Worrying new UAV laws.

[motzartmerv]

Hi Guys. While im not teaching people to fly aeroplanes, I am consulting potential UAV business operators and helping them produce UOC's (Unmanned operators certificates)

 

To make a long story short, CASA to date, have made the process of obtaining a licence to fly a drone/UAV quite demanding, and the complexity of any application for an approval is almost equal to that of an AOC for charter etc.

 

CAA, in their eternal wisdom, have decided to attempt to change the ruling which would see under 2 kg drones requiring NO such licensing etc. NO UOC, and no pilots certification.

 

The reasons behind this are and I quote " The rsik posed to the public by an aerial vehicle with a mass of less then 2kg's is almost negligible."

 

UUMM... I dont know what CASA fly around in, but If i smacked into a 2 kg lump of plastic in my Jab, it would almost certainly bring the aeroplane down.

 

A 2 litre bottle of coke weighs about 2 kg's, could you imagine dropping one onto a car from 500 feet?

 

And just for some context, the current speed record for a UAV under 2k's is 707 klm/hr

 

I cannot for the life of me understand how CASA can think the deregulation of the industry will at all increase the safety.

 

Sorry to rant, but we need to make submission to CASA NOW to get this change STOPPED!!!!!

 

Please sign the petition below, and submite a letter to CASA explaining how dangerous these things could be in the wrong hands.

 

There are literally thousands of these things being sold every week in Australia.

 

http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/civil-aviation-safety-authority-against-nprm-1309-unregulated-drones-uav-uas-rpas-in-australian-airspace?utm_source=supporter_message&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=supporter_message

 

Heres a link to my new websiite.. (shameless plug im sorry)

 

http://totalrpa.com.au/

 

 

[Downunder]

You sure this thread is not about protecting your business? Just sayin...

 

http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/casa-briefing-may-2014.118714/

 

Proposed rule changes for remotely piloted aircraft

 

A package of changes is being proposed to the rules covering remotely piloted aircraft used in commercial operations. The most significant change would see the removal of the requirement for approvals from CASA to operate small remotely piloted aircraft in standard conditions. It is proposed that remotely piloted aircraft weighing less than two kilograms would not require approval through the issue of an Operators Certificate and a Remote Pilot Certificate. This would only apply in the standard operating conditions, which includes operations in visual line of sight, less than 400 feet above ground level, non-populous areas, more than 30 metres from people and outside controlled airspace. Remotely piloted aircraft weighing more than two kilograms and all operations outside the standard conditions would still require approvals from CASA. The proposal to remove approvals for small remotely piloted aircraft operations has been made after an investigation of the risks and potential harm to people, property and other airspace users. A human injury predication model shows small remotely piloted aircraft have a very low kinetic energy and thus pose a low risk to people, property and airspace users. In the notice of proposed rule making a number of other changes are proposed relating to remote pilot training and certification, maintenance and approvals. CASA has also developed three proposed advisory documents covering general issues, training and certification and operations.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yea thanks down under.

 

My business won't e effected by this rule change, but thank you for that. Very helpful.

 

If you happy to have 13 year olds flying 2kg UAv's with you in the air the be sure to write to casa an explain your views. It's a free country ay?

 

Meanwhile, I will continue to campaign against this unsafe rule change.

 

Thanks for your input

 

 

[storchy neil]

a radio controlled airplane wont hurt you hitting you on the head:roflmao: but it will go through a new windscreen of my ford van the motor ended up in the back of van

 

turbs we are surrounded by idiots oh I forgot they cant be casa employs them :cheezy grin:neil

 

 

[SDQDI]

But Merv this is for Uav's that are used commercially so 13 year olds is a totally irrelevant statement.

 

And it's only for the ones operated in line of sight etc all others will still follow current rules so basically I don't see the problem. If its removing red tape for those operators I don't see the point in making it harder for them, after all it's not everyday casa makes things easy for anyone.

 

I may have missed something as I didn't read all links comprehensively so please correct any misconceptions I have

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Sd . The problem is the commercial use. Once people realise there's open slather on using them to turn a buck, there will be an influx of people throwing them up and with no oversight or protection from casa.

 

There are model clubs and associations that deal with hobbyist at the moment and keep the knowledge base and accountability at acceptable levels.

 

With this rule change the floodgate would be opened.

 

Low kinetic energy? 2 kilos with communes velocity of say 150 kts is a shit load of kinetic energy.

 

Casa have produced no evidence or study to supor the notion of " low kinetic energy" .

 

 

[SDQDI]

So will they still have to do their training similar to how they do now? And out of curiosity who runs the training? Is that a local model club thing or someone else?

 

I still think that it would be helpful for some operators to reduce red tape but maybe they could change their operating ceiling I think from what I understand that they are talking of operations under 400 feet maybe down to 200 feet? I mean if they are away from a landing zone (in town for instance) then we shouldn't have any conflict in regards to airspace. Well even at 400 feet there shouldn't be any hassles unless it is in a rural setting next to a padock used for landing and I would have though most of these operations would be close to built up areas?

