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

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 -

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.

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. .

CASA's RPA contact details below.

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.

There is also this:

CASA 96/17 - Direction — operation of certain unmanned aircraft

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...?

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

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.

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).

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

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

Thanks! Will have a read.

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.

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:

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

Italy has them banned from certain tourist areas also.https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....bfdaf9c1da.jpg