Surely this can't be legal?

[spankmcnasty]

youtube.com/watch?v=eceueKjH8Qk

https://youtu.be/eceueKjH8Qk?si=i8Y0am2J4vkAs6xP

[nomess]

Give the ASA Sydney Management a yell to check before reporting, near zero chance this would be approved by them prior, but worth a check.

[email protected]

That will be a court date with a fine once found if guilty. Wouldn’t be too hard tracking down the individual having a quick look at the channel.

[Lead Balloon]

And there are two runways in operation. They don't have enough air traffic controllers to do that in the real world any more. :E

[MickG0105]

Errrrr, that is a flight simulator!

Notice that it doesn't look real and the shadow are all wrong?
The lack of activity on the docks looks real.

[nomess]

Well considering the other drone videos they recorded in the surrounding areas also uploaded, you can very much say it’s real.

[Capt Fathom]

And so does the wake turbulence trail across the water from Kurnell to the end of 34L from the landing UPS 747. Nice! :E

[BronteExperimental]

That’s definitely a legit video.
approved is another question though!

[MickG0105]

That’s definitely a legit video.
...
The complete absence of any taxiing aircraft in the first 30 or so seconds, at what must be around mid-morning - midday (based on the shadows) isn't a bit of a give away that it's not?

[Capn Bloggs]

Can't see any "Qantas" on the fuselages of the 737s due to overexposure. Are sims that detailed?

[KRviator]

There's this one too, tooling about over the harbour inside R405B.. I'd say they're both the real deal, given the other UAV video's they've posted on their channel. How long they remain on that channel when CAsA get wind of it is another story....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhROQ7zze1M

[Squawk7700]

I wondered if I’d get away with my comment. It is actually real. The way in which it’s quite over-exposed made it look a little suspect.

I’ve heard that it’s being looked at and it’s headed for a news channel shortly about the risk to aviation safety etc etc.

[Lead Balloon]

And so does the wake turbulence trail across the water from Kurnell to the end of 34L from the landing UPS 747. Nice! :EYes. And the amazing fact that - as alluded to by Squawk - there's no shadow of any aircraft until they cross the runway thresholds. I'm pretty sure that shadows can be cast and be visible on water.

[Lead Balloon]

I wondered if I’d get away with my comment. It is actually real. The way in which it’s quite over-exposed made it look a little suspect.

I’ve heard that it’s being looked at and it’s headed for a news channel shortly about the risk to aviation safety etc etc.Then we'll wait for reports of the application of the full force of the law against the miscreant drone operator.

[Capt Fathom]

Ythere's no shadow of any aircraft until they cross the runway thresholds

Look again. There are shadows on the water from landing aircraft. But if people think it's fake then that is good. It means there was no drone encroaching on Sydney Airport airspace. :ok:

[Squawk7700]

It’s interesting how they film the port and it’s casting a fairly long shadow and pans back and cuts to the aircraft and the shadows are directly underneath.

[nomess]

The footage is from last Thursday.

The most concerning part is the helicopter traffic in the same area at the same time. Not seen on drone footage.

I have since been advised after a phone call to report this that they are aware of this already and no need to report.

[Capt Fathom]

It's called editing! Do you know if the video was taken at the same time, or even the same day. We don't know anything about the video! But it's a great view of the airport! :}

[Capn Bloggs]

and pans back
Looks like it but is probably a video clip transition; could well have been taken at different times and edited.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/596x509/jq_shadow_b1ee2de1aea439c28109f515c6a52e13099c6a49.jpg

[nomess]

14/3/2024 0000Z for the UPS. The others occurred just prior

The video will be pulled very soon I’d imagine.

[MickG0105]

14/3/2024 0000Z for the UPS. The others occurred just prior

​​​​​​VH-QOB should have been taxiing in on Lima at the time -OFS was taking off and N631UP was landing (roughly 0:44 on the video) - if it's there it is very, very hard to see.


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x914/screenshot_20240317_190843_google_earth_d120d69df8470e68c186 4d0ebae8944c79627843.jpg

[nomess]

​​​​​​VH-QOB should have been taxiing in on Lima at the time -OFS was taking off and N631UP was landing (roughly 0:44 on the video) - if it's there it is very, very hard to see.


