No Drone Zones

[nomorecatering]

I've been fielding questions from family over the last 2 days after the news of the events at Gatwick regarding no fly zones for drones.

Considering that 50% of houses in Sydney are located in a no drone zone, either near the harbour or Sydney airport. Is a kid flying his drone in the front yard at below treetop height an offense?

My take of the regulations is flying a drone even 1cm above the ground if you are in a no fly zone could get you into hot water.

I called CASA, they said they don't know, and someone will call me back. No one ever called.

The local cops believe no fly means, no fly at any altitude, even 1m above the ground, but are not 100% sure. One said he would confiscate any drone until the law is clarified.

[Bend alot]

If your drone weighs more than 100g, you must keep at least 5.5km away from controlled aerodromes. Flying within 5.5km of a non-controlled aerodrome or helicopter landing site (HLS) is possible,but only if no manned aircraft are operating to or from the aerodrome. If you become aware of manned aircraft operating to or from the aerodrome/HLS, you must manoeuvre away from the aircraft and land as soon as safely possible.

You must not fly your drone higher than 120 metres (400ft) above the ground.

You must keep your drone at least 30 metres away from other people.

Link from CAsA website to this.
https://droneflyer.gov.au/

What is the dimensions of the front yard?

[nomorecatering]

The size of the front yard is irrelevant to the question. But to appease the pedantic, lets take my cousins front yard at San Siouci, on the foreshore of Botany Bay and right next to Sydney airport. The front yard measures 17m wide by 9 m deep. There are two 15m tall oak tress in the front yard. On Christmas morning when the kids get their 1kg drones and fly them in the front yard at a hight of 2-3m, if a council ranger, police car or CASA vehicle drive past, will they be charged with an offense.

If you live within 5.5 km of an airport, can you fly a drone "not above 120m".........or not at all.

[Bend alot]

If your drone is under 100 grams you can fly it up to 120 meters high with or without oak trees (trees are not part of the law) within 5.5km of the controlled airport.

But yours is 1,000 grams - so in your location you will be breaking the law should you fly it. Council Ranger or CAsA on a Christmas morning would be like winning lotto.

So to answer your question it totally depends on the weight.

You can and I know was recently done - fly a sub 100 gram drone, inside an open hanger at a busy International Airport.

[Icarus2001]

On Christmas morning when the kids get their 1kg drones and fly them in the front yard at a hight of 2-3m, if a council ranger, police car or CASA vehicle drive past, will they be charged with an offense.


CASA vehicle on Christmas day? hahahaha It's a miracle.

Probably technically illegal. Like drinking wine on the beach. Would you be at any risk of prosecution? Probably not.

[Squawk7700]

My uncle in law lives in suburban Melbourne and he has resorted to a fishing sinker setup with fishing line to throw at one that hovers over his yard occasionally. It’s not uncommon for them to be flying over your head on the beach. Not really what you want as they definitely go pear shaped occasionally.

[CaptainMidnight]

if a council ranger, police car or CASA vehicle drive past,

Council or CASA - unlikely.

Police, possibly, the location being so close to the airport and particularly if a near neighbour is annoyed/busybody enough and/or aware of the Gatwick business decides to dob you in.

As the link provided above says, quoted again:

If your drone weighs more than 100g, you must keep at least 5.5km away from controlled aerodromes.

[WingNut60]

And to be pedantic, 5.5 km from WHERE in the controlled aerodrome?
Is that 5.5.km from any point on the perimeter fence? From the control tower? End of the runway(s)?

There is nothing like a poorly defined (or explained) rule to attract those who like to test the definition.

[CaptainMidnight]

And to be pedantic, 5.5 km from WHERE in the controlled aerodrome?
Is that 5.5.km from any point on the perimeter fence? From the control tower? End of the runway(s)?

There is nothing like a poorly defined (or explained) rule to attract those who like to test the definition.

It's defined in CASR and Instruments, 3NM (5.5KM) from the movement area of a controlled aerodrome, but to make it simple for users, the "Can I Fly There" app and CASA maps depict the areas.

http://www.casa.gov.au/aircraft/standard-page/can-i-fly-there-drone-safety-app
http://casa.dronecomplier.com/external#

FWIW some councils/shires prohibit operations at parks and public areas.

https://www.smh.com.au/technology/drones-are-cool-finding-a-place-to-fly-them-is-not-20180207-p4yzjz.html

[Bend alot]

And to be pedantic, 5.5 km from WHERE in the controlled aerodrome?
Is that 5.5.km from any point on the perimeter fence? From the control tower? End of the runway(s)?

There is nothing like a poorly defined (or explained) rule to attract those who like to test the definition.
I expect the perimeter fence - and any area you require to have an ASIC card.

[Duck Pilot]

Answer is no you can't. Get the CASA Can I Fly There App, it's free.

[chute packer]

In NZ they have a shielded operation exemption, you can fly in your front yard ok. Makes sense as any aircraft you might crash into shouldn't really be below the tree or mast near you.What are the rules for flying shielded?A shielded operation must meet the below requirements:

An operation of an aircraft within 100 metres of, and below the top of, a natural or man-made object; and
Outside of the boundary of the aerodrome; and
In airspace that is physically separated from the aerodrome by a barrier that is capable of arresting the flight of the aircraft.

[Andy_RR]

I don't get the "only below 400ft" mantra and the 3mn from airports since CASR101 only aeems to be regulating things above 400ft as far as I read them. Can anyone quote me chapter and verse of the regulations or instruments that prohibit unmanned aircraft of any description (and model aircraft in particular) from flight above 400AGL and within 3nm of an airport?

