Quick, call the police! (13 Feb, 2019)

Have your say on today's Aardvark Daily column

Quick, call the police! (13 Feb, 2019)

Postby aardvark_admin » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:21 am

This column is archived at: https://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2019/0213.shtml

Is nobody in the media paying attention to detail any more?

Are the police seriously suggesting that *anyone* who sees a drone near an airport or "aircraft base" should call 111 and report it?

Has this proven my claims that we have total drone hysteria now?

Isn't the ODT story rather disappointing, especially when an independent online news source such as Newsie does a much better job of a simple story like this.

And why aren't CAA being a whole lot more intelligent in respect to the way they're informing tourists of our drone rules?

Can *any* government organisation operate with adequate effectiveness and efficiency or is there some systematic issue that produces outcomes like this?
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3481
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Quick, call the police! (13 Feb, 2019)

Postby par_annoyed » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:53 am

Obvious innit - anyone flying any kind of drone must be a TERRORIST.......

(just like a long and growing list of other stuff...)
par_annoyed
 
Posts: 596
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 8:03 am

Re: Quick, call the police! (13 Feb, 2019)

Postby A Bradford » Wed Feb 13, 2019 1:38 pm

I seem to remember Bruce that you were very much on the side of the police when they castigated a pilot for operating a plane appropriately at a long standing and quite legal airfield when a twit put children on horses right at the end of the active runway. The pilot even said he was flying the aircraft in accordance with the regulations but that fell on deaf-ears as a witch-hunt was very much underway. You weren’t on the side of aviation then, I seem to remember that that twit held no responsibility as far as you were concerned. So, putting aside your argument that drones are safe (and in the name of consistency), perhaps the twits that “see” drones should be taken just as seriously, even when you are operating them absolutely legally at a legal airfield.
A Bradford
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2014 2:55 pm

Re: Quick, call the police! (13 Feb, 2019)

Postby aardvark_admin » Wed Feb 13, 2019 2:09 pm

Sorry, the pilot of that aircraft did *not* operate legally. He flew below 500 feet over a gathering of people (and not while on approach for landing) and also operated an aircraft in a manner that did cause physical injury to one of those people.

CAR 91.311
Minimum heights for VFR flights
(a) A pilot-in-command of an aircraft must not operate the aircraft under VFR —

(1) over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons at a height of less than 1000
feet above the surface or any obstacle that is within a horizontal radius of 600 metres from the point immediately below the aircraft; or

(2) over any other area—
(i) at a height of less than 500 feet above the surface; or
(ii)at a height of less than 500 feet above any obstacle, person, vehicle, vessel, or structure that is within a horizontal radius of 150 metres from the point immediately below the aircraft; and
(3) for any operation, at a height less than that required to execute an emergency landing in the event of engine failure without hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to a pilot -in-command of an aircraft —

(1) conducting a take -off or landing; or
(2) conducting a balked landing or discontinued approach; or
(3) taxiing.

(c) Paragraph (a)(2) does not apply to a pilot -in-command of an aircraft if the bona fide purpose of the flight requires the aircraft to be flown at a height lower than that prescribed in paragraph (a)(2), but only if —
(1) the flight is performed without hazard to persons or property on the surface; and
(2) only persons performing an essential function associated with the flight are carried on the aircraft; and
(3) the aircraft is not flown at a height lower than that required for the purpose of the flight; and
(4) the horizontal distance that the aircraft is flown from any obstacle, person, vessel, vehicle, or structure is not less than that necessary for the purpose of the flight, except that in the case of an aeroplane, the aeroplane remains outside a horizontal radius of 150 metres from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure that is not associated with the operation


Since the aircraft concerned was *not* landing at the time of the overflight (it was flying parallel to the runway at less than 200ft AGL), none of the exceptions to the above rule are valid hence it was in breach. We all know however, that flight schools tend to get a very light touch from CAA, given that they pay a lot of money for the privilege -- hence I suspect there were "warnings" and not prosecutions in this matter.
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3481
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Quick, call the police! (13 Feb, 2019)

Postby roygbiv » Wed Feb 13, 2019 4:41 pm

Possibly it is the quality of reporting, the police advice is the same - call 111 from both articles. As you point out this is either totally ridiculous or the articles have both taken out of context the senior constable's message. Or, one article was written from information of the other carrying over the inaccuracy. Begs the question as to what the police really advise in such a situation, my guess it would be pass to it CAA to make such a call. The police have far more pressing things to address.
User avatar
roygbiv
 
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 9:28 pm

Re: Quick, call the police! (13 Feb, 2019)

Postby phill » Wed Feb 13, 2019 5:20 pm

more 111 calls in a region = more funding and personnel

more funding = more toys
more personnel = more promotion and pay = lighter work load = more facebook time
( ,,,,,,,, ....... A E I O U use em sparingly theres probably not enough )

i might live and eat in a sewer .. but hey look how many of these shiney things i have got
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: Quick, call the police! (13 Feb, 2019)

Postby joeseph » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:34 pm

aardvark_admin wrote:Since the aircraft concerned was *not* landing at the time of the overflight (it was flying parallel to the runway at less than 200ft AGL), none of the exceptions to the above rule are valid hence it was in breach. We all know however, that flight schools tend to get a very light touch from CAA, given that they pay a lot of money for the privilege -- hence I suspect there were "warnings" and not prosecutions in this matter.


speaking of low flying, I spotted an aircraft doing a very, very low turn over Wattle Downs Golf course on Sunday afternoon - so low in fact it looked in danger of clipping the trees and crashing. It went out of view very quickly so I had no chance to whip out the cellphone & capture evidence, but listening to the engine noise it was clear that the pilot had gotten away with the manoeuvre and was climbing away.
Single engined with red stripes along leading & trailing edges of under the wing is about the best description I can come up with.
joeseph
 
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 2:11 pm


Return to Today's column

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests