Man faces $9000 fine for using a drone to pick up a Bunnings sausage

[Express]

Man faces $9000 fine for using a drone to pick up a Bunnings sausage


Tom Cowie
6 November, 2016



Some people will go to great lengths to get hold of a Bunnings sausage in bread.

But one frankfurter fan appears to have gone too far by using a drone to pick one up from his nearest hardware outlet.



Bunnings Warehouse is well known for weekend sausage sizzles.


The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is investigating after a video was uploaded to YouTube showing a man piloting a drone to a Sunbury Bunnings carpark while he sat in his home.

The video has since been deleted, however CASA spokesperson Peter Gibson said the incident potentially breached a number of drone regulations.

These included use of a drone within 30 metres of people, use out of the line of sight and use over a populous area.


See link for video


"You can clearly see people walking to and from their cars, you can clearly see people around the sausage sizzle," he said.

Mr Gibson said the video showed a drone flying over a housing estate, crossing a four-lane road before hovering over the Bunnings barbecue.



It's unclear at this time as to whether the man asked for onions.


An alleged accomplice then places a snag into a receptacle which is connected to the drone by a string. It is unclear if the man asked for onions.

The video has since been reposted on Facebook, showing a man receiving the sausage in a hot tub in the backyard of a house.



The Sunbury sausage lover is facing a $9000 fine for sending a drone to Bunnings. Photo: Matt Rourke


Before that, the drone drops off a note in the Bunnings car park saying "Please buy snag and put in bag, here's $10".

Mr Gibson said the rising popularity of drones meant authorities had a busy time on their hands making sure the flying machines were used within safety laws.

"The takeout message is simple, the drone rules are there to protect people and property," he said.

"This is a classic example of a place where you should never fly a drone."

With Christmas coming up and drones sure to feature in plenty of stockings, Mr Gibson said any new owners should read up on exactly what they are allowed to do.

"We want to see people have fun with their drones but if you don't respect the rules then you putting people at risk and there are penalties for doing that," Mr Gibson said.

The man faces fines of up to $9000 for breaching drone rules.


.

http://www.smh.com.au/victoria/man-f...08-gsl3q2.html

[Polyal]

LOL...drone was probably stolen.

[GO FURTHER]

So I wonder how Domino's Pizzas are going to be reportedly delivering pizzas with drones from next year if the regs state that use of one within 30 metres of people, or used out of the line of sight and use over a populous area is illegal?

Maybe that does not apply to a CCA approved commercially piloted drone delivery service?

[CFOUR]

nanny state at it again. that was hilarious and nobody was harmed. are ew not going to get steak knives at dinner because they are pointy, fine people when they make mistakes like cars but don't stop them from doing something relatively simple.

[Polyal]

I agree its funny but...there is a potentially very dangerous side to all these drones zipping about in the hands of bogans.

[Mercury Bullet]

Yep, someone flew one in front of a 737 landing at Perth airport.

If it went into one of the engines it could have killed 180 people.

I'm all for having fun but there's a time and a place.

[Franco Cozzo]

LMFAO only in Sunbury

[nstg8a]

I love it, nanny state be damned.

If he gets fined I hope he crowdfunds. I'd donate.

[Ben73]

Bunnings snags are overrated.
Not worth $2 let alone $9000

[Stefan]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...ball-half.html

[Lunch]

This state is pathetic! Anything to get more money out of its citizens, the government should look to give him a job, dudes got skills!

[theunfairadvant]

Check out this news about a baby losing an eye to drones.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...ball-half.html

[X-AHH]

Originally Posted by Lunch

This state is pathetic! Anything to get more money out of its citizens, the government should look to give him a job, dudes got skills!

CASA is a federal government department so the money will be going to Malcolm's mates in Canberra.

[MITCHAY]

Lol I remember I was up in Townsville sitting out back having a fair few too many and I see this rainbow coloured thing flying around in the sky. I said to my mate is it just me or can you see it too

A few weeks later there was a news article about CASA busting the person for flying a drone in controlled airspace. Which doesn't surprise me the planes fly right over his house.