[Bend alot]

I don't get the "only below 400ft" mantra and the 3mn from airports since CASR101 only aeems to be regulating things above 400ft as far as I read them. Can anyone quote me chapter and verse of the regulations or instruments that prohibit unmanned aircraft of any description (and model aircraft in particular) from flight above 400AGL and within 3nm of an airport?
To get it you MUST understand above and below 100 grams.

If you fail to understand that, then there is no hope.

[Vag277]

101.075 Operation near aerodromes

(1) A person may operate an unmanned aircraft at an altitude above 400 feet AGL within 3 nautical miles of an aerodrome only if:
(a) the operation is permitted by another provision of this Part; or
(b) permission has been given for the operation under regulation 101.080.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.

(2) A person may operate an unmanned aircraft over an area mentioned in paragraph (3)(a) or (b) only if:
(a) the operation is permitted by another provision of this Part; or
(b) permission has been given for the operation under regulation 101.080.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.

(3) The areas for subregulation (2) are:
(a) a movement area or runway of an aerodrome; and
(b) the approach or departure path of a runway of an aerodrome.

(4) A person must not operate an unmanned aircraft in such a manner as to create an obstruction to an aircraft taking off from, or approaching for landing at, a landing area or a runway of an aerodrome.

101.085 Maximum operating height
(1) A person may operate an unmanned aircraft above 400 feet AGL only:
(a) in an area approved under regulation 101.030 as an area for the operation of unmanned aircraft of the same class as the aircraft concerned, and in accordance with any conditions of the approval; or
(b) as otherwise permitted by this Part.

[machtuk]

Its an interesting discussion, if there's debate here among people in the aviation industry imagine what the general public must think?
At the end of the day drones are simply not controllable from the authorities POV. Oh there are regulations in place for sure as they need to be but we also have road rules, who obeys them all? NO ONE on the planet!
As soon as mankind invents something it gets abused, all the rules under the sun mean zip, fact of life!

[Sunfish]

If one starts annoying me at my place, out comes the shotgun. I have a right to privacy and quiet enjoyment of my property.

[CaptainMidnight]

imagine what the general public must think?

That's why the app and brochures have been produced i.e. so they don't have to wade through CASR Part 101 and other regulatory material.

If one starts annoying me at my place, out comes the shotgun.

Given they are legally defined as aircraft, you'd be guilty of interfering with the operation of an aircraft ...

[Pera]

What does a 100g drone look like? Sounds like a good christmas present considering its man christmas shopping day!

[Duck Pilot]

Part of the problem is that the general public can purchase a drone from a retail store and are not made aware (In most cases) that there are rules governing the use of them. If the government advertised the fact that there are rules governing drones, maybe the message would get out a bit better. Commercial television advertises plenty of educational information relating to road safety which appears to have a positive effect particularly for the honest people.

[CaptainMidnight]

Very true.

I just did some quick googling and of the three Australian companies I looked at, only one mentioned the regulatory requirements and even then it was their own text somewhat incomplete and didn't provide links to the app or CASA pages.

I guess putting that sort of thing up might discourage sales.

[airspace alpha]

Last year JB Hifi at Southland had a good but handwritten notice warning about flying drones near airports and some council parks. I might have missed it but its not there this year and I’m not braving christmas eve shopping hell to find out.

[Vag277]

This has been provided to retailers in the past: file:///C:/Users/Kim/Downloads/rpa_brochure_recreational_dl_150dpi.pdf

[das Uber Soldat]

If one starts annoying me at my place, out comes the shotgun. I have a right to privacy and quiet enjoyment of my property.
Try that course of action and excuse with polair one day and let us all know how it goes.

[CaptainMidnight]

The Australian 24 December 2018: New regulations for drone activity
>https://outline.com/kgqydy

[Sunfish]

nobody is talking about shooting at polair. The regs say no drones within 30 metres of people. So anyone doing so is breaking the law and by inference creating a safety hazard. Coincidentally that is about shotgun range. Removing the drone with a shotgun is therefore removing a safety hazard and preventing the commission of any further offence.

A less drastic solution assuming line of sight flying at my place is video of the drone followed by video of the operator and vehicle plus a call to 000.

We live in what is termed a holiday destination and we get a lot of “CUBS” - cashed up bogans with their toys, so a drone incursion is not improbable. We regularly call the police over illegal deer hunting, spotlight shooters, drunken speedsters,unregistered trail bikes etc. as do the neighbors. The police are most attentive at this time of year as we try and prevent them incinerating the neighbourhood, vandalising the infrastructure or killing each other in any number of ways such as throwing butane cartridges into a fire.

[Checklist Charlie]

Y shaped thingys with rubber bands and ball shaped mint lollies do a marvelous job as well as tasting nice.

CC

[Squawk7700]

You may be somewhat misguided Mr Sunfish, but do tell me please, is flying a drone illegally an indictable offence and does your usage of the shotgun fit with your understanding of section 462A of the Victorian Crimes act 1958?


CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 462AUse of force to prevent the commission of an indictable offence

A person may use such force not disproportionate to the objective as he believes on reasonable grounds to be necessary to prevent the commission, continuance or completion of an indictable offence or to effect or assist in effecting the lawful arrest of a person committing or suspected (http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s464.html#suspect) of committing any offence.



”Reasonable force” in the case of a drone, would be to speak to the operator and advise them to fly elsewhere. Shooting down their $2.5k JB Hifi drone is not “reasonable.”

[Sunfish]

I know Sqwawk, but this is Pprune:8

[Checklist Charlie]

Often as one takes a lunch break at Southbank one sees a drone tootling around over the Brisbane CBD.

I wonder who and why?

Maybe it's rules for some and open slather for others!

