Pauline Hanson - drone operator

[outnabout]

Pauline Hanson may have broken drone laws in new video | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4667914/Pauline-Hanson-broken-drone-laws-new-video.html)

Pauline Hanson has been warned by supporters she may have been breaking the law after she shared a video of herself flying a drone.
The One Nation leader posted the video to Facebook and Twitter just after 6:30pm from Townsville in North Queensland.
In the clip, she has a remote control for a drone in her hands before the camera pans to the object in the sky.
'I'm up in Townsville for the next 2 days for meetings with locals and on [Sky News'] Paul Murray Live tonight from 9:00pm,' she said in the caption.
'Tune in for a long chat about some major issues here in North Queensland and the rest of the country.'
But supporters were quick to point out Senator Hanson may be breaking the law
Twitter users slammed the Senator for her actions, with one woman writing under the post: 'That's illegal, you fool'.
Another follower was even more unimpressed, telling Ms Hanson: 'Flying a drone over a populated zone is illegal and dangerous. I hope CASA fines you'.

Broadcast in the newspaper, and on breakfast telly this morning.

[601]

Yep - I can see the wires going from the controller the Senator has in her hands directly to the drone.

Proving that the Senator is actually controlling the drone as alluded to in the video would, I think, be tricky, considering that videos can be edited.

[Slippery_Pete]

Drone?

Do you mean the flying vehicle or her voice?

[Ixixly]

The Drone of her voice should most certainly be illegal Slippery Pete.

Considering she even says she's flying the Drone 601 I think she'd be hard pressed to claim it wasn't her!!

On another note, if this is being done as part of her work, would it be classified as a Commercial Operation and thusly require her to be licenced?

This could all be a bit of fun actually!! haha

[jas24zzk]

Drone Laws are so opaque at the minute.

Saw the video, and what i saw I would classify as a remote control toy, based on size.

If that is correct, either she has no case to answer, or there are truck loads of 10 year olds headed for the slammer.

[5th officer]

PLEASE EXPLAIN?

[Old Akro]

PLEASE EXPLAIN?

Peter Gibson looked like a dill and a buffoon on the story on insiders this morning. Clearly he just doesn't have enough to do with his time. The FB clip aired on insiders looked pretty clear to me that the drone was not above the height of nearby buildings, so I really struggle to see the threat.

Mind you, if CASA use this Facebook video like they used the one of the chopper they used to persecute JOHN Quadrio, then we might see Pauline Hansen in jail.

[sagan]

The only reason this toy is an issue is because it involved Pauline Hanson.

Why is Gibson speaking to the media ?

Is he also going to speak about CASA's own 'non-compliance' paraded publicly as incompetence ?

[knight kevlar]

She was flying the uav in TL controlled airspace from what I can see .Did she have approval from CTA.?

[trackdirect]

The Drone in question is a DJI Mavic, costs around $1900. Pretty high tech bit of gear.
She broke a few regs there...
* Flight over populous area
* Flight within 30m of buildings / people
* Flight within 3nm of Townsville AD, As it is a towered aerodrome it is a no fly zone, doesn't matter that she is in between buildings.

It is a sub 2kg drone so she does not require training or licensing

[aroa]

So I dont get my post knocked off, I'll correct my spelling...

OA..Gibson, P doesnt just look like a 'dill and buffoon' he is one.

And I can prove it with some statements he's made in the past.
He's very good at his job tho, as Spinmeister for the Fort and Senior BS merchant, ably supported by the good Doctor.

He doesnt care about accuracy of facts or truth in reporting...as I can attest ...any old bullsh*t will do to discredit a target person.
And we are talking about drones here.
True

[jas24zzk]

It is a sub 2kg drone so she does not require training or licensing

Hence my comment that I thought that it was a toy.

Being a toy, and no training required, it would be reasonable to assume, that there would be limited (if any) knowledge of the laws.

$1900 unit...plenty of blokes can afford, and would buy one for their teenage son. Would they be any more aware of the rules? would they likely fly it as pauline did, or in similar places?

