UAV incident MB CTR?

[CaptainMidnight]

Heard there was an incident involving a UAV in the MB CTR over the weekend. Anyone know more?

[peterc005]

Maybe it was one of those weird little canard-wing planes that live at Moorabbin. They have a habit of not worrying about trivial things like traffic separation in the circuit, so maybe that is what you mean.

My theory is that most of the UFO sightings in this part of the world are actually just experimental homebuilt planes that look too strange to be from this world.

[PLovett]

UAV............not UFO. There is a difference. :=

[peterc005]

Well, if it flys and we're not sure what it is - then it's a UFO.

I'm sure if there are aliens then their inter-galactic technology extends to UAVs

[Flying Binghi]

.


Heard there was an incident involving a UAV in the MB CTR over the weekend. Anyone know more?

Nothing on this via a Bing search ...:confused:

UFO then..:cool:




.

[duncan_g]

Investigation: AO-2012-143 - Airspace incursion - 6 km E of Moorabbin Airport, Victoria, 28 October 2012 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-143.aspx)

"During a flight test, ground operators lost control of the unmanned airship and it subsequently entered controlled airspace without a clearance. The investigation is continuing. "

[CaptainMidnight]

Bing? Wash your mouth out.

Google is your friend:

Investigation: AO-2012-143 - Airspace incursion - 6 km E of Moorabbin Airport, Victoria, 28 October 2012 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-143.aspx)

[chute packer]

From elsewhere:

It was not an "incident". It has gone through the appropriate channels and is now getting sorted out. It was not an RC person or anything to do with that kind of flight. It was a legitimate operation that did not go as planned. All the major services were contacted and paperwork is happening.

These things DO happen on the odd occassion. I worked for a previous UAV company up north that had a LOT of incidents and it was very rare that they actually advised the appropriate authorities about what really happened.

You can speculate all you like about what went wrong, who it was, why it happened etc.......

That will not help at all. As stated it is being dealt with as we speak.

I look forward to hearing what replies come in. I do know of at least 1 other UAV company that isn't happy. To them, a very big sorry, believe me, we did not do this on purpose.

ps There is proof of how minor the infringement was (less than 500 feet inside and 400 foot altitude, autopilot info and google maps is amazing and accurate to show the truth.

I'm quite happy to put my hand up and I'd rather tell CASA what happened, then be a cowboy organistation and NOT do everything right.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Chute Packer,
Don't stress, even a bird strike is classed as an incident.

If it makes you feel better,

ENR 1.14
3. REPORTING - ALL AIR TRANSPORT OPERATIONS
3.1 IRM
3.1.1 IRM for all air transport operations include:
a. airprox*;
b. violation of controlled airspace;
you can call it an Immediately Reportable Matter, but technically, it was an incident.

Kudos for your honesty, though.:ok:

[training wheels]

ps There is proof of how minor the infringement was (less than 500 feet inside and 400 foot altitude, autopilot info and google maps is amazing and accurate to show the truth.


Looking at the map provided on the ATSB website, it appears the location of the incident was around base leg for 35R. If 35 was active, then I don't think an altitude of 400 ft would be considered as a 'minor infringement'.

[Harro]

I'm with you TW.
I find it hard to imagine why flight testing of UAV would be conducted so close to airport like MB especially on a weekend when there is so much activity.

Why cant it take place in a more remote location , where if things go off the rails its unlikely to be a hazzard to anyone.

I think this is quite serious and it was an error in judgement to allow the flight to take place in that location to begin with.

[VH-XXX]

Don't get too carried away there chaps...

We're talking about a Shift Geophysics, UAV Airship... or in other words, a Photographic Blimp :ok:

OQIblc9Geug

[Harro]

OK XXX, I grant you that's not as risky as the solid fixed wing type UAV , but I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to hit that thing turning on to final.

I still believe common sense would dictate that they should not fly so close to busy airports.

The launch point was Keysborough, just seems too close IMO.

[Jack Ranga]

There is proof of how minor the infringement was less than 500 feet inside and 400 foot altitude

Yeah, there's minor penetrations of controlled airspace, semi-minor, medium & major. :ugh:

Semi-Minor is when you have an iPad app that tracks your infringement, you say 'f@ck, whoops' turn quickly and get the f@ck out.

Minor is 500ft inside & 400ft altitude.

Medium is when you have a column mount GPS i.e. it's made by an aviation company and is reliable, you say 'f@ck, whoops' think to yourself, f@cked that up! Turn off your transponder cause radar is calling you and hope that nobody tracks your primary paint til you get back to home base.

Major is when you have NFI that you have just penetrated controlled airspace and there's a TCAS RA with an A380, 495 people on board. You're not listening to the appropriate frequency because someone told you once that you should be able to do what the f@ck you want, whenever you want because that's what they do in the U.S. You fly back to base oblivious of what you've just caused. They're tracking you, put in an incident report, CASA sends you a letter asking you what you have learned from the incident, you bull**** them that you are sorry and it wont happen again. CASA won't prosecute you because there's no political mileage in it and they find out that you are a QC in your experimental that you've paid a bloke to build 49% of. The incident is downgraded to Minor. Sweet.

[KRviator]

Don't UAV's have to comply with the 1NM tolerance to a control zone boundary? Does this mean that said UAV then went 1NM+500 feet off course?

To me, that is certainly an incident...

[Brian Abraham]

You just don't know who you are sharing the airspace with these days

near miss with rc plane and virgin jet at perth airport - YouTube

[CaptainMidnight]

OK XXX, I grant you that's not as risky as the solid fixed wing type UAV , but I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to hit that thing turning on to final. CASA does consider UAVs a potential hazard, hence their regs requiring their specific approval for ops above 400FT AGL, in addition to ATC approval if inside CTA above 400FT, and ATC approval within 3 miles of a controlled aerodrome at any level.

[Cesspool182]

Might be time to revisit the regs - UAV's are becoming much more capeable and affordable with teh lithium polymer batteries.