CC

[machtuk]

If one starts annoying me at my place, out comes the shotgun. I have a right to privacy and quiet enjoyment of my property.




We'll miss you here Sunny after they lock you up for doing such a foolish thing ! We shall also be following your court case closely, but don't worry we shall drop food parcels off to you over the prison fence, by drone of course:-)

[compressor stall]

Y shaped thingys with rubber bands and ball shaped mint lollies do a marvelous job as well as tasting nice.

CC


As an aside, they are illegal too in in many states. Although some states permit home made ones. I bought my kids one each in Bolivia (same ones the herders use to control their flocks on steep ground) as souvenirs. I’m not sure how customs would view it - depending on which state we entered or lived?

[Icarus2001]

https://outdoorswarehouse.com.au/weapons-laws-and-regulations/

Yet I saw these in a shop the other day, here in Australia.

https://www.globalgear.com.au/armoury/replica-guns.html

http://www.jasperco.com.au/ (https://outdoorswarehouse.com.au/weapons-laws-and-regulations/)

[Pinky the pilot]

I'm with Sunfish here.:ok:

Besides; "Prove it was me what shot it down Officer/Yer Honour/whoever...!":}:E

[no_one]

I'm with Sunfish here.:ok:

Besides; "Prove it was me what shot it down Officer/Yer Honour/whoever...!":}:E
​​​​​​
At which point the HDR 4K footage from the drone is played to the court.....

[machtuk]

​​​​​​
At which point the HDR 4K footage from the drone is played to the court.....

Hahaha I wasn't gunna mention that so as not to increase Sunny's chance of a long stay at her Majesties pleasure...lolol

Good time to stay out of the sky today guys, lots of drones no doubt given for Xmas pressies...…...of course all new owners know the laws....cough cough cough

Merry Xmas to all who believe, to those that don't then it's just another day in Prooon world:-)

[Pinky the pilot]

At which point the HDR 4K footage from the drone is played to the court.....

Which showed no-one as the person with the shotgun was in a concealed position/out of camera frame/etc.:}

I get your point no-one but there are ways and means....:D

And a Merry Christmas to you and all fellow Ppruners!:ok:

[Squawk7700]

Good time to stay out of the sky today guys, lots of drones no doubt given for Xmas pressies...…...of course all new owners know the laws....cough cough cough

The day(s) to keep on the ground were the few days leading up to Christmas, just like when driving on the road. Those once a term fliers out taking family up for their once a year flight and getting their last minute AFR’s done.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
An almost insurmountable problem is the very large number of "drones" that arrive mail order from China or elsewhere ---- what percentage of total sales, I do not know, but in numbers it is in the tens, probably hundreds of thousands for quite advanced RPV --- how do I know --- because I was once associated with a company in China, one of who's divisions did huge mail order /E-Bay/Amazon/AliBaba business with Australia, and he was one of many.
Getting the message across about rules and restrictions to most of his customers would be a thankless task.
Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

Honest yer Honour, I thought it was just another mosquito!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

This is best argued "Because of Martin Bryant, all firearm owners in all of Australia must be penalised! Because ALL firearm owners are criminal! They have to be...because they own a gun. Why would you want to own a gun in this modern society?"

The same for lasers, fireworks, unregistered motorcycles, racing dogs or horses, 4WDs, boats and...aeroplanes!

The nanny state destroys common sense. A reasonable person can do whatever a reasonable person wants to do with whatever a reasonable person wishes to use provided they do not impinge on another reasonable persons enjoyment of reasonable life. The reasonable person must be protected from the ratbag. All reasonable people aren't ratbags Ratbags are not reasonable people and will not follow any laws. If the laws are designed to prevent ratbags it will impinge on reasonable people who will either desist or just break the unreasonable laws to enjoy their reasonable life without impinging on other reasonable people...except the ratbags who take offence at anything... they have become ratbags because other ratbags impinge on them...or they are just ratbags!

More personal situation. I enjoy videography, I also hold a pilot licence. I own a sub2kg drone. I understand the CASA regs am a registered pilot and have passed and submitted the first version of their QanA pertaining to operating a sub2kg drone. I understand the limitations of the lens that limits my drone's operation. These limits are quite significant, higher than 100ft and it looks like shots were taken from 2000ft. Further than 30m looks like from the other side of a footy field. Only those within 30m are informed and landscapes are not much higher than the local trees and close to the object by no more than 100m horizontally. From 8ft to 400ft is a worldwide grey area. Unless taking off or landing, stress of weather, permit, or permission from landowner, pilots cannot fly below 500ft. Keep away from those areas and drone operators should be safe from hindering navigation. However, because of administration area laws I must be careful of where I can take off and land. Some council, Parks Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia land taking off and landing a drone is forbidden without a permit. Queensland is by verbal permission, NSW is OK.

The case in UK will result in draconian drone laws yet it will never stop the ratbags from using a drone as a means of denial of service or worse (Hope FLying Binghi doesn't see me quoting this). Only the honest reasonable people will be effected . The same people who would never in a million years fly over an aerodrome of any description let alone Gatwick. These regs for Safety or demarcation?

[Squawk7700]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/f5902f48_cba2_4c39_832b_761f44181f28_24cddf9ce3daf7dcc1b91c0 2b525400ee759cfce.jpeg
A teenage relative was given two “drones” for Christmas today, just small ones, pretty light.

They both came with this brochure in the box.

[mickjoebill]

Last New Year’s Eve I witnessed two drones operating in Melbourne, methinks they were on duty.

One flew up Spring street at approx 150ft.

One could legally fly a squadron of 100gram drones.

[Checkboard]

Is a kid flying his drone in the front yard at below treetop height an offense?