[flightstrike]

Personally I'm glad the CASA have done this. It's about time they grew a back bone and enforced these laws.

I say this as an Airline Pilot. There is very little worse than hearing a warning regarding uncontrolled/unlawful drone activity. With a closing speed of over 300kmph, I don't particularly want one going through my windshield on approach.

These drones are regulated by CASA regulations. Unfortunately though, most private owners wouldn't have a bloody clue.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by flightstrike

Personally I'm glad the CASA have done this. It's about time they grew a back bone and enforced these laws.

I say this as an Airline Pilot. There is very little worse than hearing a warning regarding uncontrolled/unlawful drone activity. With a closing speed of over 300kmph, I don't particularly want one going through my windshield on approach.

These drones are regulated by CASA regulations. Unfortunately though, most private owners wouldn't have a bloody clue.

I understand your frustration with the idiots who do these sorts of things, but it really is the same as most 'enthusiast' activities: its those who are irresponsible (either wittingly or unwittingly) that destroy it for the rest.

As an example, my brother in law is a keen quad racer. He has a favourite couple of patches around town that he technically is not allowed to operate in because he is within 3nm of two aerodromes. However, he very rarely exceeds tree top height in his operations. And when he does, it his maximum altitude would be less than 200ft above ground level.

So the risk he poses to any aircraft operations, is extremely small, bordering on zero.

And I say this as a recreational pilot that operates from one of the two aerodromes discussed above.

[mac_man_luke]

Originally Posted by Mercury Bullet

Yep, someone flew one in front of a 737 landing at Perth airport.

If it went into one of the engines it could have killed 180 people.

I'm all for having fun but there's a time and a place.

While stupid its very unlikely to kill 180 people nor much more than an emergency landing or birds would be an even bigger problem

[X-AHH]

Originally Posted by mac_man_luke

While stupid its very unlikely to kill 180 people nor much more than an emergency landing or birds would be an even bigger problem

I think you will find that bird strike is a more significant problem than people realise for jet engines. This is the reason for captain Sully having to land in the Hudson River.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by xahh

I think you will find that bird strike is a more significant problem than people realise for jet engines. This is the reason for captain Sully having to land in the Hudson River.

Aircraft engines are designed, and tested, to withstand certain weight bird strikes. US Airways Flight 1549 was unfortunate in that it suffered birdstrike to both engines, almost simultaneously, that caused both engines to shutdown.

In that case, the birds were Canadian Geese that typically weigh more than what the engines were designed for.

So there were two "unlucky" incidents that caused the aircraft to lose power: the first was the double bird strike , and the second being that the birds were above design weight.

On a multi-engined aircraft. the aircraft is designed to operate with a single engine as well.

It is my understanding that, generally speaking, bird strike is not too much of a drama. Not something you would wish for of course, but is generally to too dramatic.

[X-AHH]

Originally Posted by psychobimbo

Aircraft engines are designed, and tested, to withstand certain weight bird strikes. US Airways Flight 1549 was unfortunate in that it suffered birdstrike to both engines, almost simultaneously, that caused both engines to shutdown.

In that case, the birds were Canadian Geese that typically weigh more than what the engines were designed for.

So there were two "unlucky" incidents that caused the aircraft to lose power: the first was the double bird strike , and the second being that the birds were above design weight.

On a multi-engined aircraft. the aircraft is designed to operate with a single engine as well.

It is my understanding that, generally speaking, bird strike is not too much of a drama. Not something you would wish for of course, but is generally to too dramatic.

Point taken but please let's not play down the potential risk that drones pose to aircraft. After all, aircraft are most vulnerable during take off and landing due to the lack of time pilots have to react to any unusual circumstances that may arise and low altitudes are where these hobby drones fly.
The damage that could be caused by a drone cannot be compared to a birdstrike anyway so let's just allow CASA to do its job and try to keep the sky safe for aircraft to operate in.

