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.

Wonder if the crew filed an airprox.

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?!

Video had been removed.

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.

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.

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.

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.