My take of the regulations is flying a drone even 1cm above the ground if you are in a no fly zone could get you into hot water.
Seems pretty obvious to me. If it's flying, it's breaking the law. There is no height limit because proving that would be a nightmare in court, and no one flys a drone at 1cm all day. If an officer sees a drone being flown at 1cm it's a dead cert that some time before or after the officer sees it , it will be up up and away...

[CaptainMidnight]

They both came with this brochure in the box.

That's good to see.

I guess one approach is to not have any warnings on selling company websites (that might discourage purchasers), and instead include that or a similar brochure with the unit after purchase.

[aroa]

Aah the CAsA Xmas spirit....
As soon as the Gatwick event started to unfold on TV , immediately thought uh oh..! Our Brave Coterie of Safety Experts/OBCSE will be right up this ..!... so standby for some new 'rools'
Interesting that just a report... false?..of saying a drone was near the flight path , will set in train a very expensive reaction.
Will be very educational to see what the Fort comes up with to a) prevent drones flying nr airports..a signal killer or something, an electronic 'fence'.? and b) preventing nuisance calls. Plenty of Nitwits around doing that sort of thing these days , like idiots with lasers at a/c at night.
They might get lucky and catch the perp...but how to you prevent it.?

Have a Happy and safe flying and/or drone operating 2019.

[Sunfish]

report via ABC this morning that already a drone caused aborting of fire bombing tasks at Bruny Island yesterday​​​​​​. That means to me that there is a real possibility that I might be denied air support when I turn out to a bushfire in semi populated areas this summer thanks to these bogan pests.

My view is to ban the effing things except for professional licenced use. A mandatory strict liability offence with the onus of proof reversed for anyone even found to possess a drone let alone fly one. Ten years jail. We can do it with firearms we can do it with drones. furthermore no flying over private property without the owners written permission.

It should also be lawful for occupiers to destroy drones on sight.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-26/drone-interrupts-fire-fighting-efforts-bruny-island/10668374

[On eyre]

Spot on Sunfish ����

[machtuk]

Ban them & get 10 yrs for unauthorized use? Not too sure what drugs you are on there but I want a pound of it:-)...lolol
Like Mob Ph's where there are laws in place for their use as well Drones will NEVER be totally controlled or removed, it's just a fact of life that whatever mankind invents it gets abused & there's little that can be done about it once the stable door is left open!
I've got several drones, never knew how many of my neighbors had pools!:-)

[Sunfish]

you make my case for me....pools indeed!

[Icarus2001]

furthermore no flying over private property without the owners written permission.
What makes you think that you control the airspace above your property?

As soon as the Gatwick event started to unfold on TV ............so standby for some new 'rools' What for? The rules that exist now were broken so we should publish some more to be ignored? Just like door locks stop honest people, fences slow down crooks but keep honest coves out and rules that are disregarded do nothing but ensure a penalty for those caught and successfully prosecuted.

[SRFred]

Y shaped thingys with rubber bands and ball shaped mint lollies do a marvelous job as well as tasting nice.

CC

Yeah the nanny states rule where it is legal for kids to make and use but not for adults!

As for all the rules it seems commonsense is the looser. Take the "400 feet" above ground in hilly country where topography changes by more than that. Actually had the situation monitiong an activity on private property 30 km from the nearest "airport", well airstrip anyway, when I got a shock to observe a helicopter BELOW the drone. I took the action to remove the drone as far away from the helicopter as possible and get it on the ground ASAP. Subsequently I spoke to the business involved and they were surprised that a drone was in the air and suggested it was probably the last thing they would have been looking for. They were down around the 500 ft AGL doing their thing and given the topography that actually put them below most of the property and drone launch site.

[aroa]

see..another Nitwit at the tassie bushfires. Should know the 'rools'...keep away from water bombing operations.
I'll bet on it ..CAsA WILL make some new 'rools' post Gatwick and this Tassie event is just a reinforcement example.
Do hope it wasnt the Fire authorities monitoring the drop effectiveness..??
New rules strict liabilty with huge penalties should do the trick.....thats what they do all the time to keep themselves in the business of trying to obtain 'ultimate safety'.

[Pinky the pilot]

It should also be lawful for occupiers to destroy drones on sight.

Sunfish; I never did find out exactly what happened afterwards, but on my second last working holiday in Hokkaido Japan where I was flying a Glider towplane for a full time Gliding Club there, on one occasion as I was passing through about 800' with a Glider on tow I saw a fairly large drone at my 2 o'clock position, slightly above me but only about 200 metres away!

Gave me somewhat of a fright and I promptly radioed the sighting to the Club's Flight Service/Controller.

Never saw it again, nor was it ever officially mentioned, but from what filtered back, someones arse was severely booted and the drone confiscated!

[machtuk]

What makes you think that you control the airspace above your property?

What for? The rules that exist now were broken so we should publish some more to be ignored? Just like door locks stop honest people, fences slow down crooks but keep honest coves out and rules that are disregarded do nothing but ensure a penalty for those caught and successfully prosecuted.


......well said there. More rules won't change much, laws/rules are for honest thieves and they are made to be broken!
No one owns the space above their property nor the ground they are on actually, nothing to stop a light a/c from flying over a property at 500' wth a high powered optical enhancing device and taking photos/video. Whilst drones do present a hazard to aviation they are not exclusive, birds (I've hit plenty of birds) lasers, any remote controlled device actually are out there it's all about risk management, those risks can be reduced but never eliminated!
Drones are here, they are part of aviation whether we like it or not, get used to it!

[Sunfish]

We pretty much eliminated the risk of being shot or blown up by prohibiting possession of automatic weapons and explosives. Why not the same for drones?

