, UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) must now become RPA (remotely piloted aircraft)”. Hmmm, as long as we get the name right everything should be okay then?

[Image: aaf25102fe62573aea1f25f932c02a10d27645c7.jpg]                                  Amazon uses this model to deliver purchases

CASA is incapable of regulating RPT so HTF could they ever effectively regulate new-age drones?

But the third and most important shift to drones is (or soon will be) in the terrorism industry. Muslims have never been known for their high IQs but destructive drones need no more than IQs of 10 to operate, so that suits Islam ideally.

[Image: 33099aa31b5d79ca2688319d665baa01b83e4b6c.jpg]

Everything from agriculture (above) to search and rescue, mustering and traffic duty, drones are here to stay and helicopters are gone, commercially.

Drones that are sold in the local store come with instructions and lots of assembly pictures and all that is needed is how to tape on the latest compact explosive hooked up to a detonator that can be activated by radio or a simple mobile phone. Islam already has a wealth of experience in detonating things. 

All that is needed now is a train or a plane timetable, where the drone can carry its payload to a railway line or to a flight path. Airline pilots are already reporting drones adjacent to flightpaths. Hmmm, I wonder what they are practising for.

[Image: 5cf11f124b240d4f90f09cff69ebf13d7a5b333d.jpg]

           The Norwegian "Griff 300" weighs 165 pounds but can lift up to 500 pounds so                 you can easily get your mates, lots of grog and grandma, into the footy for free

[Image: c90fbf624a234434d287dab70af234a78818a749.jpg]                                              Kits are available everywhere

There are a lot of terrific railway bridges in Sydney and Melbourne where ungrateful Muslims can send a thousand mainly Australians to their deaths in the Hawkesbury River below. 

[Image: a9bba7dc7fd9e32f919ed55b09ff9ae45b33c78a.jpg]

               The already seriously corroded Hawkesbury Bridge is an easy target

It would make a terrific photo to send to Brussels or al Raqqa and only a small amount of Semtex or C-4 is delivered to the rails approaching the bridge a mere minute before the train, which has no hope of stopping, is due to arrive. High fives all round and back to Lakemba for the celebrations.

[Image: 1c8637203dd613fb7876079ba5d2d759155bc2e7.jpg]

Or camp on Bondi Beach and hover the drone on the flight path to or from Mascot to intersect the next jumbo (departing is much better as the aircraft will be full of fuel as they discovered during 9/11). Or flying one into Parliament House during Question Time would create a few divisions.    

The best part is that the hitherto martyrs are now living, breathing heroes with 72 excited Muslim sheilas eagerly upping their burkahs, or that’s what the blokes reckon. But even if the Muslim sheilas turn out to be a mirage, there are always the shy, mini-skirted, infidel ones who are easily caught.

Australia’s new Homeland Security Force combination may have thwarted the latest Muslim plans for a large airliner, but it can’t thwart what’s to come,
… and they will never catch the perps.
Reply
#33
Parliament House drones on - Rolleyes

Via the other Aunty... Wink :

Quote:Backstory: What happened when the ABC asked to fly a drone inside Parliament House?
By camera operator Greg Nelson
Posted about 8 hours ago
[/url]
[Image: 8780644-3x2-large.jpg?v=3]

A drone films Annabel Crabb walking through Parliament House during the making of The House.

Getting permission to film inside Parliament House is notoriously difficult.

Ask anyone in the Press Gallery about filming or taking pictures anywhere but the most public areas and they'll be able to offer up a tale about the time they ran foul of the Serjeant-at-Arms or the Usher of the Black Rod.

[Image: 8780818-3x2-large.jpg?v=3]

Drone operator Alastair Smith discusses the flight plan with The House production team and Parliament House staff.

It's a testament to the negotiating skills of the team behind the new Annabel Crabb series, The House, that they not only gained access to a majority of the building with documentary film cameras but also a drone.

Take a bow, director Stamatia Maroupas and series producer Madeleine Hawcroft.
Years of planning, constant meetings, approval processes and paperwork eventually led to Australia's Parliament House being opened up like never before.

[Image: 8780862-3x2-large.jpg?v=3]

Flight crew flying a drone inside the Senate chamber.

The result is a six-part series that explores the building, its influence on the political process and the people who work behind the scenes to keep the 'city on the hill' running smoothly.

The building itself is an architectural wonder but it's grandeur is only glimpsed by the public.

So, what better way to gain an appreciation for its scale and design than soaring overhead with a remotely piloted aircraft, or drone.

[Image: 8781340-3x2-large.jpg?v=3]

It took years of planning, meetings and paperwork to get permission to fly a drone and film inside Parliament House.

The series begins with a pre-dawn ritual — the changing of the giant flag atop the House.
It's a strictly controlled process for safety reasons and that meant sending camera operators up the flagpole was simply not viable.

The ARRI cameras and support rigs we used on this shoot weigh between 20 and 25 kilograms. They're big and bulky and almost impossible to safely fit into the small trolley elevator that trundles up one of the flag pole legs.

There's next to no room on the tiny platform where the flag change takes place for filming either so this is where the drone really came into its own.

[Image: 8780920-3x2-large.jpg?v=3]

The view from the drone flying over Parliament House for the first time during filming of The House.

Having an aerial camera system allowed us in one take to go from an intimate close up of the workers riding up in the trolley to a grand vista showing the flag and Parliament House looking resplendent in the sunrise.

It's a breathtaking image that can't be achieved as easily, if indeed at all, by conventional means. Fortunately, Canberra's autumn weather played along too and Capital Hill has rarely looked as spectacular on film.

Whether sweeping overhead, offering a never before seen bird's eye view of the courtyards or treetop-level vistas of the Parliament, the Inspire 1 drone opened up a world of filming possibilities for the series.

[Image: 8781030-3x2-large.jpg?v=3]

The drone in flight inside the House of Representatives. - Drone operator command input to drone - "Go to guns" - Big Grin

Not least of these was the ability to fly and film inside the building.

Long before the aircraft even arrived in Canberra, there was a flurry of meetings and approvals being sent back and forward between the production team, Parliamentary Services, the Heliguy flight crew, AFP (Australian Federal Police), CASA (Civil Aviation Safety Authority) and countless other acronym departments.

Permissions were a long time coming and with the film schedule tightening and the pre-determined flying days locked in, the process was finally completed on the morning of the first flight.

