The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

No Drone Zones

Reply

Old 28th Dec 2018, 04:05
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,006
Originally Posted by LeadSled View Post
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/arti...ne-attack.html
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Dec 2018, 10:01
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere in Oz
Age: 48
Posts: 880
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight View Post
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...?

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.
Andy_RR is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Dec 2018, 10:50
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 56
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.
Bend alot is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Dec 2018, 11:06
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 158
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!
machtuk is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 28th Dec 2018, 11:32
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,079
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. .
aroa is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 29th Dec 2018, 01:36
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,006
CASA's RPA contact details below.

CASA remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) office

Last edited by CaptainMidnight; 29th Dec 2018 at 10:38.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 29th Dec 2018, 05:23
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere in Oz
Age: 48
Posts: 880
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.
Andy_RR is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 29th Dec 2018, 06:31
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,006
There is also this:

CASA 96/17 - Direction — operation of certain unmanned aircraft
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 29th Dec 2018, 06:53
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere in Oz
Age: 48
Posts: 880
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...?
Andy_RR is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 29th Dec 2018, 07:47
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 131
It's not that hard. Homepage of CASA website, click on "Drones".
Vag277 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 29th Dec 2018, 07:59
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere in Oz
Age: 48
Posts: 880
Yeah, but why do the regulations have to say one thing and a direction say another? Why can't they get their shďt sorted...?
Andy_RR is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 29th Dec 2018, 08:35
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,006
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.

Originally Posted by Andy_RR View Post
Yeah, but why do the regulations have to say one thing and a direction say another? Why can't they get their shďt 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

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).
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 29th Dec 2018, 09:57
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere in Oz
Age: 48
Posts: 880
So, is the history and reasoning behind CASA 96/17 documented anywhere?
Andy_RR is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 29th Dec 2018, 10:46
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,006
At the link to CASA 96/17 I provided in post #68, click on "Explanatory Statement".
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 29th Dec 2018, 12:07
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: somewhere in Oz
Age: 48
Posts: 880
Thanks! Will have a read.
Andy_RR is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 29th Dec 2018, 16:28
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: GAFA
Posts: 26
You know what shits 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 bullshit. 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.
kimbobimbo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2019, 04:48
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: A land down under
Posts: 114
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.
Glasgow_Flyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2019, 06:03
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,006
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
"But someone said on Facebook that it was OK ....." won't be a defence
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2019, 08:31
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,856

NSW parks are “no drone zones” I noticed today.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2019, 08:56
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Albany, West Australia
Age: 78
Posts: 464
Italy has them banned from certain tourist areas also.
poteroo is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service