No Drone Zones
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?
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?
A teenage relative was given two “drones” for Christmas today, just small ones, pretty light.
They both came with this brochure in the box.
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.
One flew up Spring street at approx 150ft.
One could legally fly a squadron of 100gram drones.
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.
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.
They both came with this brochure in the box.
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.
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.
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.
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-...sland/10668374
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-...sland/10668374
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!:-)
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!:-)
furthermore no flying over private property without the owners written permission.
As soon as the Gatwick event started to unfold on TV ............so standby for some new 'rools'
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.
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'.
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'.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,965
Received 92 Likes
on
53 Posts
It should also be lawful for occupiers to destroy drones on sight.
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!
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!
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.
(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.
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.
(a) keeps it in sight; and
(b) keeps it clear of populous areas.
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.
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.
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!!
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!!