[Image: 8780698-3x2-large.jpg?v=3]

The drone operator took great care to keep a safe distance from the artwork inside Parliament House.

Even with the necessary approvals, strict controls for flying the aircraft inside were still needed. Minimum safety distances had to be maintained, risks to heritage items avoided and areas closed off to staff.

This proved to be quite a challenge with a great number of interested onlookers keen to see what all the excitement was about. The numbers swelled even more when word spread that a drone was actually flying inside the House.

[Image: 8781202-3x2-large.jpg?v=3]

Maintaining a safe distance from people while filming inside Parliament House required some skilful flying, but there was plenty of open space in the Members Hall.

Now, with all this excitement, it's tempting to lay claim to being the first to fly a drone inside Parliament House.

Unfortunately as we discovered, that honour belongs, somewhat ignominiously, to some camera operators from Channel Seven.

One very quiet day, about 10 years ago, they purchased a remote-controlled helicopter, emblazoned it with Channel Seven stickers and flew from the Press Gallery down to the Members Hall.

The whole incident was captured on film and set vaingloriously to Ride of the Valkyries. It was a very different time in the House back then but the video still didn't last long on YouTube.

[Image: 8781392-3x2-large.jpg?v=3]
[url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/about/backstory/television/2017-08-08/flying-a-drone-through-parliament-house/8780500#lightbox-content-lightbox-40]
Giving a new meaning to the term 'crossing the floor' - the view from the drone flying from one side of the Senate chamber to the other.

It's truly a rare privilege that we have been granted on this series.
Access to the staid halls, the grand chambers and the hard-working staff of this building did not come easily.

Capturing it from every angle was essential and flying the drone inside and around Parliament was important to help achieve this.

It's a unique view we may never see on film again.

The House with Annabel Crabb begins at 8:00 pm on ABC and iview.



MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#34
Chester answer to QIW on drones.

Via House Hansard yesterday, Chester actually answers a QIW and makes it sound like he actually know what he is talking about - Huh

Quote:Drones
(Question No. 739)
[Image: DZY.jpg] Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 29 May 2017:

In respect of reported incidences involving drones between 26 May 2015 and 26 May 2017, how many accidents or near-accidents, breaches of privacy or other regulations have been reported (a) over Australian airspace, and (b) over South Australian airspace, © over the airspace of our capital cities including metropolitan (i) Adelaide, (ii) Perth, (iii) Darwin, (iv) Brisbane, (v) Sydney, (vi) Canberra, (vii) Hobart, and (viii) Melbourne, and (d) within a (i) 20, (ii) 15, (iii) 10, and (iv) 5, kilometre radius of the Adelaide Airport.

[Image: IPZ.jpg] Mr Chester: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) collects information on the number of aviation safety occurrences reported in accordance with the mandatory occurrence reporting requirements of the Transport Investigation Act 2003 (TSI Act) and associated aviation safety regulations. The information on occurrences collected by the ATSB is categorised into three types:

Accidents: An occurrence involving an aircraft where: a person dies or suffers serious injury; the aircraft (which includes a drone) is destroyed or seriously damaged; or any property is destroyed or seriously damaged.

Serious Incidents: An incident involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly occurred.

Incidents: An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation and also meets the definition of a 'Transport Safety Matter' in the TSI Act.

Available information on the number of aviation safety related occurrences as requested, is in the table below.

The ATSB has advised that it is currently reviewing the Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems occurrence data for the first half of 2017 and expects to publish updated figures and analysis in August 2017.

Information on incidents that are not aviation safety related, for example, privacy, are a matter for the relevant authority in each state and territory. 

[Image: Untitled_Clipping_080917_032529_PM.jpg]

Source: ATSB National Occurrence Database - detailed data on occurrences involving remotely piloted aircraft for the period 26/5/15 to 26/5/17 (http://data.atsb.gov.au/DetailedData)

1 For the purposes of this response, 'Capital City Airspace' has been defined as Class C and D airspace, which is the controlled airspace and control zones around major airports (Class C) and the controlled airspace and control zones around controlled metropolitan and regional airports (Class D).

2 All 'accidents' reported to the ATSB involved damage to the drone (which is defined as an 'aircraft' for the purposes of this reporting) or other property only. No accidents involved injuries to persons or damage to other aircraft.
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#35
Dear CC - Please explain? L&Ks GS Big Grin

Quote:[Image: DGwaFyHV0AA7BCU.jpg]


(08-09-2017, 03:30 PM)Peetwo Wrote: Chester answer to QIW on drones.

Via House Hansard yesterday, Chester actually answers a QIW and makes it sound like he actually know what he is talking about - Huh

Quote:Drones
(Question No. 739)
[Image: DZY.jpg] Mr Georganas asked the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport, in writing, on 29 May 2017:

In respect of reported incidences involving drones between 26 May 2015 and 26 May 2017, how many accidents or near-accidents, breaches of privacy or other regulations have been reported (a) over Australian airspace, and (b) over South Australian airspace, © over the airspace of our capital cities including metropolitan (i) Adelaide, (ii) Perth, (iii) Darwin, (iv) Brisbane, (v) Sydney, (vi) Canberra, (vii) Hobart, and (viii) Melbourne, and (d) within a (i) 20, (ii) 15, (iii) 10, and (iv) 5, kilometre radius of the Adelaide Airport.

[Image: IPZ.jpg] Mr Chester: The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) collects information on the number of aviation safety occurrences reported in accordance with the mandatory occurrence reporting requirements of the Transport Investigation Act 2003 (TSI Act) and associated aviation safety regulations. The information on occurrences collected by the ATSB is categorised into three types:

Accidents: An occurrence involving an aircraft where: a person dies or suffers serious injury; the aircraft (which includes a drone) is destroyed or seriously damaged; or any property is destroyed or seriously damaged.

Serious Incidents: An incident involving circumstances indicating that an accident nearly occurred.

Incidents: An occurrence, other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft which affects or could affect the safety of operation and also meets the definition of a 'Transport Safety Matter' in the TSI Act.

Available information on the number of aviation safety related occurrences as requested, is in the table below.

The ATSB has advised that it is currently reviewing the Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems occurrence data for the first half of 2017 and expects to publish updated figures and analysis in August 2017.

Information on incidents that are not aviation safety related, for example, privacy, are a matter for the relevant authority in each state and territory. 