[Andy_RR]

101.075 Operation near aerodromes

(1) A person may operate an unmanned aircraft at an altitude above 400 feet AGL within 3 nautical miles of an aerodrome only if:
(a) the operation is permitted by another provision of this Part; or
(b) permission has been given for the operation under regulation 101.080.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
...

101.085 Maximum operating height
(1) A person may operate an unmanned aircraft above 400 feet AGL only:
(a) in an area approved under regulation 101.030 as an area for the operation of unmanned aircraft of the same class as the aircraft concerned, and in accordance with any conditions of the approval; or
(b) as otherwise permitted by this Part.

Could someone please parse a legal interpretation of 101.075(1) for me please? To me it seems there is an "and" or an "or" missing in the sentence. The way I read it is "at an altitude above 400 feet AGL and within 3 nautical miles" because to read it as "or" is to add a blanket 400ft restriction where this is dealt with in other areas of the regulations and .075 is a specific restriction for aerodromes.

Also, please tell me why 101.400(1) doesn't effectively give the permission required in part 101.085(1)(b) to fly a model aircraft above 400ft outside an approved area.

A person may operate a model aircraft outside an approved area above 400 feet AGL only if he or she:

(a) keeps it in sight; and

(b) keeps it clear of populous areas.


If CASR101 were C code, it would not compile.

[CaptainMidnight]

The context of 101.075 is operations near aerodromes, and subsection (1) refers to ops above 400FT within 3NM of an aerodrome.

There is no need to say "and" 3NM. It should be read as it is stated.

Imagine two volumes within 3NM; one SFC-400FT and the other above 400FT, and its this latter volume that is covered by 101.075

Part 101.085 covers all unmanned aircraft i.e. UAS, model aircraft, rockets, unmanned balloons etc. etc.

101.400 is specific to model aircraft, and its my understanding that model aircraft in populous areas are normally restricted to operating in areas approved by CASA, unless the location is away from populous areas, in which case it is enabled by 101.400 - and 101.085 (b) is the link for that.

[mrdeux]

We pretty much eliminated the risk of being shot or blown up by prohibiting possession of automatic weapons and explosives. Why not the same for drones?

Or shotguns...

The 'ban everything' mentality....

[LeadSled]

Folks,
And now it seems the Gatwick drone(s) did not exist, it was all a very well orchestrated hoax.
Do we need CASA "rools" for enforceable mandatory "no-hoax" zones around airports??
Tootle pip!!

[CaptainMidnight]

Folks,
And now it seems the Gatwick drone(s) did not exist, it was all a very well orchestrated hoax.


I don't know about it being a hoax.

According to this quite a few sighted a drone or drones, including police:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6532241/Met-Police-chief-admits-authorities-need-game-Gatwick-drone-attack.html

[Andy_RR]

The context of 101.075 is operations near aerodromes, and subsection (1) refers to ops above 400FT within 3NM of an aerodrome.

There is no need to say "and" 3NM. It should be read as it is stated.

Imagine two volumes within 3NM; one SFC-400FT and the other above 400FT, and its this latter volume that is covered by 101.075

Part 101.085 covers all unmanned aircraft i.e. UAS, model aircraft, rockets, unmanned balloons etc. etc.

101.400 is specific to model aircraft, and its my understanding that model aircraft in populous areas are normally restricted to operating in areas approved by CASA, unless the location is away from populous areas, in which case it is enabled by 101.400 - and 101.085 (b) is the link for that.

I agree with your reasoning on 101.075 and 101.085 exactly, Captain! Given the definition of model aircraft in the dictionary (model aircraft means an aircraft that is used for sport or recreation, and cannot carry a person.) the use of 101.400 allows flying drones for recreation within 3NM of an aerodrome so long as the 400ft height limit is not breached, its not controlled airspace and no obstruction to air traffic is caused. Clearly if there is a no-fly regulation for recreational drones and airfields it lies elsewhere in the crock of words that is the CASRs. Perhaps it's buried in a standards manual (101.028)? Where to find this tome...? (https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/manual-standards)

BTW, the meaning of populous area has a fairly generous definition given in 101.028 -
For this Part, an area is a populous area in relation to the operation of an unmanned aircraft or rocket if the area has a sufficient density of population for some aspect of the operation, or some event that might happen during the operation (in particular, a fault in, or failure of, the aircraft or rocket) to pose an unreasonable risk to the life, safety or property of somebody who is in the area but is not connected with the operation.

[Bend alot]

It is very difficult!

There has been a case of a pilot of a commercial passenger jet - report a "model aircraft" in proximity of the airport.

It was actually an aircraft with 2 POB and with knowledge of ATC.

[machtuk]

I've said it before if there's this much confusion or disagreement amongst so called educated aviation people then what chance has a non aviation person have.. Zero!! That's the problem, the rules are complex, unclear and ambitious AND above all unenforceable effectively!

[aroa]

Dunno abt the 'unenforceably effectively' If they get a 'ping ya'., they'll do ya. if not they can always make something up.
Note in the Oz says the Tassie drone guy may cop $10K in fines. Uh oh. .

[CaptainMidnight]

CASA's RPA contact details below.

CASA remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) office

Business hours: 8:30am - 4:30pm Mon-Fri
Email: [email protected]
Ph: 131 757

[Andy_RR]

101.235 says the whole of Subpart 101 F does not apply to flying RPAs for the purposes of sport or recreation other than large RPAs. I guess in this case Subpart 101 G still mostly applies to Christmas drones.

