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 1st Jan 2019, 09:28
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Brisvegas
Posts: 2,518
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.
Icarus2001 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2019, 10:08
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,920
icarus, as long as you stand outside the park you are OK. Standing in the park while you control your drone, not so much.
Sunfish is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2019, 10:13
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,859
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.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 1st Jan 2019, 22:59
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Darwin and PNG
Posts: 772
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.
Duck Pilot is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 2nd Jan 2019, 02:03
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,006
Some councils/shires have also banned operations in suburban parks & recreation areas too of course, not just state or national parks.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Jan 2019, 04:18
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fieldsworthy
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by kimbobimbo View Post
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.
What "shits 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.
Eclan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Jan 2019, 07:46
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Darwin and PNG
Posts: 772
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.
Duck Pilot is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 4th Jan 2019, 16:50
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,920
We call them “cubs” - cashed up Bogans.
Sunfish is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jan 2019, 07:59
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 773
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/109...ter-operations


Only a matter of time.
currawong is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jan 2019, 23:30
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Darwin and PNG
Posts: 772
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.
Duck Pilot is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 11th Jan 2019, 23:34
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 286
So Sunfish, have you made bail yet?

Link to news article
no_one is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 12th Jan 2019, 22:20
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,920
I think the action had more to do with the 100+ cannabis plants than the right to privacy.
Sunfish is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jan 2019, 08:34
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 38
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.
-JLS- is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jan 2019, 11:41
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fliegensville, Gold Coast Australia
Posts: 8
"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....
Fliegenmong is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jan 2019, 20:19
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 158
Originally Posted by Fliegenmong View Post
"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! -
machtuk is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jan 2019, 20:40
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 286
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.

no_one is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jan 2019, 21:05
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,006
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.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jan 2019, 12:00
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fliegensville, Gold Coast Australia
Posts: 8
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...
Fliegenmong is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jan 2019, 22:03
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,920
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?
Sunfish is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jan 2019, 22:34
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,859
You may actually be right Sunfish.

Squawk7700 is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service