[Image: Untitled_Clipping_080917_032529_PM.jpg]

Source: ATSB National Occurrence Database - detailed data on occurrences involving remotely piloted aircraft for the period 26/5/15 to 26/5/17 (http://data.atsb.gov.au/DetailedData)

1 For the purposes of this response, 'Capital City Airspace' has been defined as Class C and D airspace, which is the controlled airspace and control zones around major airports (Class C) and the controlled airspace and control zones around controlled metropolitan and regional airports (Class D).

2 All 'accidents' reported to the ATSB involved damage to the drone (which is defined as an 'aircraft' for the purposes of this reporting) or other property only. No accidents involved injuries to persons or damage to other aircraft.



MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#36
Drone Wars Update: CC warns against using Purdy - Rolleyes

Comardy Capers once again proves how out of touch with reality he and his Fort Fumble minions truly are when it comes to drones, via the Oz: 

Quote:Aviation safety watchdog’s warning to anti-drone vigilantes
[Image: 0b4e56438669a40106216a88eeb41e62?width=650]
’CASA has no interest in discouraging the responsible development and controlled deployment of effective counter-drone technologies’.
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM August 11, 2017
  • [size=undefined]ANNABEL HEPWORTH
    [Image: annabel_hepworth.png]
    Aviation Editor
    Sydney

    @HepworthAnnabel
    [img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/d4b891a093ad6ddc703117011dc4fd61/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
    [/size]

The aviation safety watchdog has warned against “unlawful vigilantism” by people to jam or destroy drones they feel have intruded on them.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has sounded the alarm about sophisticated “counter-drone” technologies used in a “dangerous and unlawful” way in response to drones.

In a discussion paper for a landmark review into drones, CASA says remotely piloted aircraft have been linked to the ­delivery of contraband to prisons, interfering with firefighting operations and encroaching into ­controlled airspace — leading to technologies being developed to thwart drones.

“Understandable though the frustration and indignation of people may be when they believe that their rights have been intruded upon by an irresponsible or malevolent RPA operator, it is important not to encourage­ ­potentially dangerous and unlawful vigilantism,” the discussion paper says.

“The uncontrolled use of counter-drone technology could create more problems than it is ­intended to solve.

“At the same time, however, CASA has no interest in discouraging the responsible development and controlled deployment of effective counter-drone technologies. Such technologies can serve important and beneficial purposes without un­acceptably compromising safety.”

There are concerns drones could be used to invade people’s privacy, including when they are skinny-dipping in backyard pools. It is estimated 50,000 drones are used in Australia as they become cheaper.

The discussion paper canvasses requiring hobbyists to register the devices, including asking for feedback on whether there should be a minium age for ­people to operate drones.

The paper flags the possibility of mandatory training before people fly drones. Also under consideration is “geo-fencing”, which uses GPS or other radio frequencies to exclude drones from certain areas, although there are concerns the technology could itself be a safety risk.

CASA asks for feedback on whether the use of recreational drones should be “prohibited completely until the actual and perceived safety risks they pose has been effectively mitigated”.

The authority’s chief executive, Shane Carmody, also notes that drone technology could ­deliver “a multitude of beneficial humanitarian, economic and recreational applications” and says that commercial opportunities should not be unnecessarily constrained.

Do you think Old MacDonald, from the back of Burke, is going to think twice about blowing a drone out of the air with two barrels from the Purdy, just because Dr A and wingnut Carmody say it is unlawful? - next they'll be saying it is unlawful to be thinking of going flying while under the influence...  Confused  

Meanwhile it is quite legal to be sipping a Chardy heavily under the influence and at the same time operating a drone while at a BBQ in the local park - UDB! Dodgy


MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#37
(08-11-2017, 07:54 AM)Peetwo Wrote: Drone Wars Update: CC warns against using Purdy - Rolleyes

Comardy Capers once again proves how out of touch with reality he and his Fort Fumble minions truly are when it comes to drones, via the Oz: 

Quote:Aviation safety watchdog’s warning to anti-drone vigilantes
[Image: 0b4e56438669a40106216a88eeb41e62?width=650]
’CASA has no interest in discouraging the responsible development and controlled deployment of effective counter-drone technologies’.
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM August 11, 2017
  • [size=undefined]ANNABEL HEPWORTH
    [Image: annabel_hepworth.png]
    Aviation Editor
    Sydney

    @HepworthAnnabel
    [img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/d4b891a093ad6ddc703117011dc4fd61/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
    [/size]

The aviation safety watchdog has warned against “unlawful vigilantism” by people to jam or destroy drones they feel have intruded on them.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has sounded the alarm about sophisticated “counter-drone” technologies used in a “dangerous and unlawful” way in response to drones...

Do you think Old MacDonald, from the back of Burke, is going to think twice about blowing a drone out of the air with two barrels from the Purdy, just because Dr A and wingnut Carmody say it is unlawful? - next they'll be saying it is unlawful to be thinking of going flying while under the influence...  Confused  

Meanwhile it is quite legal to be sipping a Chardy heavily under the influence and at the same time operating a drone while at a BBQ in the local park - UDB! Dodgy

Update: Via Oz Flying & FF.

Quote:[Image: ARCAA-Quadrotor.jpg]CASA is seeking feedback on how to regulate drones such as this quadrotor. (Australian Research Centre for Aerospace Automation)

CASA seeks Comments on Drone Regulation
11 August 2017

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority today released a discussion paper reviewing regulation of drone operations in Australia.

DP1708OS is part of a review started in June to review CASA's approach to regulating Remotely-Piloted Aircraft (RPA) operations, and canvasses several topics and options including registration, experience and training, geo-fencing and counter-drone technology.

According to CASA CEO and Director of Aviation Safety Shane Carmody, the rise of drone use has presented National Aviation Authorities around the world with similar issues to those encountered in Australia.

"Globally, aviation safety regulators are facing the same kinds of challenges: to maintain high levels of safety without unnecessarily impeding progress or unduly constraining commercial opportunities to use a technology capable of a multitude of beneficial humanitarian, economic and recreational applications," he said in his foreword to the DP.
...

"I recognise the need for existing aviation safety requirements to be reviewed, critically assessed and updated in response to emerging risks, new technologies, international regulatory developments, and the advice and views from other government, industry and community stakeholders. Therefore I look forward to [the] responses to this discussion paper."

The CASA RPA review is different to the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport (RRAT) inquiry into the safe use of drones, but CASA expects the outcome of their review will provide information to that inquiry.
DP1708OS is available for download from the CASA website.

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/lates...SpzoDEs.99

&..