[CaptainMidnight]

There is also this:

CASA 96/17 - Direction — operation of certain unmanned aircraft (https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017L01370)

[Andy_RR]

OK. That looks like the big hammer they'd use. Nasty that it's hidden so well that a reasonably detailed reading of the rule book doesn't reveal it. How many more directions are out there...?

[Vag277]

It's not that hard. Homepage of CASA website, click on "Drones".

[Andy_RR]

Yeah, but why do the regulations have to say one thing and a direction say another? Why can't they get their shït sorted...?

[CaptainMidnight]

It's not that hard. Homepage of CASA website, click on "Drones".

Zactly ....

State road traffic regulations are similarly convoluted, but for we simple folk to drive our vee-hickle, what we need to know is in brochures or booklets and on the various state road traffic authority websites.

Yeah, but why do the regulations have to say one thing and a direction say another? Why can't they get their shït sorted...?

Getting a published regulation changed isn't a quick simple process. It involves other areas of the fed. gov't and ultimately Ministerial approval.

A summary of the steps in writing a CASR Part (https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/summary-steps-writing-casr-part)

Which is why to get things implemented in a timely manner there are various published Instruments, directions etc. (which themselves have to go through part of the process anyway).

[Andy_RR]

So, is the history and reasoning behind CASA 96/17 documented anywhere?

[CaptainMidnight]

At the link to CASA 96/17 I provided in post #68, click on "Explanatory Statement".

[Andy_RR]

Thanks! Will have a read.

[kimbobimbo]

You know what ****s me to tears? I live in Perth and the shark patrol helicopter literally flys 100’ down the coast ‘looking for sharks’! What a load of crap, I’ve done spotting for an actual job and I can tell you 1000’ to 1500’ is best for spotting. 500’ and below and everything happens too quick. I also own a drone and guess what? I like to fly near the beach! Well what a bloody surprise that is!
When I see these bloody cowboy helicopter pilots at dot feet it makes my blood boil, you CANNOT see a shark at 150’ doing 80kts. Impossible. BUT I will try and get my drone out of your way with the 2 seconds I have 🤷🏼*♂️ My drone will hit you one day and apparently it will be MY fault? That’s bull****. Those pilots that fly responsibly will be just fine I’m sure, but the others better keep a sharp eye out! I’m not going to feel bad when your scenic flight at 150’ get in my drones way.

[Glasgow_Flyer]

Someone in our local Facebook page group was asking if they could fly a drone (can't remember if above or below 100g) in our estate. I read the rules as best I could, and concluded they could.
The estate is within 3nm of a RAAF base, the TWR being unmanned. I explained my understanding is they could fly there, but as long as they land as soon as they become aware of an aircraft operating in the area.
But - everyone else on the tread disagreed, after they checked the "Can I fly there" app. It clearly says no - due to the area being restricted airspace.
So, yes, it is in restricted airspace - but the restricted airspace is notam activated (and three times per week for a display).
I didn't argue - but the app doesn't check the airspace status.
In a restricted airspace area - do you reckon you can fly when it is not active? Local copper is probably unlikely to get out his NAIPs app and check I suppose - so I reckon risky.

[CaptainMidnight]

If it's Point Cook you are referring to, it's not a controlled aerodrome (not listed in DAH Section 19).

So when the Restricted Areas are active, no drone flying, and when they are not active, it is an uncontrolled aerodrome and I would think the procedures relating to ops in the vicinity of uncontrolled aerodromes apply.

HOWEVER - I say "I would think" because I don't know offhand the specific wording of the regs or information material i.e. whether or not they specifically refer only to ACTIVE PRDs. They may well just make a blanket statement of no flying in PRDs except with the permission of the Controlling Authority, because some PRD can be activated at short notice and at other than published times.

I don't have the app on my phone anymore so I can't check what it says around Point Cook, but if there is an error or some confusion, it should be brought to the attention of the RPA people in CASA.

in any case, if someone isn't sure if they can fly in an area or not, they should ask the RPA people in CASA:

CASA remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) office

Business hours: 8:30am - 4:30pm Mon-Fri
Email: [email protected]
Ph: 131 757


"But someone said on Facebook that it was OK ....." won't be a defence :)

[Squawk7700]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/855d205f_296d_4321_885a_c7a0323accb6_cd6d4581b2b4dcd1ea93676 d4e1e4a727cfaed9c.jpeg
NSW parks are “no drone zones” I noticed today.

[poteroo]

Italy has them banned from certain tourist areas also.https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1120x2000/drone_signage_in_italy_7f359706086c1e1339d05b6463beaabfdaf9c 1da.jpg

[Icarus2001]

NSW parks are “no drone zones” I noticed today.Perhaps a brief letter to their legal department informing them that they do not control the airspace above "their" land.

I look forward to seeing the first court case.

[Sunfish]

icarus, as long as you stand outside the park you are OK. Standing in the park while you control your drone, not so much.

[Squawk7700]

I assume they can stop you bringing in whatever they want with a ranger at the gate.

Aircraft of any type have pretty much always been a no-go at National Parks in Australia.

[Duck Pilot]

You can get approvals (in some cases) from the State/Territory Authorities to operate in National Parks if you write to them. I've got an approval to use my drone in some national parks in the NT, lots of restrictions and prohibited (no fly zone) areas. The approval was free and very easy to get, noting that the Part 101 rules still must be fully complied with in the park.

Most Councils also have restrictions with regards to drone operations in parks and reserves, even if the CASA App says that its ok to fly at the location. It pays to check the Council's website or call them if in doubt.

[CaptainMidnight]

Some councils/shires have also banned operations in suburban parks & recreation areas too of course, not just state or national parks.