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x914/screenshot_20240317_190843_google_earth_d120d69df8470e68c186 4d0ebae8944c79627843.jpg
Play it on the TV. You can see it turning the corner (just)
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/685x446/img_3860_0fcd9ee4fb16d40f7c98fecf3822cc3dada6435a.jpeg

[BronteExperimental]

The biases some have fallen for here are well understood.
4k60fps (or even better) stabilized and post enhanced are many orders of magnitude better than anybody here’s eyesight.
so the instant reaction is “that must be fake” so we go looking for things to prove it.
You can pause and zoom that video in all sorts of places and see the real world going on at extraordinary distances and detail. Very cool.
very real.

[MickG0105]

Play it on the TV. You can see it turning the corner (just)
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/685x446/img_3860_0fcd9ee4fb16d40f7c98fecf3822cc3dada6435a.jpeg
You're eyes are better than mine (not exactly a high bar).

[Capn Bloggs]

Webtrak confirms real.

[Lead Balloon]

Then we'll wait for reports of the application of the full force of the law against the miscreant drone operator.

[42psi]

If it's anything like the UK nothing will happen.

The CAA say they have no resource and it's a police matter and the police say they don't have the resource and it's a CAA matter.
​​​​​​
Strange that in this instance the UK CAA think that zone infringement has nothing to do with them!

Watch them all cover their arses when something finally hits.

[MickG0105]

Then we'll wait for reports of the application of the full force of the law against the miscreant drone operator.
If the drone weighs less than 250 g (and if it was the DJI Mini 3 Pro pictured in the thumbnail, it does) and they did not:

fly over the movement area
fly over or in the departure or approach path
create a collision hazard to other aircraft taking off or landing,

which they probably didn't, surprisingly they should be okay.

[Squawk7700]

If the drone weighs less than 250 g (and if it was the DJI Mini 3 Pro pictured in the thumbnail, it does) and they did not:

fly over the movement area
fly over or in the departure or approach path
create a collision hazard to other aircraft taking off or landing,

which they probably didn't, surprisingly they should be okay.

The DJI software won’t allow you to fly that close to a major airport, even though legally it can.

In order to do so, they must have jailbroken the unit or used alternate non-approved software that has potentially removed safety controls.

It’s not just this video, is the one over the Sydney harbour that’s potentially worse.

A 249 gram Drone can fly near an airport with no clear guidelines on operating in proximity to aircraft, however where the operator may fall foul of the laws would be that the aircraft is unlikely to be in line of sight, unless perhaps they were operating it from the nearby port.

If the drone was fitted with the larger extended capacity battery, then that would take it to 290’ish grams and everything changes completely.

With some coordination between authorities, an identification and search warrant could be obtained within a day or so.

[Peter Fanelli]

Yes. And the amazing fact that - as alluded to by Squawk - there's no shadow of any aircraft until they cross the runway thresholds. I'm pretty sure that shadows can be cast and be visible on water.
Look closer.

[42psi]

The DJI software won’t allow you to fly that close to a major airport

I'm afraid that is no longer true.

DJI software no longer prevents operation in those situations.
The software simply asks/reminds and the operator clicks to continue.

[Lead Balloon]

Look closer.
I stand corrected.

And if this turns out to be legal, I'll laugh like a drain.

[Squawk7700]

I'm afraid that is no longer true.

DJI software no longer prevents operation in those situations.
The software simply asks/reminds and the operator clicks to continue.

Errr not quite. If you take it to a large airport, you can’t fly for more than one minute, it shuts down.

I tried to take a photo of a house near Essendon a family member was selling in Strathmore and despite me entering in the acknowledgement and receiving the sms etc, it would only fly for one minute.

[42psi]

Errr not quite. If you take it to a large airport, you can’t fly for more than one minute, it shuts down.

I tried to take a photo of a house near Essendon a family member was selling in Strathmore and despite me entering in the acknowledgement and receiving the sms etc, it would only fly for one minute.


I'm left wondering if it's different then in UK/Europe perhaps.

Sounds daft but due to EU pressures on DJI the limits were removed, I believe, in January this year.

Yep, quick double check.
From January 2024 the majority of the geofencing has been removed for UK/Europe.

I have personally see a DJI mavic 3 flown within a UK ATZ after simply cancelling the alert warning.


An Enhanced Warning Zone is a circular area that extends 2 km outwards from the perimeter of an Authorization Zone. When a drone is approaching this area from the outside, the DJI GO app will issue a warning. Users must then confirm that they wish to continue flying.