Discussion paper - review of RPAS operations (DP 1708OS)

Closes 22 Sep 2017
Opened 11 Aug 2017
Contact
RPAS Branch

131 757
regulatoryconsultation@casa.gov.au

Overview

Australia was one of the first countries in the world to introduce legislation governing the operation of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), commonly referred to as drones. Part 101 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) was introduced in 2002 in response to the need for an effective regulatory framework within which the development of this rapidly evolving technology could progress without compromising the safety of other airspace users and people and property on the ground.

Since that time the RPA sector in Australia, as elsewhere in the world, has experienced enormous growth, driven by advancements in technology that continue to fuel commercial and recreational consumer demand, while providing easier access to increasingly sophisticated devices at relatively low cost. As of 24 July 2017 there were 5,870 remotely piloted aircraft licence (RePL) holders and 1,106 remotely piloted aircraft operator’s certificate (ReOC) holders in Australia. The vast majority of RPA owners and operators are recreational users who require neither a RePL nor a ReOC. It is estimated that there are at least 50,000 drones being operated in Australia today, mostly for sport and recreational purposes.

Globally, aviation safety regulators are facing the same kinds of challenges: to maintain high levels of safety without unnecessarily impeding progress or unduly constraining commercial opportunities to use a technology capable of a multitude of beneficial humanitarian, economic and recreational applications. Responding to these challenges, CASA introduced important amendments to the regulations that took effect in September 2016.

Why We Are Consulting

While reducing the regulatory burden on some commercial uses of RPA, the regulations continue to require all drone operators to comply with the basic safety requirements set out in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and the regulations. In fact, the recent amendments to Part 101 of CASR included a set of generally applicable standard operating conditions designed to enhance the high level of safety already provided under the existing rules. The Notice of Final Rule Making for these amendments is expected to be released shortly.

We recognise, of course, that departures from these requirements—deliberate or unintentional—can heighten those risks, and that effective action to address, and where possible to prevent, such departures is essential. To that end, CASA has continued with a major education program about the safe and compliant operation of RPAs. CASA’s drone safety awareness campaign is estimated to have reached more than a million people through our social media channels. It also includes targeted advertising through other media to explain the regulations for recreational and sub-2kg (very small) RPA users.

I recognise the ongoing need for existing aviation safety requirements to be reviewed, critically assessed and updated in response to emerging risks, new technologies, international regulatory developments, and the advice and views from other Government, industry and community stakeholders. Therefore, I look forward to your responses to this discussion paper.

I appreciate your commitment in time and effort in providing comments on these important issues, and I thank you in advance for your contributions.
 
Shane Carmody
Chief Executive Officer and
Director of Aviation Safety

 
 
A copy of the discussion paper is provided below. You can read it on this screen using the scroll bar or save it to your computer using the popup options. 
 
Provide your feedback
Online Survey
Related



MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#38
Oz Flying..

"CASA's discussion paper on drone regulation is now ready for industry comments. This may be just a fringe issue to many of us who are still struggling with AirVenture, Part 61, rising rents, SIDs and every other spear in the side that is depleting our lifeblood at the moment, but you can bet it's very important to the drone community, which I have no doubt will be pouring feedback into CASA. If the general aviation community takes a stand-off approach to this, then the feedback from the drone people is all they will have. It's probably a critical enough issue for general aviation to take notice and speak up, or we certainly won't be listened to on this topic in the future."


In a nutshell - time for a recreational GA summit. Sort it out then act as one. Lead or follow, but don't get under anyone's feet.
Reply
#39
Drone Wars in a parallel hemisphere - Rolleyes

Via Twitter today:

Quote:Someone flew a drone into a Gatwick Airport flight path and caused hours of delays - see the chaos here.







P2 - To view click on the tube in YouTube... Wink

Via Business Insider:

This map shows the chaos that ensues when a drone flies too close to an airport



A new data visualisation has shown the scale of the disruption caused when a drone gets too close to a major airport.


Footage generated from flight path data shows planes struggling to land at Gatwick on July 2 this year, when air traffic controllers stopped all take-offs and landings because of a drone sighting.

Dozens of flights were delayed, and some redirected entirely because of the closure. The footage, generated from raw data by air traffic monitor NATS, shows how pre-determined holding patterns near the runway quickly filled and then overflowed.

Further flights, shown in orange, were directed to a larger holding route near Southampton, while planes running low on fuel (shown in red) left for other airports.
Even though the runway was only closed for 14 minutes in total (once for nine minutes, then for another five after a second sighting), the drone sighting had knock-on consequences which lasted far longer.

Produced by David Ibekwe
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#40
Drone Wars Update - Rolleyes

Via the Oz:
Quote:Drone safety risks spark calls for tougher training
[img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/d4b891a093ad6ddc703117011dc4fd61/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]Calls for more stringent training of drone operators have emerged after Australia’s national aviation safety investigator renewed warnings that the surge in the gadgets poses an emerging transport safety risk.

This comes as the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has reduced its forecast for the number of incidents or near encounters involving drones for this year.

In a new analysis, the ATSB finds that despite a surge in safety incidents related to remotely piloted aircraft systems between 2012 and 2016, the number during the first half of this year has been below expectations.

“The number of reported RPAS-related safety occurrences increased significantly in 2016 compared to previous years,” the report says.

“Contrary to previous assessments, this appears to have levelled off significantly until mid-2017, with the total number of occurrences forecast to be similar to 2016 numbers.”
But the body qualifies its forecasts as “indicative only”, saying the uncertainty involved means “they are not intended to be accurate predictions”.

UAVAIR general manager Ashley Cox said he wanted to see more standard safety requirements for drones.

“The reality is that drone operators want to protect their industry from cowboys coming into the market,” Mr Cox said.

[img=558x366]http://cdn.thinglink.me/api/image/954619972892491778/1024/10/scaletowidth#tl-954619972892491778;1043138249'[/img]

He said operators “want the training standards to be lifted, they want the compliance requirements to be audited and maintained, because they are really concerned that the guy down the road having an accident could ­affect their ability to be on a worksite.”

The findings come as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority conducts a landmark review into drones in which it is considering requiring hobbyists to register the devices, mandatory training before people can fly drones and the use of “geo-fencing” to exclude drones from certain areas.

The ATSB says the number of drones could double this year from last year.

So far, there have been no midair collisions between drones and piloted aircraft. But the new research points to recent work for the British Department of Transport and Military Aviation Authority that found even a 400g quadcopter could cause critical damage to a helicopter tail rotor.