[Eclan]

You know what ****s me to tears? I live in Perth and the shark patrol helicopter literally flys 100’ down the coast ‘looking for sharks’! What a load of crap, I’ve done spotting for an actual job and I can tell you 1000’ to 1500’ is best for spotting. 500’ and below and everything happens too quick. I also own a drone and guess what? I like to fly near the beach! Well what a bloody surprise that is!
When I see these bloody cowboy helicopter pilots at dot feet it makes my blood boil, you CANNOT see a shark at 150’ doing 80kts. Impossible. BUT I will try and get my drone out of your way with the 2 seconds I have 🤷🏼*♂️ My drone will hit you one day and apparently it will be MY fault? That’s bull****. Those pilots that fly responsibly will be just fine I’m sure, but the others better keep a sharp eye out! I’m not going to feel bad when your scenic flight at 150’ get in my drones way.

What "****s me to tears" is the plethora of idiots flying their drones in crowded public places with their cameras going, recording everything and getting in everyone's faces. The beach is just one example. These things are becoming a scourge on society. Every halfwit has one and apparently has the right to inflict it on society, including getting in the way of air traffic. It's up there with how camera phones are in every aspect of society, permanently linked to Instagram or whatever, posting everything that happens. Ban them all. The world will be slightly better off for it.

[Duck Pilot]

It’s the nut behind the bolt in most cases as there are some very responsible drone pilots around. Considering the cost of the average drone off the shelf, most purchasers should be able to afford some training on how to use the thing before they fly it.

I know CASA are in the process of tightening up the training requirements for the issue of a RePL, however that won’t address the issue of cashed up idiots who have absolutely no respect for others purchasing drones off the shelf for recreational purposes.

Better education and very heavy penalties for the idiots may help, however that certainly won’t stop the problem.

[Sunfish]

We call them “cubs” - cashed up Bogans.

[currawong]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/109688053/nearmiss-with-drone-suspends-auckland-police-eagle-helicopter-operations


Only a matter of time.

[Duck Pilot]

Interesting that the news report mentions possible pilot licensing for drones over 250 grams, that would be very costly to administer and enforce however it would be effective.

If the drone manufacturers where able to work with authorities to develop some kind of a software lockout function to prevent non licensed pilots from flying the drones, a large majority of the illegal drones operations will go away immediately.

If an individual can afford to purchase a $3000 plus drone to play with, they should be able to afford another $1000 or so to get trained and licenced. Good thing is that most of the cashed up idiots would never be able to pass an exam and drone flight test in order to be issued with a licence anyway.

Good thread.

[no_one]

So Sunfish, have you made bail yet?

Link to news article (https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news_article?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGZWJpe nByZC5wb2xpY2UubnN3Lmdvdi5hdSUyRm1lZGlhJTJGNzQ1MTcuaHRtbCZhb Gw9MQ%3D%3D)

[Sunfish]

I think the action had more to do with the 100+ cannabis plants than the right to privacy.

[-JLS-]

At the cricket in Perth last night, noticed one hanging around above the stadium for a little while. Aside from the proximity to the heliport at Crown Towers, one of the basic rules I thought was that you don't fly over sporting events/stadiums like that lest you lose control and it drops on the unfortunate chaps below. Maybe I'm judging too quick and it was a licensed operation, but it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't - getting that cool shot of a stadium at night overrules anything else. Given it could be launched from anywhere in a 2km+ radius of the place, all the police around the stadium are pretty powerless to do anything about it.

[Fliegenmong]

"A mandatory strict liability offence with the onus of proof reversed for anyone even found to possess a drone let alone fly one. Ten years jail. We can do it with firearms we can do it with drones. furthermore no flying over private property without the owners written permission."

Or to put that another way.....you should be working for CASA Sunny!!....Lol....you sound just like them!!!!!!

I know of a guy who has been flying Model RC aircraft around a fairly large Australian regional centre (pop. 500 000+?) since the 1950's....or was control line aircraft way back then....but RC for at least the last 30 yrs...now I have not looked....BUT....how many model RC aircraft have caused hull losses in Aust. Aviation?...in the last 10 yrs....20....30...40......, Vs how many Bird strikes?

It's Australia...we're conditioned by both sides of Gummint to accept knee jerk reactions to anything! ....(Law of unintended consequences often is a result)....but never mind...regulate and tax the living pleasure out of ANYTHING...goes for GA through to ....well pretty much anything...

Let's face it....we're a country (I'm born & bred Australian!)...we're a country that spawns 'Bogans'...that think Ned Kelly was a hero....that cover themselves in tats and get involved in criminal bikie gangs....we have a lot of idiots that do not contribute to society as a whole.....and thumb their noses at our 'rools'....you can read about them all day everyday....a large percentage of our fellow countrymen are d**kheads...fact...regrettably...

Now....all these Drones operate on the 2.4GHz frequency....requiring dual path technology (as far as I understand it)...very very very reliable.....but able to be 'Blocked'. Simply set up 2.4 GHz 'Blockers' around areas you do not want Drones....

No issue worrying about airborne drones losing control and plummeting to Earth as the blockers are activated (Sky is falling Chicken Little!) ....the blockers a permanently on and drones cannot even lift off!!!...so they never get airborne!....but that would stop any perceived threat whatsoever....and it's not about that really is it?....It's about using good ole' Ozzie CASA 'we know best'....& rather than eliminating a real or perceived threat, you get to fine someone!...anyone....AWESOME!

Simple cheap technology exists to stop this stuff dead in it's tracks....but that won't be done....why?....hmmm....why?.....it's certainly NOT expensive...think a lock box on a public infrastructure asset such as a stop light control box or similar...easily done.....batteries changed once a week and the cost passed on to the consumer! (Travelling Public)...& when has anyone ever cared about passing the cost onto the travelling public??

