[Peetwo]

Binger on Submission 11 VIPA (PDF 251 KB) & 34 Qantas Group (PDF 275 KB) -

Via the Oz today:

Drone law ‘may spur collisions’
12:00amMITCHELL BINGEMANN
Pilots from Qantas and Virgin say easing the rules around drones could lead to collisions with passenger jets.

Pilots from Qantas and Virgin Australia have hit out at laws that deregulate the commercial operation of remotely piloted aircraft, saying the rule relaxation could lead to a collision between drones and passenger planes.

The warnings come as a Senate committee investigating the safety implications of the new rules — allowing commercial operators to fly without a licence drones weighing less than 2kg — received close to 70 submissions.

In its submission, Qantas chief pilot Richard Tobiano said the airline feared increasing numbers of untrained and uneducated drone pilots could jeopardise the airline’s operations.

“The Qantas group remains concerned by the prospect of a collision between an RPA (remotely piloted aircraft) … and an aircraft, particularly within the vicinity of airports. Against this context, it would be opportune for the airline industry to confirm best-practice processes in managing the ramifications of an ­incident ahead of time,” he said.

Mr Tobiano, as well as chief ­pilots from Jetstar and QantasLink, said it was imperative that law enforcement agencies and regulators collaborate to identify and prosecute rogue pilots who flout regulations and put aircraft and people’s safety at risk.

“As with lasers and model rockets, this regime should involve education of — and strategic and tactical co-ordination between — state and federal law enforcement agencies, local ­government and CASA (Civil Aviation Safety Authority).

“Critically, it must also include a comprehensive suite of offence provisions and penalties to ­ensure general and specific deterrence,” said Mr Tobiano.

Qantas provided computer simulations with its submission showing that while significant damage to an engine would occur following a drone collision, such an ingestion would be unlikely to result in a serious incident. However, the airline said a drone collision would still pose a “significant source of risk to aircraft operations.” “Given the combustibility of some batteries and the ingestion of the device itself, the ­damage that such an impact would cause to a turbine engine and/or to an aircraft full of ­passengers and fuel could be very significant,” Qantas said.

Under the recently relaxed rules, from September 29, commercial operators flying drones under 2kg no longer need approvals. The amendments still will ­require operators to obey standard flight rules, which are not to fly within 5.5km of an airport, not above 400 feet, not within 30m of buildings, railways or vehicles, and to always have visual line of sight of the drone.

But the amended rules mean drone operators can fly into controlled airspace as long as they are 5.5km away from airports.

Pilots from Virgin Australia’s union, VIPA, also warned of the risk that deregulating the commercial operation of drones weighing less than 2kg could pose to passenger jets.

“Launching a drone close to an airport, particularly in proximity to an uncontrolled aerodrome, exposes aircraft (which are often jet powered) to the risk of collision which could result in substantial damage, loss of control and potentially, loss of life,” said VIPA president John Lyons.

“Collision with an UAV could be considerably more dangerous than striking a bird.”

According to the Australian Airline Pilots’ Association — which represents more than 5000 professional pilots — there have been more than 160 sightings in the past year of drones in airspace that should be free of any collision risk. “By way of illustration of what we might expect in the future, albeit from the admittedly much larger US market, the FAA now receives about 100 reports a month from pilots who say they’ve seen drones flying near aircraft and airports, compared with only a few sightings per month last year,” the association said.

“It allows virtually uncontrolled recreational operation and minimal control of commercial operations of the sub-2kg category and, while there are rules in place, there is no requirement for training, licensing or registration of these RPAs, many of which are capable of operation at high speed and at considerable height.”

MTF...P2