That study found a standard plane windscreens could tolerate being struck by a drone at typical landing speeds.

At higher speeds, being hit by a 4kg quadcopter would cause complete structural failure of the windscreen.
&.. yesterday:
Quote:Drone reforms needed to protect privacy

[Image: 2f64d0ef76376939ac7a30f58fcc9888?width=650]Drones pose a threat to privacy.
  • David Hodgkinson, Rebecca Johnston
  • The Australian
  • 12:00AM August 17, 2017
[url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/drone-reforms-needed-to-protect-privacy/news-story/eb161ab7d08e8af72faeeaea8a8b2740#comments][/url]
Rapid technological developments have made drones far more accessible and widely used recreationally and commercially. As a result, drones pose a serious threat to personal privacy.

Serious invasions of privacy range from inadvertent surveillance and collection of personal information through photographs to criminal conduct such as stalking. The Australian Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim, has said that the community is becoming more aware and concerned about drone use and its associated privacy risks.

The Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority is Australia’s aviation safety regulator but its responsibility is limited to aviation safety; drone privacy issues do not fall within its purview. It will not investigate breaches of privacy.

The Office of the Australian Information Commission is the Australian government agency primarily responsible for privacy. Individuals covered by the Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988 can make complaints to the OAIC.

However, drone privacy is only protected to a limited extent at the federal, state and territory levels. The Privacy Act is the primary statute that regulates privacy in Australia. However, there are issues in terms of its application to the regulation of drones.

First, it predominantly focuses on protecting the appropriate handling of ‘‘personal information’’ contained in a record rather than behavioural privacy protection. This has been acknowledged by Dr Roger Clark from the Australian Privacy Foundation. The Privacy Act only applies where drones collect footage containing identifying information.

More significantly, the Privacy Act only regulates Australian government agencies and some private sector organisations. Commissioner Pilgrim has recognised that drones operated by individuals are not subject to privacy laws. Small businesses with an annual turnover of less than $3 million are also largely unregulated, which poses serious problems.

The increasing availability of low-cost drones means that in practice, drones are, and will be, largely operated by individuals and small businesses. Current privacy laws do not provide overarching protection to Australians; there is no avenue of redress if harm occurs in these circumstances.

Some states and territories have enacted privacy laws. However, these also generally apply only to government agency activities.

Further, anti-stalking laws only apply in limited circumstances. For example, in Queensland, it is illegal to record someone without their consent if they are in a private place or conducting a private act.

Tort law provides limited protection where drones trespass or injure a person or property.
Some states and territories regulate the public use of surveillance devices. The scope of these laws, and their application to drones, varies considerably between jurisdictions. In Western Australia, inadvertent recording of private behaviour that occurs through lawful aerial photography is exempt.

Tasmanian and Queensland legislation only protects against devices that make audio recordings. Other states’ laws are also concerned with visual recordings.

Privacy laws in Australia are deficient in protecting against the invasive use of drones. Surveillance and tort laws do not aid in addressing this deficiency.

There have been persistent calls for privacy law reform, and change is required. In the 2014 Eyes in the Sky report, the Commonwealth House of Representatives standing committee warned that drones have the potential to pose a serious threat to the privacy of Australians by intruding — intentionally or inadvertently — on private personal or business activities.

The standing committee recommended — as did the Australian Law Reform Commission that same year — the reform of laws on harassment and stalking by introducing a tort of privacy for unreasonable interference in private spaces. This would address interruption of privacy and misuse of personal information.

The Law Reform Commission proposed that this tort of privacy should only apply to serious invasions of privacy in order to balance the right to privacy with freedom of expression, open justice, and national security. Commissioner Pilgrim said this should be achieved by extending the existing privacy complaint framework to actions by individuals where there are serious invasions of privacy.

Commissioner Pilgrim additionally suggested developing Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) with respect to drone use. Registered APP codes are binding and provide industries already covered by the Privacy Act with additional rules for handling personal information. Where there is non-compliance, entities covered by APP codes are subject to all regulatory powers available in the Privacy Act.

In 2014, the standing committee recognised that it is imperative to amend privacy laws to more adequately address drone privacy issues. To date, however, there has been no such amendment.

In December last year, the Australian government rejected the standing committee’s suggestion of a new tort of privacy. The government considered that it would increase the regulatory burden and that it is sufficient for individuals covered by the Privacy Act to report to the OAIC.

Developments in technology and the vastly increasing use of drones present serious privacy issues. Without more comprehensive regulation, Australia’s privacy protections will remain insufficient to balance drone use and the privacy of citizens.

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


MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#41
DW1 29 August 2017 - D-Day: Battle of the three stooges - Rolleyes  

A week today is slated for the Drone Wars Inquiry to take evidence from the three stooges:

Quote:29 Aug 2017 Canberra, ACT: Program - [Image: pdf.png]  Submissions - [Image: pdf.png]


[Image: DW1-29-Aug-2017.jpg]
So morning tea and scones with Sterlo & Barry O taking on the aviation safety 'shiny bum' bureaucrats, at the RRAT Committee OK corral - Big Grin

Quote:Senator STERLE: Let me help you out, Mr Carmody. This is my take on it: CASA was going to water down the regulations to make it easier. If it had not been for this committee, it would have just sailed through nice and quietly. I reckon this is just a yank on the chain—oh, my goodness me, the minister has come to you guys. CASA has an incredible power over ministers. You must have some fairy dust that you sprinkle on them, because they all believe every word that you say. The minister was put under the pump and so you say, 'Okay, minister, will do an inquiry. She'll be right. Go and announce it.' You have not even done the terms of reference and you are trying to tell us that it is going to be done in a couple of months. I have no faith in you.

Mr Carmody : The inquiry will be undertaken. We said it would be undertaken, and it will be undertaken.

Senator STERLE: You said that on 10 October, too.

Mr Carmody : I did not say that then.

Senator STERLE: No, you didn't, but CASA did. You got the minister to say it.

Mr Carmody : The minister announced the inquiry on the 10th.

Senator STERLE: The fairy dust was working well; it is still working well. Let me put this to you very quickly. I have got an article here from the New Zealand Herald from 23 May—fancy that, today. This is a good segue because Senator Fawcett would know this mob, I assume. The New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association are really concerned. They said:

Our current methods—the CAA and Airshare websites and brochures which come with RPAS bought at New Zealand retail outlets—are not reaching enough RPAS users.

