Lead Balloon
26th May 2017, 09:50
I didn't think I'd live to say it, but for once I was applauding a DAS giving evidence at Estimates.
I may have dreamt it, but I'm pretty sure that Mr Carmody explained that CASA's approach to drones is based on:
- evidence of the risk posed by drones of a certain size
- evidence of the probable consequences of collisions with those drones
- evidence of the effectiveness or otherwise of regulatory responses being urged on CASA, and
- (more importantly in my view) a comparison with the regulatory treatment of other, higher probability risks with potentially worse consequences.
I'm pretty sure I actually heard data quoted from US and Australian experience. I'm pretty sure I actually heard a calm explanation, from one of Mr Carmody's executives, as to the conclusions of a study on what is most likely to happen if a drone collides with an aircraft.
This was in the face of a couple of Senators who were doing a good impression of people with their hair on fire.
(As an aside, I do put my head in my hands and despair at industry sectors who scream for CASA to make even more regulations and do more regulating. I mean: Really? Have they not been paying attention for the last 20 or so years?)
I was also struck by the irony - the exquisite irony - of legislators baying for legislation to be made ... by someone else. I would have thought that if members of the Committee were so concerned about the safety implications of drones and CASA's inadequate regulatory response, those Senators would walk into the Senate and pass a law to deal with problem. If it is such a big risk to the safety of air navigation, and if the Parliament is not satisfied with CASA's lack of action, surely the Parliament would be convinced of the urgent need to pass a law to deal with the issue. Amend the Civil Aviation Act to ban drones, or to require them to be registered and their operators' licensed, or to require them to be fitted with ADS-B, or otherwise make whatever magic law as will give everyone the comfy feeling that the risk has gone away.
I earnestly hope that Mr Carmody continues with this refreshing approach of considering evidence of a risk and its consequences, both in isolation and in comparison with other risks and their consequences, as well as analysing the practical effectiveness of making yet more laws and creating yet more bureaucratic processes to actually mitigate the risk.
If he does continue with this approach, he'll shortly be staring down the CVD industry, AvMed and more Senators (minus Senator Fawcett) doing the burning hair impression.
More power to Mr Carmody's steely glare.
I may have dreamt it, but I'm pretty sure that Mr Carmody explained that CASA's approach to drones is based on:
- evidence of the risk posed by drones of a certain size
- evidence of the probable consequences of collisions with those drones
- evidence of the effectiveness or otherwise of regulatory responses being urged on CASA, and
- (more importantly in my view) a comparison with the regulatory treatment of other, higher probability risks with potentially worse consequences.
I'm pretty sure I actually heard data quoted from US and Australian experience. I'm pretty sure I actually heard a calm explanation, from one of Mr Carmody's executives, as to the conclusions of a study on what is most likely to happen if a drone collides with an aircraft.
This was in the face of a couple of Senators who were doing a good impression of people with their hair on fire.
(As an aside, I do put my head in my hands and despair at industry sectors who scream for CASA to make even more regulations and do more regulating. I mean: Really? Have they not been paying attention for the last 20 or so years?)
I was also struck by the irony - the exquisite irony - of legislators baying for legislation to be made ... by someone else. I would have thought that if members of the Committee were so concerned about the safety implications of drones and CASA's inadequate regulatory response, those Senators would walk into the Senate and pass a law to deal with problem. If it is such a big risk to the safety of air navigation, and if the Parliament is not satisfied with CASA's lack of action, surely the Parliament would be convinced of the urgent need to pass a law to deal with the issue. Amend the Civil Aviation Act to ban drones, or to require them to be registered and their operators' licensed, or to require them to be fitted with ADS-B, or otherwise make whatever magic law as will give everyone the comfy feeling that the risk has gone away.
I earnestly hope that Mr Carmody continues with this refreshing approach of considering evidence of a risk and its consequences, both in isolation and in comparison with other risks and their consequences, as well as analysing the practical effectiveness of making yet more laws and creating yet more bureaucratic processes to actually mitigate the risk.
If he does continue with this approach, he'll shortly be staring down the CVD industry, AvMed and more Senators (minus Senator Fawcett) doing the burning hair impression.
More power to Mr Carmody's steely glare.