Welcome Mavic Pilot!
Jump in and join our free DJI Mavic community today!
Sign up

Australian Government RPA recommendations.

Simmo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,781
Likes
907
Age
53
Location
FNQ Australia
#1
Dont like this at all....
8.24 A summary is provided in Table 8.1 below:

Operation Limitations
Tier 1: Beginner
200 feet (60 metres) AGL 200 metres from operator
Tier 2: Recreational use
400 feet (120 metres) AGL 500 metres from operator
Tier 3: Commercial and other exempted use "
Full story here:
Report – Parliament of Australia

Recommendation 1

8.10 The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority draw on the growing body of international empirical research and collision testing on remotely piloted aircraft systems below 2kg to immediately reform Part 101 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.

Recommendation 2

8.20 The committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce a mandatory registration regime for all remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) weighing more than 250 grams. As part of registration requirements, RPAS operators should be required to successfully complete a basic competence test regarding the safe use of RPAS, and demonstrate an understanding of the penalties for non-compliance with the rules.

Recommendation 3

8.26 The committee recommends that the Australian Government develop a tiered education program whereby remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) users progressively unlock RPAS capabilities upon completion of each level of training. Three tiers are proposed as follows:

purchase of the RPAS – mandatory registration requires user to demonstrate knowledge the basic rules for flying RPAS, and the penalties for non-compliance (as described in Recommendation 2);
recreational use of RPAS – second tier requires user to demonstrate an advanced understanding of aviation rules and safety before unlocking additional capabilities; and
commercial use of RPAS – final tier requires user to demonstrate comprehensive aviation knowledge before obtaining commercial operator licence and unlocking full RPAS capability.

Recommendation 4

8.29 The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, in cooperation with the Australian Federal Police and other relevant authorities, prohibit the use of remotely piloted aircraft systems in the airspace above significant public buildings, critical infrastructure and other vulnerable areas.

Recommendation 5

8.31 The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, in cooperation with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, work with manufacturers of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) to develop future solutions to RPAS safety, including the implementation of technical restrictions on altitude and distance for 'off-the-shelf' RPAS.

Recommendation 6

8.37 The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, in cooperation with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, develop appropriate airworthiness standards for remotely piloted aircraft of all sizes and operations. At a minimum, fail-safe functions such as 'return to home' and safe landing functionality, and forced flight termination, should be mandated.

Recommendation 7

8.38 The committee recommends that the Australian Government develop import controls to enforce airworthiness standards for foreign manufactured remotely piloted aircraft systems.

Recommendation 8

8.44 The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, in collaboration with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, develop a whole of government policy for remotely piloted aircraft safety in Australia, and establish appropriate coordination and implementation mechanisms with relevant departments and agencies to implement the policy.

8.45 As part of a whole of government policy approach, the committee further recommends that the Australian Government explore cost‑effective models to develop and administer new regulatory initiatives for remotely piloted aircraft systems, including a mandatory registration regime and tiered education program. The harmonisation of state and territory privacy laws should also be considered.

Recommendation 9

8.50 The committee recommends that, as part of a whole of government approach to remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) safety, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority work with Airservices Australia and other relevant agencies to implement a comprehensive research and data gathering regime. Information should be collated and centralised in a way that allows for the examination of RPAS registrations, operations, trends and incidents, to provide an evidence base on which to assess the efficacy of current regulations, and to inform the development of future policy and regulations.

Recommendation 10

8.64 The committee recommends that, following the development of a whole of government policy approach to RPAS safety, including the establishment of a national registration system, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) work with state and territory enforcement bodies to implement a nationally consistent enforcement regime for remotely piloted aircraft systems. Under this regime, enforcement bodies would be delegated powers to provide on-the-spot fines and report infringements of the regulations directly to CASA.
 

bushie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
383
Likes
189
Age
73
Location
Perth Australia
#2
I agree that much of it seems like a complete overkill. Seems CASA want the same out come they achieved with GA. Complete destruction of the industry.
 

Simmo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,781
Likes
907
Age
53
Location
FNQ Australia
#3
I 'spose the good thing is that they are only recommendations, who know's if they will be implemented?
If they are, hobby/recreational users will certainly be held to account. Sub 2kg Commercial operators too.
Looks like the RePL and ReOC op's got their way.....
 

Simmo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,781
Likes
907
Age
53
Location
FNQ Australia
#5
Yep and the RePL guys are already rubbing their hands together....If this gets implemented, watch for the number of RPA training organisations that pop up..
 

Ozeb

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2017
Messages
24
Likes
8
Age
76
#10
Is there any indication that all the proposed requirements be made retrospective?
 

Twodumbdogs

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
70
Likes
143
Age
53
Location
Coeur D Alene ID
#12
Dont like this at all....
8.24 A summary is provided in Table 8.1 below:

Operation Limitations
Tier 1: Beginner
200 feet (60 metres) AGL 200 metres from operator
Tier 2: Recreational use
400 feet (120 metres) AGL 500 metres from operator
Tier 3: Commercial and other exempted use "
Full story here:
Report – Parliament of Australia

Recommendation 1

8.10 The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority draw on the growing body of international empirical research and collision testing on remotely piloted aircraft systems below 2kg to immediately reform Part 101 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998.

Recommendation 2

8.20 The committee recommends that the Australian Government introduce a mandatory registration regime for all remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) weighing more than 250 grams. As part of registration requirements, RPAS operators should be required to successfully complete a basic competence test regarding the safe use of RPAS, and demonstrate an understanding of the penalties for non-compliance with the rules.