Being in the category of no licencing and no training, i would suspect that CASA actually has a VERY limited capacity to prosecute.....the police probably have more enforcement power.

[AerocatS2A]

The rules are clearly laid out in a bright yellow pamphlet that comes with the drone. It's not like you can miss it, and it's not buried in some manual somewhere. If you don't know the rules then you're wilfully ignoring information that is staring you in the face.

[QSK?]

But she definitely was HANS-ON whilst flying the drone

[kaz3g]

Interesting tha someone else made the news with a drone today.

Drone pilot fined $900 for 'hazardous' flight at Sylvia Jeffreys and Peter Stefanovic's wedding - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-10/drone-pilot-fined-after-jeffreys-stefanovic-wedding-flight/8694042)

[Flying Binghi]

Certainly not the best show from PH over this. I would guess though as the drone is not hers that she would not have read the flying zone instructions that came in the box.

As drones are being flown by kids every where it may not have been apparent to PH the serious safety issues these 'toys' present - especially to aircraft.

Lets hope one of PH advisers gets in her ear to 'pull her socks up' over this issue and take it a bit more seriously. As would be expected of one of Australia's most prominent political leaders.






.

[Flying Binghi]

And the incidents just keep happening...

https://au.news.yahoo.com/video/watch/36329004/near-miss-in-sky-above-clovelly-beach/#page1





.

[gerry111]

Possibly yet another, this time at YPPF?

ABC NEWS is reporting: "The pilot believes he struck a drone while approaching Parafield Airport in his light aircraft."

[Desert Flower]

Possibly yet another, this time at YPPF?

ABC NEWS is reporting: "The pilot believes he struck a drone while approaching Parafield Airport in his light aircraft."

Yes - just saw that. Looks like one of the flying college's DA-42's.

DF.

[Ethel the Aardvark]

the tiny little drone that Ms Hanson was flying is capable of flying at 65 kmh and has a range of 6-7 kms. times that by 2 kg and lots of potential for damage I would think. I believe new drone software prevents it from flying near aerodromes

[RatsoreA]

I believe new drone software prevents it from flying near aerodromes

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

:}:}:}:}:}:}:}

[Hank Scorpio]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

:}:}:}:}:}:}:}

Anyone modifying the firmware on their DJI done to circumvent NFZ's, height limits, speed limits and controller output power can only have nefarious uses in mind. :=

[2e958e36]

Anyone modifying the firmware on their DJI done to circumvent NFZ's, height limits, speed limits and controller output power can only have nefarious uses in mind. :=

... and as it happens, here is an article published yesterday about vulnerabilities in drone software that allow this kind of mod to be done:

Hackers able to turbo-charge DJI drones way beyond what's legal (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/07/11/dji_drones_app_sec/)

[FakePilot]

Anyone modifying the firmware on their DJI done to circumvent NFZ's, height limits, speed limits and controller output power can only have nefarious uses in mind. :=

And then you wonder why your country doesn't have young bright minds designing the next gen fighter. But I bet learning Chinese is legal.

[RatsoreA]

Way beyond what's legal

The Mavic is very capable of going way beyond what's legal, right out of the box, without hacking it. 500m high? Check. Beyond Visual range? Check.

Having the manufacturer place restrictions on them is ridiculous and pointless. Either let it be able to use its full performance envelope, or lock it down hard to what ever the laws are. That being said, the latter option is especially pointless.

I can buy a car right now that can exceed any posted speed limit, it's up to me to decide to obey the law and not drive it to fast or to places I am not allowed to go. When you own a bit of equipment, why should the manufacturer still get to tell you what to do with it? Apple went through this same problem and lost.

What's next down this path? You will only be able to buy cars that can't break the road rules? You will have to insert a card into a slot on the instrument panel showing you have a current IFR rating before your 182 will let you start the engine if it's sensor array detects IMC?

I think I have had enough of the (nanny) state telling me how to live!!

[RatsoreA]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbXgK3PyZsk&feature=youtu.be

Nice clip!