You know it makes sense...it eliminates a perceived threat that is very very very low extraordinarily low......far lower than a pelican strike....

[machtuk]

"A mandatory strict liability offence with the onus of proof reversed for anyone even found to possess a drone let alone fly one. Ten years jail. We can do it with firearms we can do it with drones. furthermore no flying over private property without the owners written permission."

Or to put that another way.....you should be working for CASA Sunny!!....Lol....you sound just like them!!!!!!

I know of a guy who has been flying Model RC aircraft around a fairly large Australian regional centre (pop. 500 000+?) since the 1950's....or was control line aircraft way back then....but RC for at least the last 30 yrs...now I have not looked....BUT....how many model RC aircraft have caused hull losses in Aust. Aviation?...in the last 10 yrs....20....30...40......, Vs how many Bird strikes?

It's Australia...we're conditioned by both sides of Gummint to accept knee jerk reactions to anything! ....(Law of unintended consequences often is a result)....but never mind...regulate and tax the living pleasure out of ANYTHING...goes for GA through to ....well pretty much anything...

Let's face it....we're a country (I'm born & bred Australian!)...we're a country that spawns 'Bogans'...that think Ned Kelly was a hero....that cover themselves in tats and get involved in criminal bikie gangs....we have a lot of idiots that do not contribute to society as a whole.....and thumb their noses at our 'rools'....you can read about them all day everyday....a large percentage of our fellow countrymen are d**kheads...fact...regrettably...

Now....all these Drones operate on the 2.4GHz frequency....requiring dual path technology (as far as I understand it)...very very very reliable.....but able to be 'Blocked'. Simply set up 2.4 GHz 'Blockers' around areas you do not want Drones....

No issue worrying about airborne drones losing control and plummeting to Earth as the blockers are activated (Sky is falling Chicken Little!) ....the blockers a permanently on and drones cannot even lift off!!!...so they never get airborne!....but that would stop any perceived threat whatsoever....and it's not about that really is it?....It's about using good ole' Ozzie CASA 'we know best'....& rather than eliminating a real or perceived threat, you get to fine someone!...anyone....AWESOME!

Simple cheap technology exists to stop this stuff dead in it's tracks....but that won't be done....why?....hmmm....why?.....it's certainly NOT expensive...think a lock box on a public infrastructure asset such as a stop light control box or similar...easily done.....batteries changed once a week and the cost passed on to the consumer! (Travelling Public)...& when has anyone ever cared about passing the cost onto the travelling public??

You know it makes sense...it eliminates a perceived threat that is very very very low extraordinarily low......far lower than a pelican strike....


well said but ya gotta stop making sense, CASA and the drone haters won't like it! -:)

[no_one]

The problem with "blockers" is that they can't differentiate between drones and the other users on the same frequency band. For some people giving up wifi would be a step too far.

​

[CaptainMidnight]

Simple cheap technology exists to stop this stuff dead in it's tracks....but that won't be done....why?....hmmm....why?.....
Because it wouldn't work.

In addition to what no-one said, to cope with a weak signal or interference, most models (increasingly, even the cheap ones) have loss-of-link functionality in some form, and some don't need a link at all when working to a pre-programmed plan.

There is technology, but it's not as simple as non-specific jamming.

[Fliegenmong]

Hmmm...not that I have such a fancy automobile.....but I understand lots have TV screens and moving maps and GPS etc etc nowadays.....makes me think if "Speeding" was SUCH a great Concern to Police and Governments that new cars could not be limited to the local speed limit....they know where they are after all .... that is IF speeding is the REAL danger constantly sprouted by Police....

Actually as an aside my receptionist wrote off her car coming out of our car park this afternoon...it's a blind junction blocked by parked vehicles so it really is a bit of a chance to sneak out......usually can see in the distance and then 'Count Cars' to make a 'safeish' judgement of when to pull out.....anyway.....she's been pulling out of this driveway for more than 10 years now...today she checked as best as you can....pulled out and BANG, collected big time by a passing motorist.

Her front end is written off and the car she hit...well the damage is all on the left side so....not good for her....BUT...(& I'm NOT a traffic crash specialist!) .....judging by the amount of torn metal panels on but vehicles I am dead certain he was travelling WELL above the published '50'....

I guess one day we'll all have cars that are equipped with such fancy stuff...and some will scream that it is an affront to theur right to be speed limited.....I guess there's people who scream it is an affront to their right to fly drones where they like.....or to own known dangerous dog breeds...or the list goes on.....WE LOVE regulation and taxation in OZ, so the possibilities are endless.....

What about charging motorists to implement the speed limiting gear......so you can both regulate AND receive income....in the name of 'safety' of course...

[Sunfish]

Flies, meet my little friend “risk shifting”. The public response to increased technical safeguards is to engage in more risky behaviour. The introduction of ABS resulted in idiots increasing tailgating behaviour since ABS would now save them. The introduction of speed limiters will result in people pushing the accelerator to the floor and leaving it there. Same with auto avoidance technologies. People just engage in more risky, less prudent behaviour.

Making things foolproof just results in evolving bigger fools.

As an example, there is currently a Ford truck advertisement running on TV that features a demonstration of its auto braking technology. The actor steps in front of the truck and the thing does a panic stop. How many idiots are going to get injured/ killed trying that one at home?

[Squawk7700]

You may actually be right Sunfish.

https://youtu.be/_47utWAoupo

[Sunfish]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xLeamaLSt6k

[Andy_RR]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2glZyBssp44

[Andy_RR]

This is kinda cool too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W65ooyvrktg