[FoxtrotGolfXray 5.0]

Originally Posted by xahh

Point taken but please let's not play down the potential risk that drones pose to aircraft. After all, aircraft are most vulnerable during take off and landing due to the lack of time pilots have to react to any unusual circumstances that may arise and low altitudes are where these hobby drones fly.
The damage that could be caused by a drone cannot be compared to a birdstrike anyway so let's just allow CASA to do its job and try to keep the sky safe for aircraft to operate in.

Agree completely that drones, when used inappropriately, cause all sorts of risks, not just to aircraft but in a whole range of areas.

At the same time as not playing down the risks, we should not escalate the risks unnecessarily either. And I'm not trying to imply you have here, just pointing out that a balanced view is needed.

Its pretty clear from the CASA website that CASA themselves have assessed the risks associated with RPAs weighing less than 2 kilograms as being far less than those over 2 kilograms.

Not sure what you mean by the bolded part though?

[pursuit57]

Originally Posted by mac_man_luke

While stupid its very unlikely to kill 180 people nor much more than an emergency landing or birds would be an even bigger problem

Yes but totally different story on take off, 100% thrust needed during takeoff & until cruising altitude reached.
Drones used by dick***** around airports are in the same category as Birds & Lasers and always a worry to pilots.
Think our fellow member on here who is a pilot would agree with that.
Planes that drop unfortunately usually end up with fatalities....

[Trump]

I see this whole episode as a waste of time because by the time he got his sausage, it was stone cold...

[X-AHH]

Originally Posted by psychobimbo

Agree completely that drones, when used inappropriately, cause all sorts of risks, not just to aircraft but in a whole range of areas.

At the same time as not playing down the risks, we should not escalate the risks unnecessarily either. And I'm not trying to imply you have here, just pointing out that a balanced view is needed.

Its pretty clear from the CASA website that CASA themselves have assessed the risks associated with RPAs weighing less than 2 kilograms as being far less than those over 2 kilograms.

Not sure what you mean by the bolded part though?

Yes, CASA have changed things recently so that recreational drone operators can have fun on weekends flying them within the rules but even these 2Kg or less versions are not allowed within the 5.5KM exclusion zone around airports so they must be still deemed as a hazard to aircraft.

I agree, a balanced view is needed and that's why we can have a friendly chat here and get our opinions off our chests.

My point behind the bolded part is that a bird doesn't contain metal parts and a high powered lithium battery capable of causing an explosion or fire if damaged on impact.

[creative]

Originally Posted by xahh

..... but even these 2Kg or less versions are not allowed within the 5.5KM exclusion zone around airports so they must be still deemed as a hazard to aircraft.

Actually that also isnt true anymore. You can fly within the zone so long as you are....

not on the approach and departure path, or
within the movement area, or
create a hazard to aircraft that may be using those areas.

The rules in Australia are some of the best ones in the world that allow this hobby to happen with minimal red tape.... (just look at sweden and their total ban rules!) and whilst I think the story is a bit of fun, its these kinds of actions that the media, beurocrates and do-gooders are looking for to enforce stricter rules.

Being invested heavily in this hobby myself I can see the fun at the time of doing it but I can also see the implications of his actions.

These "toys" are becoming serious machines capable of incredible speeds. We recently tested a an ImpulseRc Helix on a 6s battery..... I wouldnt want something like this striking anything at these speeds....

[X-AHH]

Originally Posted by creative

Actually that also isnt true anymore. You can fly within the zone so long as you are....



The rules in Australia are some of the best ones in the world that allow this hobby to happen with minimal red tape.... (just look at sweden and their total ban rules!) and whilst I think the story is a bit of fun, its these kinds of actions that the media, beurocrates and do-gooders are looking for to enforce stricter rules.

Being invested heavily in this hobby myself I can see the fun at the time of doing it but I can also see the implications of his actions.

These "toys" are becoming serious machines capable of incredible speeds. We recently tested a an ImpulseRc Helix on a 6s battery..... I wouldnt want something like this striking anything at these speeds....

Hey creative,
Thanks for your input and you are correct about flying within the 5.5km zone being possible now under the circumstances you mentioned.
I own one of these boys toys myself and just hope that someone doesn't spoil it for the rest of us and CASA tightens the rules again.
I guess after 38 years in the aviation industry I have an overactive safety gland.

