[Peetwo]

Drone deaf and bone idle.

Has anyone actually sat down and read; I mean really read the 2013 ‘model’ on which CASA based their rule set – 101.  I find the ‘101’ descriptor amusing; for indeed it is.  I expect I could rattle on about this ‘model’, produce logical argument and drag out the many flaws; those which would add fuel to the Senators little pyre. But not today. The Senators have people of wit and intelligence on tap – what I will do is give them a starter for 10 points; two paragraphs; to pick the bones out of.

This report presents the findings of a study carried out by Alexander Radi M.Sc.during a four months research internship at CASA (Canberra). The aim of the study is to provide the Standards Development branch at CASA with an assessment of injury severity from the impact of small Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) into a person on the ground.

Of particular interest are combinations of RPA mass and impact velocity which cause non-severe injuries.

Due to the complex geometry of the RPA and the non-trivial biomechanics of the human body, major simplifications and assumptions had to be made during the adaptation of the BC. The current model ignores the collision dynamics and the RPA material’s frangibility and elasticity, making its predictions over-restrictive.

Disallowance is a little too genteel. CASA will simply shrug, rework, redraft and come back with the same rubbish, wrapped up in better paper. The Senators need to bang some silly heads together and tell the CASA oiks to do some real research and come back with a honest, sensible, effective rule set which will help protect the not only the people and transport operations, but government against a huge liability. That’s what the FAA are doing – their job.

Arggh – I’ve no patience for more on this – handing over. Anyway the Norfolk Ditching - version 2 is due out today; better get the coffee pot on.

Toot toot.

From page 5 & 6 of today's Senate Notice Paper:

*4 Senator Xenophon:
To move
—
That the following matters be referred to the
Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 28 November 2016:
The use of drones in Australia, with particular reference to:

(a) public safety, security and privacy;

(b) benefits to the community and the economy;

© registration and training needs of both private and commercial
users/operators;

(d) professional standards framework for commercial users/operators;

(e) insurance requirements of both private and commercial users/operators;

(f) the use of current and emerging drone technologies with respect to
enhancing public safety, security and privacy;

(g) current and future regulatory requirements, including consideration of:

(i)the Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 101) Regulation
2016,
(ii) state and local government regulations, and
(iii) regulations in other jurisdictions;
(h) legislative enforcement difficulties/impediments and solutions; and
(i) any other related matters.

*5 Senators O’Sullivan, Xenophon, Back, Fawcett, Rice and Sterle:
To move
—
That the following matter be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for inquiry and report by 27 April 2017:
(a) current and future regulatory requirements that impact on the safe
commercial and recreational use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS), Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) and associated systems, including consideration of:

(i)Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 101,
(ii)local design and manufacture of RPAS and associated systems,
(iii) importation of RPAS and associated systems,
(iv) state and local government regulation, and
(v) overseas developments, including work by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and overseas aviation regulatory
jurisdictions;

(b) the existing industry and likely future social and economic impact of RPAS technology;

© the international regulatory/governance environment for RPAS technology and its comparison to Australian regulation;

(d) current and future options for improving regulatory compliance, public safety and national security through education, professional standards, training, insurance and enforcement;

(e) the relationship between aviation safety and other regulation of RPAS for example, regulation by state and local government agencies on public safety, security and privacy grounds;

(f) the potential recreational and commercial uses of RPAS, including
agriculture, mining, infrastructure assessment, search and rescue, fire and policing operations, aerial mapping and scientific research;

(g) insurance requirements of both private and commercial users/operators, including consideration of the suitability of existing data protection, liability and insurance regimes, and whether these are sufficient to meet
growing use of RPAS;

(h) the use of current and emerging RPAS and other aviation technologies to enhance aviation safety; and

(i) any other related matters

Standing by for ATSB PelAir MKII final report...


MTF...P2