[Server too busy]

The operation can be legal if operating under CASA's automated airspace authorisation approvals.

CASA 03/24 – Area Approval for Operation of RPA within 3NM of Controlled Aerodromes using CASA-verified Drone Safety App – Canberra (YSCB), Adelaide (YPAD), Perth (YPPH) and Sydney (YSSY) Instrument 2024 (https://www.casa.gov.au/area-approval-operation-rpa-within-3-nm-controlled-aerodromes-using-casa-verified-drone-safety-app-canberra-yscb-adelaide-ypad-perth-ypph-and-sydney-yssy)
CASA 65/23 – Approval and Permission for Operations of RPA within Sydney Harbour Restricted Airspace R405A/B Instrument 2023 (https://www.casa.gov.au/approval-and-permission-operation-rpa-within-sydney-harbour-restricted-airspace-r405a/b)

There are certain conditions but allows an Operator (ReOC holder) to fly within the airspace and around Sydney Harbour.

[MechEngr]

In the USA it is illegal to put an ADS-B Out transmitter on a drone; is that the case in Australia as well? Being visible to ATC and those with ADS-B In would seem a higher priority than filing paperwork. Alternatively, having ADS-B Out required for all manned aircraft and requiring ADS-B In on drones along with evasion software would satisfy the need for separation without burdening the ATC with drone tracking and the drone with a battery requirement for the transmitter.

Given that a drone will typically have an omni-directional transmitter to send back video, and that frequency space is well known, adding ground tracking stations to locate any signal source in that frequency range that is above the horizon and is moving would seem technically possible. I expect the StarLink antennas are tracking with less power at the ground, all a drone tracker needs is a general direction from a wide beam receiver and a similar steered array to narrow it down.

[42psi]

Drone tracking as such is not a problem.

The problem is how to deal with those drones being flown deliberately where they present a risk to aircraft.

[MechEngr]

After selling 10-20 Million drones into the US market over the last decade the number of collisions with aircraft is countable on one hand and the number of fatalities remains 0. In contrast, between 300 and 400 pilots, passengers, and people on the ground are killed by manned aviation each year, and have had that rate for decades.

While there is a theoretical risk there seems to be no practical risk evident, particularly compared to weather and birds.

The main risk that drones pose is they are capable of reaching above the walls of sports stadiums to allow those without tickets to watch the games. In the US they are considered a risk to corporate livestock farmers who raise their animals in horrific conditions, release animal waste into local rivers, and otherwise commit terrible acts, but are located far enough from the roads that this can only be seen by drones. The claim there is that al Qaeda might get info on rural hog farms and use that information in some way. No one says what way, but it's presented as a terrorist danger.

There was recently the case of an engine suffering what appeared to be compressor stall; at least it was belching flames in a spectacular manner. This was attributed to bubble wrap. Which is one more case of bubble wrap doing damage to an aircraft engine than the 10-20 Million drones have managed in the USA, which is 0.

Can stuff happen? Sure. A seat switch could put a dozen people in the hospital. Which is also a dozen more people than drones have injured with respect to aviation operations in the USA.

I'd rather make active avoidance a key component over depending on some long chain of rules that are certain not to be followed by all users.

[Captain Nomad]

Mech Engr, you might change your mind after having a near miss with a drone from the front-left seat of a fast-moving aircraft... I'm sure there are a number of pilots on here who've had them - me included. Just because you perceive the risk to be low doesn't mean it can't happen or that the consequences should be disregarded. It's only a matter of time... Trust me, see and avoid is hard enough to apply to other aircraft at times let alone something like a drone...

[nomess]

The issue with this video is helicopter activity passed directly through the area while it was up.

[MechEngr]

Mech Engr, you might change your mind after having a near miss with a drone from the front-left seat of a fast-moving aircraft... I'm sure there are a number of pilots on here who've had them - me included. Just because you perceive the risk to be low doesn't mean it can't happen or that the consequences should be disregarded. It's only a matter of time... Trust me, see and avoid is hard enough to apply to other aircraft at times let alone something like a drone...