 

 

[aj_richo]

The day some unregulated idiot sends his 2Kg eBay UAV up into the approach lane to a major airport wont be far away.. if people are stupid enough to shine lasers at aircraft, they could have so much more fun scaring the be-jesus out of pilots with a hovering UAV.

 

Better to keep a lid on them I think!

 

 

[SDQDI]

But AJ Uav's are an awesome resource when used properly and to just blanket it without a decent reason isn't my idea of fair. I don't mind supporting Merv with this if there is a reasonable safety problem. And if they are in the approach area of aircraft then that is a problem but I would think that the rules have that covered somewhere.

 

Remember as I understand it they are only talking of commercial operations under 2kgs under 400feet in line of sight. Also not sure but I thought this was for operations NOT in controlled airspace.

 

Any Tom dick and Harry could do what you are talking of but it wouldn't be legal....

 

And as a side note what you have said is exactly the sort of words that people use that try and stop us flying around for recreation so we need to be careful and remember that UAV operators are still pilots and to disregard that without information would be unfair on our part

 

 

[motzartmerv]

They are a great tool. An reduci te tape is definatly called for.

 

But this open ended ticket is not the answer.

 

The training required will be zero. No oversight other then signing an online form.

 

 

[Guest Nobody]

Hi Guys. While im not teaching people to fly aeroplanes, I am consulting potential UAV business operators and helping them produce UOC's (Unmanned operators certificates)To make a long story short, CASA to date, have made the process of obtaining a licence to fly a drone/UAV quite demanding, and the complexity of any application for an approval is almost equal to that of an AOC for charter etc.

CAA, in their eternal wisdom, have decided to attempt to change the ruling which would see under 2 kg drones requiring NO such licensing etc. NO UOC, and no pilots certification.

 

The reasons behind this are and I quote " The rsik posed to the public by an aerial vehicle with a mass of less then 2kg's is almost negligible."

 

UUMM... I dont know what CASA fly around in, but If i smacked into a 2 kg lump of plastic in my Jab, it would almost certainly bring the aeroplane down.

 

A 2 litre bottle of coke weighs about 2 kg's, could you imagine dropping one onto a car from 500 feet?

 

And just for some context, the current speed record for a UAV under 2k's is 707 klm/hr

 

I cannot for the life of me understand how CASA can think the deregulation of the industry will at all increase the safety.

 

Sorry to rant, but we need to make submission to CASA NOW to get this change STOPPED!!!!!

 

Please sign the petition below, and submite a letter to CASA explaining how dangerous these things could be in the wrong hands.

 

There are literally thousands of these things being sold every week in Australia.

 

http://www.change.org/en-AU/petitions/civil-aviation-safety-authority-against-nprm-1309-unregulated-drones-uav-uas-rpas-in-australian-airspace?utm_source=supporter_message&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=supporter_message

 

Heres a link to my new websiite.. (shameless plug im sorry)

 

http://totalrpa.com.au/

If you replace the word uav/drone with uncertified ultralight aircraft would that change your view...

 

 

[johnm]

why is it that an ultralight aeroplane is probably a more sophisticated platform (on average ? ....................... cost wise anyway) than a UAV ..................... but a commercial operation is allowed only in UAV

 

is this decision 'sub' or 'ob' - jective ?

 

 

[facthunter]

Why is the comparison valid? You are prepared in a recognised and accepted way to operate Ultralight aircraft.

 

 

[Ignition]

I dunno, I don't see this having any effect on safety really regardless of whether it changes or not. If people want to grab a "UAV" from Toys R Us and head down to the end of 16R at YSSY to scare some pilots, there is nothing stopping them from doing that now, nor will there ever be, and yet up until now there hasn't been an issue with it. Most people are responsible and wouldn't want to risk losing a couple hundred bucks by flying an expensive toy into the path of a plane...

 

It's a bit like the ASIC card, it might make you feel good, but in reality it does sweet nothing. Especially when most people would have no idea that CASA have any regulations regarding UAVs (or for that matter, most wouldn't know CASA exist.) so they aren't going to follow any training or licencing anyway. From where I stand, any changes to the light end of the toys is a non-event.

 

In saying that, is there an ICAO definition of a UAV, such as empty weight or size, some sort of defining specs? When I think of an actual UAV, I think of something like a Global Hawk. Where do RC (Toys) stop and where do UAVs start?

 

 

[bexrbetter]

I don't know guys, forget the 13 year olds, I lived in Logan City for 15 years and I would be worried about the the 30 year old unemployed stereotype guy who has just drank a few tins of Jim Beam and Cola and is bored shiteless one afternoon with one of these in his control.

 

Personal reasons or not, hard to disagree with the OP's foundation for keeping tight control on them and at the least, just wait until a few cars are hit like Storchy's or, perish the thought, some kiddies are hit.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Thanx for your input guys. I appreciate it.

