Google
 

Aardvark Daily

New Zealand's longest-running online daily news and commentary publication, now in its 24th year. The opinion pieces presented here are not purported to be fact but reasonable effort is made to ensure accuracy.

Content copyright © 1995 - 2018 to Bruce Simpson (aka Aardvark), the logo was kindly created for Aardvark Daily by the folks at aardvark.co.uk



Please visit the sponsor!
Please visit the sponsor!

Beyond a joke

12 February 2018

Yes, today's column is another of those boring gripes about CAA and drones.

This morning I read this story on Stuff in which air tourism operators at Te Anau are expressing grave concerns that drones being operated near the lake will cause a tragedy.

In the past I have been critical of the manned aviation industry for their tendency to get hysterical about the risks associated with recreational drones but in this case I do believe they have some legitimate concerns. The reality is that drones ought not be flown in areas where there are significant levels of helicopter activity.

Yes, when flown safely, competently and responsibly, a recreational drone represents no real danger to a helicopter -- but we can't rely on tourists with their flash new DJI Phantom or Mavic to be any of those things.

However, the reality is that nobody (sociopaths excepted) deliberately seeks to injure or kill another person or persons. One can only deduce therefore, that anyone who does operate a drone in such a way is doing so out of ignorance.

What's more, any government agency, charged with the responsibility of keeping users of the airspace safe from unreasonable dangers, should be censured if they fail to perform that task to an adequate level.

So where is CAA's kick up the arse?

Again, let me be the first to admit that CAA's job is not a simple one nor, in this case, one they're particularly well equipped to handle.

Traditionally, CAA has only had to deal with a group of disciplined, trained proven-competent and responsible people -- aka "pilots".

In order to be granted the privilege of flying an aircraft, an individual must prove that they are all these things -- as well as a "fit and proper person" to be trusted with such responsibilities.

Drone operators, especially those who are only in NZ on holiday, are a completely different kettle of fish and CAA are well out of their depth in trying to effectively control the behaviour of this group.

CAA is used to telling pilots that it is their responsibility to ensure they have up-to-date knowledge of the rules and regulations and has the "big stick" of revoking privilege, should any pilot step out of line to an unacceptable extent.

Pilots also receive regular direct communications from CAA, in the form of advisories, the Vector magazine and other bits and pieces. This ensures that CAA is able to keep those affected, informed of regulatory and policy changes.

They have no such control over or connection with the general public however, and unfortunately, they appear to have no clue as to how they can "connect" with visitors to NZ and their drones.

They have promoted the AirMap app as a method of increasing safety but I've tried it and, to be totally honest, it's crap. In fact it's worse than crap -- because it can give a false sense of security when in fact there may be acknowledged risks in a particular area at a given time. Bad information is worse than no information!

As regular readers of this column will doubtless recall, I have lobbied CAA long hand hard to hand out their little orange drone-safety brochure at all international airports -- as a part of the package of immigration documentation. This one move could go an enormous way towards educating visitors to NZ, and thus eliminate the ignorance that my result eventually in injuries or death.

Even my suggestion to stick up a large poster with a QR code (leading to an online drone safety brochure) at international terminals has been ignored.

Now I'm sure that the media will continue to blame tourists whenever there's an incident involving a drone in one of our tourist spots -- but really, ought they not be apportioning a fairly sizable chunk of blame at CAA's doorstep?

Is it acceptable for CAA to simply say "we've made a set of rules" and leave it at that?

Ought they not have an obligation to *effectively* promulgate those rules to those who are affected by them?

If they fail to adequately inform visitors to NZ of the rules then ought CAA also have to shoulder some of the responsibility in the event someone is hurt or killed through ignorance of said rules?

If it was just one or two cases of tourists acting out of ignorance then perhaps we could understand -- but it's not. There are now a regular stream of incidents caused by such ignorance and CAA is doing absolutely jack-shirt to remedy that situation.

A risk has been identified but it is *not* being effectively managed by the government agency set up to do exactly that.

I call on the government to withdraw all coffee and biscuits from CAA's office until they actually address this issue!

What do readers think? Is it acceptable to simply make a bunch of rules and then say "job done" without properly promulgating those rules? Why have my own suggestions been clearly ignored, despite the fact that they would obviously represent an important step forward in managing the risk of ignorance within the tourist population?

What do you think will happen if/when someone dies due to this situation and I point out to the media that CAA has simply chosen not to do their job properly? Will heads roll within that government agency or will it all be whitewashed?

Please visit the sponsor!
Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say in the Aardvark Forums.

PERMALINK to this column


Rank This Aardvark Page

 

Change Font

Sci-Tech headlines

 


Features:

Beware The Alternative Energy Scammers

The Great "Run Your Car On Water" Scam

 

Recent Columns

A *billion* dollar idea
As I mentioned in my last column, Google has now equipped its Chrome browser with the ability to defeat the worst in aggressive advertising formats on the Web...

Chrome anti-competitive?
Google's Chrome browser now has a feature that will reportedly stop 97 percent of all those really annoying ads from interrupting your browsing experience...

What ever happened to fuel cells?
Electric vehicles are set to become the next big thing...

Can you sense the frustration?
When the current CEO of the South Waikato District Council took up his position several years ago, I invited him to my studio-workshop to discuss how I could help promote the district he now managed...

Is now a good time to wait?
I ran a CPU benchmark on my video rendering machine last night and was gobsmacked at how much slower it is than "state of the art" silicon...

Beyond a joke
Yes, today's column is another of those boring gripes about CAA and drones...

Plastic, a bigger threat than climate change?
A regular reader sent me an email the other day containing a link to a worrying report that everyone should read...

Babies versus boosters, no contest
Yesterday was a fantastic day for any geek, space enthusiast or anyone who has the heart and imagination of a little boy...

Are you a dim-bulb?
The term "dim-bulb" is frequently used to denote someone of lower cerebral performance. A dunce, a person of lower intelligence, someone of sub-average IQ...

The *real* reason for trade deals?
You have to wonder why there has been so much emphasis on striking trade deals between NZ and a raft of other countries...

Tokoroa, EV-central?
An interesting debate is taking place here in Tokoroa...