That is exactly what I seek to prevent. Asking people to do things to prevent extremely rare occurrences doesn't work. Putting people in prison after a mishap is a sign of a failed policy. Drones already have a return to home function - pretty simple to have a "change altitude" function if they can get the information they need to do so when it's required. The absolute risk has been outside the 6-sigma boundary for normal aviation accidents. Requiring drone makers to add ADS-B In and evasion can move that to 7 or 8-sigma.

ADS-B Out is so no one has to see anything. In the US it just isn't universally required for manned aircraft and, for some manned aircraft, is prohibited.

[43Inches]

Unfortunately Australia, the nanny state, is all about regulating for things that usually only occur haphazardly or when people willingly break the rules. Punishing those that follow the rules and turning average citizens into law breakers because everything is so tight you need a law degree to do anything strictly by the law. Both with air law and road law there needs to be more public input into decisions, not just a small group adjusting laws to suit there own agenda and butt covering ideals. Too much law here is about way out 'what ifs' rather than sensible risk management.

[megan]

Wonder if the crew filed an airprox.

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

[Ixixly]

That is exactly what I seek to prevent. Asking people to do things to prevent extremely rare occurrences doesn't work. Putting people in prison after a mishap is a sign of a failed policy. Drones already have a return to home function - pretty simple to have a "change altitude" function if they can get the information they need to do so when it's required. The absolute risk has been outside the 6-sigma boundary for normal aviation accidents. Requiring drone makers to add ADS-B In and evasion can move that to 7 or 8-sigma.

ADS-B Out is so no one has to see anything. In the US it just isn't universally required for manned aircraft and, for some manned aircraft, is prohibited.

So, your proposed solution is to implement ADSB-In on all drones and implement Automated Evasion procedures for them? Instead of the far simpler, DON'T FLY NEAR A FRIGGIN AIRPORT FOR YOUR YOUTUBE CONTENT?!

[nomess]

Video had been removed.

[MechEngr]

It's not an applicable strategy when one is away from an airport - a helicopter can be running at 200 feet anywhere. Small planes, hang gliders, gliders, sailplanes, powered parachutes, gyrocopters, hot air balloons. crop dusters, news helicopters, life-flight helicopters, pick any of them. So why not have a solution that works everywhere?

Automated evasion is cheap. $25 or less for the receiver and $20 or less for the microprocessor and it is reliable -if- the FAA mandates all manned aircraft use ADS-B Out, which can be used to deconflict and avoid the numerous mid-airs between manned aircraft that are operating under see and avoid that happen every year by maintaining separation. It's not TCAS, but when a twin comes in on a straight approach and doesn't look to see they are overtaking a single engine high-wing, the pilot of which cannot look through the wing to see the wheels aimed for his head, an all to common event, just knowing there is someone else there is a big help. Radio and comms? Sure. Pilots fail to do the correct things all the time and the other pilot dies because of it.

Telling people where not to fly drones isn't 100% reliable just as telling them to See and Avoid isn't 100% reliable.

Here's what the FAA wants - they want every drone to have cellular internet communications with a central server before they can take off that will take in all the GPS data for the drone, the GPS data from the ground transmitter, the owner ID and then re-send that to ATCs and/or police departments all over the USA so they can track where all the drones are via that central service. Now, they won't necessarily send that info to pilots, maybe in some potential collision condition, and they certainly won't deconflict the drone with manned traffic, so that won't be safer. But they will build a surveillance data base of every hobbyist who owns a drone to be created of every flight and possibly kept as evidence if they feel like prosecuting someone. Again, after the danger has happened. An oddity. If one goes to the middle of North Dakota where one might see for 50 miles and can tell there aren't any airplanes, the FAA requirement may just prevent flying a drone due to lace of cellular phone internet access. How safe is that? Very safe because that will eliminate the hobby. It won't eliminate drones, because Amazon and Walmart and Walgreens and others are planning on flying 10-50 pound drones to deliver crap in that same airspace mentioned above. And they will want to deliver near airports.

This won't apply to drones created to commit crimes, such as dropping prohibited items into prisons or moving drugs across the border. Those won't have the trackers and they certainly won't care about airports. They will care about avoiding getting caught by border patrol or running into some other aircraft and losing the cargo.

I like my idea better than what the FAA wants.

[Duck Pilot]

To my knowledge (and I’ve been involved in doing this legally), the only way that a DJI GEO fence can be unlocked is by requesting DJI to unlock the area.