They are obviously in front of us. They have done this. I do not know how long they have been doing it. It goes on to say:

The New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association says urgent action is needed.

That is the pilots, not shiny-bums sitting in committee hearings being senators or bureaucrats. But then it goes down here to a paragraph. This is what the pilots' association said:





Quote:CHAIR:They have the RPS encounters—108 occurrences.

Mr Carmody : So 108 were reported over a period of—?

CHAIR: One year.

Mr Carmody : But, again, it is a question of how many of those were confirmed. Without the context—

CHAIR: Oh, Mr Carmody!

Senator STERLE:  Help me out. My nephew is at 11,000 feet south of Perth. Zappo! One goes flying in front of him. He straightaway puts in a complaint to the ATSB. I am not blaming the ATSB. There is no registration plate. What do you mean confirmation? My nephew is not bullshitting.

Mr Carmody : I mean confirmation that what the pilot saw was a drone, or a glider or a bird. Obviously if it zips past the windscreen, as you say, then the pilot has seen what he has seen.

Senator STERLE:  So is that a confirmation?

Mr Carmody : If it was some distance away, is my point. How far away was it?

Senator STERLE:  You are starting to annoy me now, Mr Carmody. You are really starting to annoy me now. What a load of crap!
 Confused
Mr Carmody: Was it two kilometres away? Was it—

CHAIR: That does not matter. They have reported occurrences from 2012 to 2016. They have referred to them as an 'occurrence', not a report—occurrences which involved proximity encounters with manned aircraft. There were 108 of them last year, in the year 2016. Since then their same report says that the number of drones will double by the end of 2017. We can assume that 108 occurrences could go to 216. That is an acceptable level? Let's assume that for a minute. Is that an acceptable level, Mr Carmody?

Mr Carmody: I do not believe it is an acceptable level. I do not know what an acceptable level is. But I said that this is a question of people reporting that they have seen something versus something being close enough to cause damage or cause a problem to an aircraft.

CHAIR: Senator Fawcett. I do not want to hear from you anymore, Mr Carmody.
Confused





MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#42
DW1 29/08/17 update.

To watch events from 9am tomorrow see here -  Wink

In the meantime here is an article from the Canberra Times yesterday:

Quote:August 27 2017

ATSB revises mid-air drone incident forecast to stable, despite fears of it doubling

[Image: 1472273878056.jpg]
Andrew Brown

The number of mid-air incidents involving drones in Australia is expected to remain stable this year, despite earlier predictions they would double from 2016 figures.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has revised its forecast of near misses between drones and planes in its most recent analysis, allaying fears of a dramatic increase in 2017.

[Image: 1503628329613.jpg] It was predicted the number of mid-air incidents involving drones would double in 2017, but that figure has since been revised. Photo: UNSW  

Between January and June this year, an average of 8.5 mid-air incidents per month were reported to the bureau.

The figure represents a drop from the national average of 11.9 incidents per month between July and December 2016.

Related Articles The analysis was submitted by the bureau as part of its submission to a senate committee into regulations surrounding drones. A public hearing will be held in Canberra on August 29.

The ATSB will appear before the committee as well as the Australian Airports Association, Airservices Australia and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

Figures submitted by the bureau show there have been 242 mid-air drone incidents since 2012,  and more than half of these occurred between July 2016 and June 2017.

The bureau's submission also details how a Virgin flight almost collided with a drone during its approach to Brisbane Airport in late July, forcing other flights to be diverted.

[Image: 1503628329613.jpg] The ATSB has revealed a drone came close to colliding with a Virgin flight on approach to Brisbane Airport. Photo: Glenn Hunt  

"The crew of a Virgin Embraer 190 reported that at 4100 feet on approach to Brisbane Airport they passed a [drone] at cockpit height between the fuselage and the wingtip," the submission said.

"Following this, a Qantas Boeing 737 elected to track five nautical miles off-track to avoid the area."

An investigation was not launched by the ATSB as the drone operator was unable to be identified.

Australian aviation groups have expressed concern in their submissions to the committee of the potential for mid-air collisions between planes and drones.

Australian Airports Association chief executive Caroline Wilkie said in the body's submission that with more people using drones, many weren't aware of restrictions around spaces like airports.

"There is a significant growing risk that aviation safety could be significantly compromised if there is not suitable regulatory oversight of [drones],"  she said.

"It is unlikely that hobbyists will have the required depth of knowledge to understand the potential safety hazards posed by inappropriate use of drones."

The association has recommended that all users of drones heavier than 250 grams should be registered with CASA.

Other recommendations include safety-parameter software to monitor height and distance be installed on all drones heavier than 2 kilograms.

Public awareness campaigns of drone regulations undertaken by CASA have also been proposed.

Current regulations set out by CASA restrict drone users to fly above 120 metres, and must not fly at night or within 30 metres of other people or above populous areas.

With the number of drone users increasing, so too have the number of complaints about them in residential areas, with CASA receiving at least one complaint per week from Canberra residents.

CASA stated in its submission more regulations  were needed in the growing industry to support "previously unforeseen applications of drone technology" such as aerial home delivery.



MTF...P2  Cool
Reply
#43
DW1 29/08/17 today: One Nation in strife again -  Confused  


From the Senate Inquiry today:





And via SBS:
Quote:Regulator promises to investigate ‘illegal’ One Nation drone flight over Parliament House

(Go to link above for SBS video segment)
EXCLUSIVE: CASA will look into whether a drone flight by One Nation chief of staff James Ashby breached aviation rules.
By 
James Elton-Pym
 
1 HOUR AGO 


Australia’s aviation regulator has promised to investigate a potentially illegal drone flight over Parliament House that was used to film material for a Pauline Hanson video on Facebook, a Senate inquiry has heard.

The video was posted to the One Nation leader’s Facebook page in June and includes aerial shots from above an oval next to Parliament House.

Vision uploaded to the page shows Senator Hanson’s chief of staff James Ashby piloting a drone.

Representatives from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority were questioned on the regulation of remote-control aircraft by a Senate committee on Tuesday.

[Image: pauline_7.jpg?itok=FRlFLCgD]

“If I have footage of a drone floating over Parliament House... what would you do?” Labor senator Glenn Sterle asked the CASA staff.


“This is the kind of thing we would investigate,” replied Dr Jonathan Aleck, CASA’s head of legal affairs.