 

Cameron, the difference will be that now, your dde who buys his toy from uncle Pete's and chucks it in the flight path of a Saab, will now be casa certified.

 

Can anybody give me one example of how this move will Improve safety?

 

One??

 

Since when has casa's prime directive Been simplify the procedure for verification? Of ANYTHING,? Why now? Why this ? Because they can't handle the workload. Its as simple as that.

 

 

[turboplanner]

So what happened to the Model Aircraft Association of Australia, Inc.?

 

Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles have been around for decades, just not with the cute name coined at Area51

 

Their management and control through their State divisions and through that to their clubs leaves RAA in the dust

 

For example:

 

Take a look at their $20 million Public Liability insurance cover and compare it with yours

 

Preflight takes about twice as long as it does with an RAA aircraft, and they don't just say "go out and preflight it and I'll be with you in a minute" The instructors preflights it until you can do a perfect job.

 

Here's the linkhttp://www.maaa.asn.au/

 

I mentioned Area 51; Peacetime US Aerial Intelligence started after WW2 with converted military flying at high altitude, then progressed to U2 which were virtually unnoticed from the ground, then to the CIA's Oxcart/USAF Blackbird which was too high and too fast to be shot down, all developed at Area51, near Groom Lake in Nevbada http://www.dvice.com/archives/2011/01/how_to_peek_int.php and then with cheaper Satellites.

 

These all had the achilles heel that they only showed a plan view overhead photo, so the UAV was developed to fly at lower altitudes to peer under overhangs like verandahs and build a much better 3D picture, and these, not containing a pilot, were dispensable.

 

It's true that military use has gone back to high altitude where the bigger ones can launch a similar payload using FLER and laser designating to a fighter, and with the advantage of being virtually unseen.

 

However, for commercial use I doubt that high altitude access would be of any real benefit. Satellite photos are relatively cheap, and even photography from aircraft is made available for about $6000.00 per year by companies like Nearmap, providing a Google Earth - like searchable view in much higher definition, with photos taken about four times a year.

 

Commercial UAVs fit in at low level to get those obliques shots of the front of a factory, planning issues etc.

 

Personally, I wouldn't see a problem with a maximum altitude of 500 feet with a step to ground level around airfield circuits, much the same as CTA steps, and then leave it to MAAA.

 

In my experience MAAA don't just wring their hands when someone is flying through a caravan park, they get in their cars and justice takes place.

 

Under those circumstances a GA/RA pilot might collide with a UAV if he is flying illegally below 500 feet, or the UAV is flying illegally above 500 feet.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yea that won't happen ay. People dknt break rules. Even the rules they know about. ;)

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yea that won't happen ay. People dknt break rules. Even the rules they know about. ;)

If you're going to turn a blind eye to rule breaking in GA and RA then democracy demands you have to turn a blind eye to rule breaking by UAV, Or maybe a clean up of the whole antisocial culture?

 

Love that about the rules they know about!

 

 

[jetjr]

Isnt the problem that there are lots of them, most being used unregulated, use will be often be illegal

 

We do all know CASA making rules and heavier training/cost etc can promote non compliance. Also rules without compliance is a waste of time

 

Id have thought the issue is too hard for them to police

 

Maybe at least have them registered so owners an be liable for problems

 

 

[kgwilson]

If "not within 4 km of any uncontrolled aerodrome or aircraft landing area"was added to the proposed "This would only apply in the standard operating conditions, which includes operations in visual line of sight, less than 400 feet above ground level, non-populous areas, more than 30 metres from people and outside controlled airspace" from a regulatory point of view this should cover the issue. They would not be operating in the flight path or circuit and below 400 feet so there would be no problem. Any other issues with idiots doing what they like already exists & you can't regulate against stupidity.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Those rules exist now, an there has been countless breaches and near misses.

 

This new rule change will only see more of them in the air. Still waiting for someone to tell how this will make it safer.

 

 

[facthunter]

You can tag an animal. Identify secondhand car parts for rebadging. Why can't you identify a UAV with an owner?2 Kgs is half a housebrick in mass. Nev

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Still waiting for someone to tell how this will make it safer.

It will make it safer in the context that banning or very restrictive rules will make the situation worse than it currently is.

 

You can tag an animal. Identify secondhand car parts for rebadging. Why can't you identify a UAV with an owner?

Yes, let's ask eBay, Shanghai lucky drone, Aliexpress, Amazon, Wing Dungs Hong Kong toy shop, Alibaba, Guangzhou most excellent gifts etc etc to comply with that. Not to mention all the kit versions and hobby guys.

 

 

[metalman]

I'm astounded that there's so many pilots happy to share the airspace with unregulated uav's, there have already been incursions into moorrabin and jandacott airspace , I guess we'll have to wait till one brings down an aircraft and then we'll get a complete over reaction from CASA,,,,,and Motz ,you sneaky bugger,,trying to profit from such a thing,