[XR6TCraig]

This whole thing is just a massive knee jerk reaction. No kittens were killed here people, nor were they ever likely to be.

We are massively overregulated when it comes to this kind of thing and yet there is no regulation in the selling of them, or is there?

I don't know, but what I do know is that I can buy one from any number of shops in my local area without a licence to operate or proof of my ability to operate one, or proof of my knowledge of the regulations around there use! If they are so dangerous, why isn't the sale and operation of them more regulated? Why let all and sundry buy one and throw the book at them on their use after the fact? Hasn't the horse bolted in relation to the control of there use once it is in the owners hands? I suppose its a little like the car licencing system here. Let everyone get a licence and then fine the **** out of them. More money in it!

Unless Sunbury has expanded to the point where it now borders Tullamarine Airport, there is no real threat to aircraft over Sunbury Bunnings either!

In other news, shouldn't the local council be around to that residence to fine the resident within an inch of his life for not having of a pool fence around that hot tub? Kittens could drown in that thing! So irresponsible!LOL

[creative]

Originally Posted by xahh

Hey creative,
Thanks for your input and you are correct about flying within the 5.5km zone being possible now under the circumstances you mentioned.
I own one of these boys toys myself and just hope that someone doesn't spoil it for the rest of us and CASA tightens the rules again.
I guess after 38 years in the aviation industry I have an overactive safety gland.

Nothing wrong with being safety conscious... all of us that fly locally are and we treat it very seriously. These are basically flying blenders that can cause some serious injury if misused.

We fly within a very close location of a helipad and we have had police and rangers come and see us whilst we have been flying. They have seen we are responsible, have a joyride and leave us happy knowing we are following the rules. We like to educate the public and we all carry spare screens with us so people can see what we do rather than what the media portrays and that we arent perverted window spotters that may unleash all hell as we fly around at 100km/h. Every negative confrontation we have had has been turned around and they have left smiling as we like to educate people as to what we do rather than what DJI flyers do. ;)

This is why I am happy if he gets done for what he did. The rules are there to allow us to quite freely enjoy this hobby and the more people that cop a fine for flying dangerously the better in my opinion.

[creative]

Originally Posted by XR6TCraig

.This whole thing is just a massive knee jerk reaction. No kittens were killed here people, nor were they ever likely to be.

Exactly... but the media will spin it in a negative way as drones are evil.. general public believe what they are fed and demand laws that the bureaucratic will bring in due to public pressure.

We are massively overregulated when it comes to this kind of thing and yet there is no regulation in the selling of them, or is there?

I don't know, but what I do know is that I can buy one from any number of shops in my local area without a licence to operate or proof of my ability to operate one, or proof of my knowledge of the regulations around there use! If they are so dangerous, why isn't the sale and operation of them more regulated? Why let all and sundry buy one and throw the book at them on their use after the fact? Hasn't the horse bolted in relation to the control of there use once it is in the owners hands? I suppose its a little like the car licencing system here. Let everyone get a licence and then fine the **** out of them. More money in it!

No there arent any regulations regarding the sale of them and nor should there be. The onus is on the purchaser to act responsibly which is how it should be! People taking responsibility for their actions and all that! We are also far from over regulated. Australia is one of the most forward thinking in terms of rules regarding this hobby and actually relaxed the regulations in september to allow alot more freedom to fly. Over regulated is sweden putting a complete ban on ANY ( than now means model planes etc ) model that can carry a camera in the air. They have basically killed the FPV and AP flying in one hit!

Unless Sunbury has expanded to the point where it now borders Tullamarine Airport, there is no real threat to aircraft over Sunbury Bunnings either!

Its not just about airports and planes. They can seriously injure someone if they fall out the sky, as they do occasionally or havent been set up correctly and when the RTH function isnt calibrated properly and it slams into a building as the DJI flyer has no idea how to fly one in an emergency without aids.
This is why you dont fly over buildings and crowds, especially if you are nowhere near the area!

[arronm]

Donald Trump picks his snags up by drone so it must be OK....