The senator then asked how he could lodge an official complaint about the One Nation shoot.  

“We will take that request, Senator, and have it investigated,” CASA chief Shane Carmody replied. “I will take it as a formal complaint and request for investigation.”

The regulator said any flight over Parliament House would fall foul of the CASA rules.

“Parliament House is within the control zone of Canberra Airport so that operation is in fact not appropriate,” Dr Aleck said.

Senator Sterle asked if that meant the flight may be “illegal”, to which Dr Aleck said “yep”.

A smartphone app called 'Can I Fly There'released by CASA allows drone pilots to check drone no-fly zones on a map.

The app confirms Parliament House is within the exclusion zone around Canberra Airport.

[Image: parlyhousezone.jpg?itok=q6cXsDvf]

A CASA spokesman told SBS World News the regulator had been aware of the Parliament House flight for some time.

Mr Carmody said he was not sure if an investigation was already underway. “I was under the impression we might have already, but I would like to look at it and see whether in fact we have,” Mr Carmody said.

SBS World News has contacted Mr Ashby, who flew the drone, for a response.

[Image: 29-08-2017_12-44-59_pm.jpg?itok=F6pn--x6]

Townsville drone flight investigation is complete

The regulator confirmed it had also concluded its investigation into Senator Hanson flying a drone from a hotel balcony in Townsville.

CASA would not disclose whether any warning or fine had been imposed.
The matter was discussed with the Senate committee in private, with media not allowed to enter.


& from ZDNet:

Quote:CASA to work with DJI on suitability of drone 'bubble' technology in Australia


Australia's civil aviation authority has been asked by a Senate committee to involve DJI in talks regarding geofencing consumer drone devices.

[Image: headshot-asha-mclean-for-zd.jpg]
By Asha McLean | August 29, 2017 -- 06:59 GMT (16:59 AEST) |

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has been instructed by a Senate committee to contact Chinese drone giant DJI to ascertain whether its Geospatial Environment Online (GEO) technology is suitable in an Australian climate.

Geofencing essentially creates a virtual geographic boundary around an area using GPS or RFID technology. The software triggers a response when a mobile device enters or leaves the area, and prevents users of drones, as one example, from entering an area they are prohibited.

Addressing the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on Tuesday, CEO and Director of Aviation Safety at CASA Shane Carmody said that geofencing -- or creating a bubble around -- a drone is something the regulatory body is keen to explore.

"If limiting a bubble around a drone is technically feasible and does mature to become that way, it is certainly a way that you could -- one of the methods you could use -- to control drones and manage some elements of the risk," Carmody told the committee, although he isn't sure the technology is as mature as advertised by the likes of DJI.

He said that while the technology sounds both logical and sensible, the jury is out as to whether it is at the level that would allow CASA to mandate its use on Australian drone users.

"They're a big marketer of drones and they're trying to stay the biggest -- or get bigger," he said, highlighting the commercial mindset DJI has with regards to its GEO technology.
"We will certainly consider it."

Although committee member David Fawcett instructed CASA to make contact with DJI regarding the suitability of the company's technology, Scott Duffy, Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems team leader at CASA, explained his organisation was already planning discussions with DJI in regards to bringing its GEO technology to Australia.

DJI's GEO technology limits flights in locations that raise safety or security concerns and does not allow the feature to be unlocked when drones are flown within sensitive national-security locations.

GEO is currently available in the United Arab Emirates, Canada, the United States, Mexico, and 13 countries within Europe.

The Senate committee is charged with discussing the regulatory requirements that impact on the safe use of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), and associated systems in Australia.

Facing the committee's probe earlier on Tuesday, Greg Hood, chief commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau, said his organisation is "highly in favour" of having the name, telephone number, and address of the owner forcibly required on consumer-used drones.

"Should we have mid-air collisions, we know who the owner is," he said.

Hood noted there are 1,050 registered drone operators in Australia; however, committee member and Liberal National Party Senator Barry O'Sullivan likened drone ownership to firearms, and said the number provided was likely way off the actual total.

60 year-old O'Sullivan, who referred to a drone as a piece of tin throughout Tuesday's proceedings, would prefer a model that sees RPA operators subject to similar rigmarole that an aircraft pilot is.

"You're operating a piece of tin up there. Why shouldn't we say, until you meet all the standards of an operator of the tin in the air -- that is a pilot -- I'm not inclined to give people these toys because they're not toys," he said.

"Make them have medical tests, make them be trained, make their competency be regularly tested, make sure they understand meteorology, make sure they understand aviation and air traffic controls.

"All the things we force a young pilot ... who want to fly the other piece of tin."

According to O'Sullivan, an operator of an RPA has less control over the device than a pilot of an aircraft does because they can't turn their neck to see what's around their device.

Fawcett said there is a risk involved in allowing those that aren't trained in aviation techniques to be legally allowed to put their consumer device in the way of a fixed-winged aircraft.

He is concerned the exposure to other aviation users could be harmful, especially when a pilot is trained to avoid collision.

As of September 2016, commercial operators of "very small remotely piloted aircraft" are no longer required to obtain a number of regulatory approvals to fly their UAVs under regulations approved by the Australian government the April prior.

Under the changes, the government also gave the directive to drop the terms "drone" and "UAV" and replace them with RPA to align itself with International Civil Aviation Organization terminology.

The changes apply to RPA used in commercial operations weighing less than 2 kilograms maximum take-off weight. Under the rules, drone operators need to notify CASA that they intend to fly their aircraft and adhere to a set of standard operating conditions, which include flying only during the day within a visual line of sight, below 120 metres; keeping more than 30 metres away from other people; flying more than 5.5 kilometres from controlled aerodromes; and not operating near emergency situations.

MTF...P2 Cool
Reply
#44
Drones are the beezneez for Surf LifeSavers - Wink

Courtesy of ZDNet's Asha McLean:

Quote:Westpac Little Ripper drones to patrol beaches in Queensland
Shark detection and rescue drones will patrol some of Queensland's busiest beaches this summer to assist lifeguards.
[Image: headshot-asha-mclean-for-zd.jpg]
By Asha McLean | August 31, 2017 -- 04:18 GMT (14:18 AEST) | Topic: Innovation

[Image: little-ripper-westpac-drone.jpg]
Westpac Little Ripper Life Saver Vapor 55 unmanned helicopter
Image: Little Ripper

Drones will back up Queensland lifeguards for the first time this summer as they work to save swimmers at some of the state's busiest beaches.

