Page 1 of 2

No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:30 am
by aardvark_admin
This column is archived at: http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2017/0602.shtml

So CAA is not averse to engaging in a little deceit and disinformation when it suits them?

Is this acceptable behaviour from a government agency charged with preserving the safety of the national airspace and those beneath it?

Does this not call into question the objectivity and ability to make fair and reasonable regulation?

Should there be an investigation into exactly why this campaign of misinformation is in place and why it is allowed to continue?

You tell me.

Are you aware of any other government regulatory agencies that have engaged in similar hype and disinformation campaigns, possibly under commercial pressure from other industries?

Re: No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:18 am
by Screw
To inflict that kind of damage it would have taken something with more mass than the so-called drone. Or conversely a hell of a lot more speed by the drone.

As to what the CAA says, well you would have to take that up with them. Odd I say, really odd!

Re: No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 10:30 am
by aardvark_admin
CAA have acknowledged that the pictures could have been "staged"... but they don't state that in the presentation -- only when they were later challenged as to the veracity of the images.

Surely we should expect a higher level of honesty and integrity from a government-appointed regulatory authority?

Re: No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:08 am
by roygbiv
The picture is so obviously not factual, it goes without saying but possibly taken out of context ie. they wanted to make a point of drone that can collide with registered aircraft. What was the subject of the presentation, who were the audience, what was the message. I would take a guess that CAA are just trying to protect their own turf and that is all airspace. Whereas they should be publicising the existing rules ie controlled airspace, minimum altitude of registered aircraft over differing areas. If all drone operators are educated then the two would not meet. Instead CAA will be fighting a losing battle as off-the-shelf drones are purchased and variety of uses/functions for them increase.

Re: No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:25 am
by aardvark_admin
But roy... isn't that kind of like the Iraq situation where world-leaders thought it was okay to bullshit about Saddam's supposed weapons of mass destruction because they figured that the ends justified the means?

I believe that the public must be honestly informed -- not lied to -- simply because there's an agenda going on.

Re: No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:28 am
by GSVNoFixedAbode
This is the sort of thing that should make Stuff / NZ Herald headlines: "CAA fabricates incident with ridiculous staged photos".

Is this part of a publicly available presentation?

Re: No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:33 am
by aardvark_admin
I'm trying to find out if it is online anywhere.

Re: No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:11 pm
by Perry
aardvark_admin wrote:Surely we should expect a higher level of honesty and integrity from a government-appointed regulatory authority?

You what? Cock-eyed optimist!

Re: No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:30 pm
by phill
i just have to worry if a public body with the degree of responsibility that caa has
comes up with this as believable evidential fact are they in any way qualified enough to do the job they are charged with

serious and worrisome enough to demand a ministerial inquiry into the integrity and functional ability of caa staff to provide their services at the required level

Re: No compliance without respect (2 Jun, 2017)

PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:10 pm
by NoBodyInParticular
phill wrote:serious and worrisome enough to demand a ministerial inquiry into the integrity and functional ability of caa staff to provide their services at the required level


Hey Bruce, Phill, yeah i'd have to agree with you, knowingly using false data in a governance 'promotion' sounds to be a form of 'misrepresentation' to me (and that's a term that usually gets lawyers quite excited). :lol:
Hopefully that picture will turn out to be part of a public presentation so that it can be openly exposed for the defamatory type of propaganda it really is. CAA need to be held to account for their actions.