old man emu Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 Talk about radio controlled machinery, I spotted one of these being used on a road construction site in southwest Sydney OME 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 I would like to see a coterie of skilled drone pilots with proper sensibility out there supporting the things that drones can do well. Look, there is the Jet-ski mob - mostly dangerous cockroaches on the aquatic fraternity - but Jet--skis are also a powerful and effective weapon in the surf life-saving armoury. A significant proportion of trail-bike riders are bloody oiks, tearing up the country-side and annoying the manure out of a peaceful weekend - but responsible trail-bike riders can cover a huge amount of ground when searching for lost people. Intelligent hunters surgically excise feral animals and give native species a chance of existing, while the Billy-Bobs of the world shoot holes in road signs. Leaf-blowers, originally designed for the purpose of raising the annoyance-level of neighbours to homicidal level, are a fast and effective way to create a safe burn-line for bushfire hazard reduction and back-burning efforts. There is almost nothing that some idiot cannot use to do something idiotic. Up to and including a B-52. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 I doubt he'd get fined. A caution perhaps. CASA can beat their chest about what the maximum penalty is, but a reasonable magistrate would most likely understand that "no animals were harmed in the filming of this commercial" and there wasn't any deliberate recklessness, etc. Having said that, there are no doubt some idiot drone pilots out there, just as there are idiot full-sized aircraft pilots out there too. Peer pressure is usually the best behaviour modifier, because no-one likes being called nasty names by their annoyed mates. Save the big stick for the more serious and recalcitrant offenders. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted November 12, 2016 Share Posted November 12, 2016 I hope you are right dutch, but never underestimate the stupidity of officialdom. The judge may have a deep but hidden fear of flying and behave irrationally. A mate of mine was injured as a surf-lifesaving beltman, years after it was obvious that a surfboard was a far better tool. Funnily enough, the mate had a surfboard of his own which he wasn't allowed to use. There are many other examples of official dysfunction, we could start a thread of them. The lists of illegal and legal drugs for example. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernie Knight Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Silly sausage. He's a very naughty boy.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planedriver Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Other than 5 minutes of fame, it was hardly worth the exercise. He whinged that it was cold when delivered. Surprise, Surprise! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Fan cooled sausage. Why would it have any heat left in it? Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 and there wasn't any deliberate recklessness, etc.. I disagree there mate. Flying drones over populated areas, roads etc is a huge risk to the general public, hence there are nasty consequences if caught doing it. The difference between the idiot drone pilot and the manned aircraft idiot is the manned aircraft idiot will generally know what rules he is breaking. You need no training , certification, anything at all to become an idiot drone pilot. Just slip down to Harvey Norman, buy yourself a drone, launch it over a busy highway and wallaa', a dikhead drone pilot is born., 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Does a magistrate have any say in the fines for CASA offences? Most of the rules are now strict whatever ( I can't remember the exact wording) which means you are automaticly guilty and the number of points denotes the fine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 I disagree there mate. Flying drones over populated areas, roads etc is a huge risk to the general public,hence there are nasty consequences if caught doing it. The difference between the idiot drone pilot and the manned aircraft idiot is the manned aircraft idiot will generally know what rules he is breaking. You need no training , certification, anything at all to become an idiot drone pilot. Just slip down to Harvey Norman, buy yourself a drone, launch it over a busy highway and wallaa', a dikhead drone pilot is born., What happened with your training/qualification process? Did that go anywhere? I was thinking of getting qualified for Urban work some time. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Sure did. We have CASA approval to issue drone licences (RePL). We issued 350 in the first year, so one could say it went somewhere haha 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Does a magistrate have any say in the fines for CASA offences? Most of the rules are now strict whatever ( I can't remember the exact wording) which means you are automaticaly guilty and the number of points denotes the fine. The media always reports the maximum penalty, either fine or imprisonment, for whatever crime is alleged. By the time it comes to a Court imposing a penalty, all sorts of things are taken into account in relation to penalty. For an offence such as this, given that there was no actual injury to persons or property, I would suggest that the harshest penalty would be a fine not exceeding $500. The offence might be "strict liability" which means that the rule says either you cannot do something, or you must do something, but the penalty range can be from a caution up to the maximum indicated in the Act of Regulation. OME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Sure did. We have CASA approval to issue drone licences (RePL). We issued 350 in the first year, so one could say it went somewhere haha Congratulations! Where are you doing the training from? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 We train all over Aus :) In Melbourne tomorrow, Perth next week, Back to Sydney after that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 I don't see the " hugh risk" at all motzartmerv. If you could quantify it then I could be convinced. In the meantime I'm going to continue thinking that being struck by lightning is the bigger risk. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted November 14, 2016 Share Posted November 14, 2016 Bruce. The phantom 3 used in this video weighs about 1.5 kilos. The normal ball peon hammer you have in your shed weighs 1kg. Imagine your wife is driving down the freeway and someone drops a hammer from the bridge onto her windscreen. Is that an acceptable risk? Phantom in flight failures are much much much more likely than bein hit by lightening. The risk this drone pilot posed to the general public is NOT acceptable. Not by anybody who understands them and certainly not by casa. If we could ban lightening strikes over populated areas we would ;) 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 About 100 people in Australia are hit by lightning each year. I did find that one was hit by a drone. Therefore you are 100 times more likely to be hit by lightning as by a drone. Between 5 and 10 of these are killed by the lightning, and I couldn't find one that was killed by a drone in Australia. So the chances of being killed by a drone strike are infinitely smaller than being killed by lightning. We humans are really bad at assessing risk... we take all sorts of precautions against unlikely risks while we ignore real big risks. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 About 100 people in Australia are hit by lightning each year. I did find that one was hit by a drone.Therefore you are 100 times more likely to be hit by lightning as by a drone. Between 5 and 10 of these are killed by the lightning, and I couldn't find one that was killed by a drone in Australia. So the chances of being killed by a drone strike are infinitely smaller than being killed by lightning. We humans are really bad at assessing risk... we take all sorts of precautions against unlikely risks while we ignore real big risks. You miss the point every time with these mythical calculations; there is NO occurrence level where it is permissable to injure or kill someone. There's nothing surprising in what's happened here, as RC operators will know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 Turbs.. Please explain the use of the word "mythical" . I find it stupid and ignorant. You can google up the figures yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 Turbs.. Please explain the use of the word "mythical" .I find it stupid and ignorant. You can google up the figures yourself. You would, but the realistic figure we have to work to is zero. The penalties for exceeding that have been pointed out reasonably; on top of that is any victim who wants his expenses paid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Tuncks Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 Well I take that as an admission that the figures I quoted were accurate. So you reckon that any act which causes a life to be lost is forbidden? What utter nonsense, try telling that to a road engineer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 Well I take that as an admission that the figures I quoted were accurate.So you reckon that any act which causes a life to be lost is forbidden? What utter nonsense, try telling that to a road engineer. Try following the court cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motzartmerv Posted November 19, 2016 Share Posted November 19, 2016 And here in lies the reason I stop posting here. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 And here in lies the reason I stop posting here. Yep you me and a fair few others. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted November 20, 2016 Share Posted November 20, 2016 I own and fly drones but I would never do what that bloke did, a drone has the ability to fall like a brick and kill someone. If people start doing stuff like that it will end very badly. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now