The Westpac Little Ripper Life Saver will be deployed on the Sunshine Coast and at North Stradbroke Island from the end of September as part of a trial with Surf Life Saving Queensland.

Another two will be based at Surfers Paradise and Cairns from the end of November.

The bank-backed initiative operates a suite of single and multi rotor unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), capable of long range deployment for fast search and rescue operations.

The Ripper Group's Ben Trollope said the drones, which can detect sharks and release a floating device into the water below, would not change the role of lifesavers but provide them with another tool to help save lives.

Trollope expects the UAVs will primarily be used during emergencies, as they come equipped with speakers, cameras, and an inflatable rescue device that could be lowered into the water.

"The You Little Beauty is a three-metre inflation device that will keep four grown men afloat for 24 hours without manual inflation," Trollope told AAP. "It's not so much changing lifesaving, more so giving lifesavers another tool."

The drones have been trialled on beaches in New South Wales and Trollope said the plan is to equip each of Australia's 365 surf lifesaving clubs with the technology.

Westpac announced its sponsorship of the trial of the autonomous UAVs for search and rescue in February last year, building on the bank's sponsorship of the Westpac Life Saver Rescue Helicopter Services.

In the state's north, Townsville MP Scott Stewart said in November he wanted the Queensland Police Force to look into the use of drone technology in an effort to curb what he called a crime crisis.

"What I've been trying to do is look at as many different solutions as possible, and cutting-edge drone technology is so much cheaper than a police helicopter," Stewart said at the time. "We need to use the technology now and in the future to fight crime, not costly and old technology like helicopters."

Earlier that month, the state government amended legislation to allow farmers to use drones to spray their crops.

The changes to the Act, and the regulations that underpin it, are expected to give Queensland farmers access to the most "innovative aerial spraying technology" available.

The legislation also requires that UAV spraying operations are only performed by pilots who are authorised by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and hold qualifications that demonstrate a suitable level of chemical application competency.

The Queensland government announced a AU$1 million investment in remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) technology in July 2016, expected to benefit the LNG, agriculture, mining, energy, telecommunications, search and rescue, and environmental management industries.

In addition to the cash injection, the state government partnered with aerospace giant The Boeing Company, in conjunction with Boeing subsidiary Insitu Pacific, Shell's QGC project, and Telstra, to further the drone research.

"The project aims to capitalise on the capabilities inherent in drones to carry out remote-monitoring and inspection of key infrastructure and data analysis to allow for better decision-making," Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk said at the time.

As of September last year, commercial operators of "very small remotely piloted aircraft" were no longer required to obtain a number of regulatory approvals to fly their unmanned vehicles under new regulations approved by the Australian government.

The changes apply to drones used in commercial operations weighing less than 2 kilograms maximum take-off weight. Under the new rules, drone operators need to notify CASA that they intend to fly their aircraft, and adhere to a set of standard operating conditions including flying only during the day within a visual line of sight, below 120 metres; keeping more than 30 metres away from other people; flying more than 5.5 kilometres from controlled aerodromes; and not operating near emergency situations.

Facing the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee on Tuesday, CEO and Director of Aviation Safety at CASA Shane Carmody was instructed to look into geographic boundary technology to determine if creating a GPS-based "bubble" around a consumer drone was an effective method of keeping the devices out of harmful situations or no-fly zones.
 
MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply
#45
Silence, the stern reply.

Ain’t ‘drones’ great. I was reading about the Life Savers and the on going Westpac support for that great organisation, the use of drones on our crowded city beaches is a brilliant application of a useful working tool. Then I note that ATSB have embraced the system, another great application; both operations becoming more efficient and effective. All done properly, legal, sane and sensible. How good is that? How could any pilot have a quarrel with those applications, would you even think there was a risk of being clipped by the Westpac or ATSB units; of course not.

It is so simple; get a drone, get qualified, follow the code and the risks to other users of air space are reduced to a very acceptable level. It begs the question though; why can’t the Senate committee get a ‘straight’ answer to their questions? Honestly; I’ve sat here for a couple of hours now, listening to and watching the latest ‘discussions’ between the committee and the agencies; and, to be fair the Senators are much better informed and have more ‘innovative’ ideas than any of the ‘expert’ agencies. The questions posed are ducked, the scenario’s presented seem beyond the imagination of the ‘experts’ and the answers are provided in such a defensive manner that you have to wonder just what, in the seven hells the agencies are thinking with.

There where, during the session, several valid, sensible, realistic ‘options’ presented by the committee, which –had they been treated as a ‘discussion’ topic, could have resulted in a ‘good’ debate; maybe not too many solutions, but the topics could have been expanded, ‘explored’ and discussed. Who knows, maybe the germ of a workable solution could have been found. But no, the stone wall defences are raised and the ‘debate’ withers on the vine.    

Take O’Sullivan’s ‘big’ question – the one that really needs to be answered as it reflects a ‘philosophical’ basis for generating a rule set. The question posed was simple enough – to paraphrase – “Why must pilots undergo training, checking and licencing while ‘drone’ users do not?” Now it’s a fair question, but the silence of response was deafening. The question (IMO) goes to the very heart of the situation. We are not concerned about Hoody’s drone whizzing about – we are unconcerned about the Westpac Life Savers unit patrolling the beaches; nor are we concerned about any of the licenced operators using ‘drones’ carefully, correctly and sensibly. They simply are not a problem.

There is no use in looking to the agencies for ‘solutions’; but there was David Fawcett, presenting sensible, ‘do-able’ solutions. Did any one of the agencies enter into the spirit of discussion, argue the case against his solution; or, offer to explore ways and means; or, even humbly suggest a better way to approach the ‘problem’? No; is the short answer, they did not. Now we must ask why. Why is there no innovation, imagination or solutions being offered by our expensive, ‘expert’ agencies.  

If the agencies can’t sort it out, double quick and get ahead of the game, then we heading toward the O’Sullivan worst case, scary scenario – where he uses the example of 50,000 guns released, un licenced and unregistered. It may be ‘politically’ unpopular to enforce ‘safety’ rules and requirements, But so is scraping body parts off city buildings when a Police or Ambulance helicopter tail rotor is destroyed by an unauthorised, unlicensed, untrained thrill seeker.

“The burden” of the questions has not been responded to in any meaningful way. This is no where near good enough; is it?  

The whole session is – HERE – for your consideration.  

Toot – toot….
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)