To do this, the pilot/operator must forward the CASA approval/authorisation to fly in the airspace to DJI.

I doubt CASA will issue any restricted airspace approval to an individual or organisation that does not have a ReOC, together with the pilot being appropriately licensed.

It’s a time consuming and very costly exercise to obtain a CASA airspace approval, regardless of the duration of the proposed operation.

If this was illegal, hope CASA prosecute as the operation certainly was a big risk to aviation safety. If I was a ReOC holder and knew a rouge operator had done this, I certainly wouldn’t be happy.

Anyone know what the potential fines are for this type of behaviour? I assume it wouldn’t be a cheap experience.

[42psi]

To my knowledge (and I’ve been involved in doing this legally), the only way that a DJI GEO fence can be unlocked is by requesting DJI to unlock the area.

To do this, the pilot/operator must forward the CASA approval/authorisation to fly in the airspace to DJI.
.

Sorry guys, I guess I confused matters by not realising that the UK/EU rules being relaxed from this January only apply in the UK/EU.

For UK/EU here is no longer the need to get prior approval. The DJI software simply flags up a warning and requires a tick box to continue.

[Ixixly]

It's not an applicable strategy when one is away from an airport - a helicopter can be running at 200 feet anywhere. Small planes, hang gliders, gliders, sailplanes, powered parachutes, gyrocopters, hot air balloons. crop dusters, news helicopters, life-flight helicopters, pick any of them. So why not have a solution that works everywhere?

Automated evasion is cheap. $25 or less for the receiver and $20 or less for the microprocessor and it is reliable -if- the FAA mandates all manned aircraft use ADS-B Out, which can be used to deconflict and avoid the numerous mid-airs between manned aircraft that are operating under see and avoid that happen every year by maintaining separation. It's not TCAS, but when a twin comes in on a straight approach and doesn't look to see they are overtaking a single engine high-wing, the pilot of which cannot look through the wing to see the wheels aimed for his head, an all to common event, just knowing there is someone else there is a big help. Radio and comms? Sure. Pilots fail to do the correct things all the time and the other pilot dies because of it.

Telling people where not to fly drones isn't 100% reliable just as telling them to See and Avoid isn't 100% reliable.

Here's what the FAA wants - they want every drone to have cellular internet communications with a central server before they can take off that will take in all the GPS data for the drone, the GPS data from the ground transmitter, the owner ID and then re-send that to ATCs and/or police departments all over the USA so they can track where all the drones are via that central service. Now, they won't necessarily send that info to pilots, maybe in some potential collision condition, and they certainly won't deconflict the drone with manned traffic, so that won't be safer. But they will build a surveillance data base of every hobbyist who owns a drone to be created of every flight and possibly kept as evidence if they feel like prosecuting someone. Again, after the danger has happened. An oddity. If one goes to the middle of North Dakota where one might see for 50 miles and can tell there aren't any airplanes, the FAA requirement may just prevent flying a drone due to lace of cellular phone internet access. How safe is that? Very safe because that will eliminate the hobby. It won't eliminate drones, because Amazon and Walmart and Walgreens and others are planning on flying 10-50 pound drones to deliver crap in that same airspace mentioned above. And they will want to deliver near airports.

This won't apply to drones created to commit crimes, such as dropping prohibited items into prisons or moving drugs across the border. Those won't have the trackers and they certainly won't care about airports. They will care about avoiding getting caught by border patrol or running into some other aircraft and losing the cargo.

I like my idea better than what the FAA wants.

So on the one hand you talk about not bothering to have rules that tell them where to fly because it isn't 100% reliable, then on the other hand you describe a system that requires them to 100% have a Drone that complies with having that equipment onboard and working? You're also describing a system that would basically render all the 10-20 million drones that you've just described as being useless to their owners as they don't comply with the requirement and are extremely unlikely to have after-market add-ons created specifically for them to make them comply. So please, tell us how you expect all current drones out there to comply with your idea of having ADSB-In/Out installed? What happens to those that are 250grams or less and don't require to be registered but are put over that weight by your suggestion of having a module added to give this capability?

Also, no, not EVERY drone has to follow this rule, only those over 250grams, but you left that out conveniently because you're really keen on pushing the "Doom" factor and "Big Brother" fear on people to get them to agree with you, aren't you? It was also brought in years ago and hasn't seemingly slowed down the use of Drones or their Sales.