Jump to content

Snippits


spacesailor
 Share

Recommended Posts

The CASA response to this incident is worth following.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/aviation-body-investigating-custom-drone-flight-carrying-fisherman/ar-AAGtuWN?li=AAgfYrC&ocid=mailsignout

 

Most likely in a Black & White application of the Law, these guys did commit an offence. But did they really do anything worse than thousands of others did last Christmas Day when those who received drones in their Santa Sacks went out to play with them in their backyard?

 

This flight would be classed as a "proof of concept" activity. The aircraft did not rise anywhere near the 300 ft limit for RC aircraft. It did not fly over a built-up area, or gatherings of people. The aircraft was in full sight of the operator at all times. If CASA proceeds any further than issuing a Caution to these people, then anyone with ideas of designing and testing an aircraft that does not follow the usual planiform wing, tubular body and vertical stabiliser shape we recognise, will be in trouble with CASA.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with @old man emu - Unf, as this has made the headlines, the regulator would be accused of being remiss for not at least investigating the event; though the fella in the chair I guess would only be an accomplice and who knows who Stig is? If they didn't investigate it, it may send a signal to the nutters out there that they can do stupid stuff and put public in harms way. Rational people wouldn't think that, but nutters would take the leap of faith from non-threatening to threatening.

 

I hope, if anything comes of it, it is just a warning...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One has to remember that the penalty for an offence that is written in any legislation is the maximum penalty that can be given. Nobody ever quotes the minimum penalty, which is a Caution. So there is a wide range of  penalty that a Court can impose. In this case, a Caution would suffice. Probably a more useful penalty would be to have these blokes make a video in which they inform their followers that, although what they did was fun, they were breaking the Law, and that people shouldn't do it.

 

However, here is a case of the Law -v- Progress,  Themis -v- Hephaestus 

 

spacer.png -v-       spacer.png

 

[ATTACH]50276._xfImport[/ATTACH]

 

image.thumb.jpeg.5b1f3d3ddad497876033f080fd8d5e49.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF you want to get all philosophical about the application of LAW, you should not have any penalty with an "example to others involved" as a major factor in the determination of the severity of the penalty as that approach has no defined limits as to it's extent and tends to be arbitrarily applied. . Restitution is a good principle to consider as the situation of victims is addressed . An essential part of resolution of the crime. In some countries attempted suicide is a crime. You can't be getting out of paying your debts that easily  Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 More or less awkwardly I guess. Maybe everyone puts their hand out on one side.. Good question actually.

 

      Under what type of plane,... it's got to be listed as  variable vectored thrust contraption.. It certainly does not fly  in the normal sense of the word.  Nev

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know the reasoning behind Jessi Combs and crew using a modified Starfighter; I would think it would be a lot safer to purpose build a vehicle.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...