Recommendation 3

8.26 The committee recommends that the Australian Government develop a tiered education program whereby remotely piloted aircraft system (RPAS) users progressively unlock RPAS capabilities upon completion of each level of training. Three tiers are proposed as follows:

purchase of the RPAS – mandatory registration requires user to demonstrate knowledge the basic rules for flying RPAS, and the penalties for non-compliance (as described in Recommendation 2);
recreational use of RPAS – second tier requires user to demonstrate an advanced understanding of aviation rules and safety before unlocking additional capabilities; and
commercial use of RPAS – final tier requires user to demonstrate comprehensive aviation knowledge before obtaining commercial operator licence and unlocking full RPAS capability.

Recommendation 4

8.29 The committee recommends that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, in cooperation with the Australian Federal Police and other relevant authorities, prohibit the use of remotely piloted aircraft systems in the airspace above significant public buildings, critical infrastructure and other vulnerable areas.

Recommendation 5

8.31 The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, in cooperation with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, work with manufacturers of remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) to develop future solutions to RPAS safety, including the implementation of technical restrictions on altitude and distance for 'off-the-shelf' RPAS.

Recommendation 6

8.37 The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, in cooperation with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, develop appropriate airworthiness standards for remotely piloted aircraft of all sizes and operations. At a minimum, fail-safe functions such as 'return to home' and safe landing functionality, and forced flight termination, should be mandated.

Recommendation 7

8.38 The committee recommends that the Australian Government develop import controls to enforce airworthiness standards for foreign manufactured remotely piloted aircraft systems.

Recommendation 8

8.44 The committee recommends that the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities, in collaboration with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, develop a whole of government policy for remotely piloted aircraft safety in Australia, and establish appropriate coordination and implementation mechanisms with relevant departments and agencies to implement the policy.

8.45 As part of a whole of government policy approach, the committee further recommends that the Australian Government explore cost‑effective models to develop and administer new regulatory initiatives for remotely piloted aircraft systems, including a mandatory registration regime and tiered education program. The harmonisation of state and territory privacy laws should also be considered.

Recommendation 9

8.50 The committee recommends that, as part of a whole of government approach to remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) safety, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority work with Airservices Australia and other relevant agencies to implement a comprehensive research and data gathering regime. Information should be collated and centralised in a way that allows for the examination of RPAS registrations, operations, trends and incidents, to provide an evidence base on which to assess the efficacy of current regulations, and to inform the development of future policy and regulations.

Recommendation 10

8.64 The committee recommends that, following the development of a whole of government policy approach to RPAS safety, including the establishment of a national registration system, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) work with state and territory enforcement bodies to implement a nationally consistent enforcement regime for remotely piloted aircraft systems. Under this regime, enforcement bodies would be delegated powers to provide on-the-spot fines and report infringements of the regulations directly to CASA.
I smell a tax hike in your future.
 
Likes: bushie

Ozeb

Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2017
Messages
24
Likes
8
Age
76
#13
In regard to the training requirement???
Yes. I sense a lot of red tape. Maybe the government will sense even more needless bureaucracy and can the whole idea.
There are thousands of drones out there. How many public servants will be needed to control them and their owners?
 

Simmo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,781
Likes
907
Age
53
Location
FNQ Australia
#14
I dont know if or when the recommendations will be implemented, if at all.
Certainly changes are going to happen.
They are talking firmware changes for the tiers, so manufacturers have to be on board.
Reading through the papers, it seems Parrot was there, and DJI have actually hired someone to consult with CASA.
Policing powers will be extended to police, council officers and rangers it seems.....
A few dickheads that thought it was fun to fly over the Harbour bridge etc... have caused a major reaction from government in relation to Drone safety.
The losers will be those operating with an ARN under the sub 2kg Excluded class, they've done nothing wrong... but seemingly will lose their 'licence'.
 

RayOZ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
901
Likes
708
Location
Brisbane, Australia
#15
Crikey!
How many people in the committee do you think actually owns or flown RPAs?
When they make recommendations like "requires user to demonstrate an advanced understanding of aviation rules and safety", maybe they should make everyone in the committee "requires committee members to demonstrate an advanced understanding of modern technology and advancement in RPAs over the last few years"
Sensible rules and regulations, most people can understand and abide. Once you make it onerous, most people will ignore.
 
Likes: Simmo

Simmo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,781
Likes
907
Age
53
Location
FNQ Australia
#17
OMG!! I have never agreed with you on ANYTHING!! But now I LOVE YOU!!
All jokes aside, yes, the committee seemingly bowed to pressure from the licenced guys, and research from OS that shows our rulings were/are out of date,,,
In the public consultation, some 900 submissions were made (mine included), but the other 000's of dickheads out there hitting babies in faces with Tellos (or what ever?)
Will cause those 900 operators hardship I believe.
Training over here is many thousands of dollars, but training will be mandated....
I dont know where we are going with this?!!
 

RayOZ

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2017
Messages
901
Likes
708
Location
Brisbane, Australia
#18
I see people start ignore rules.
If you go from "maintain VLOS" to "flying no more than 500m away", people are going to say it's a silly rule. Once people start ignoring 1 or 2 silly rules, it'll be a downward slope to ignoring more, even safety ones. With a few hundred thousand drones of various size and types out there, there's no way gov is going to be able enforce it.
Do they seriously think they can enforce training, especially for the hobbists? Parents buying their kids a drone (anything >250g) for Christmas, and then having to send them for drone training before they can fly in their backyard? Tell them they are dreaming!
 

Simmo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2017
Messages
1,781
Likes
907
Age
53
Location
FNQ Australia
#19
I agree mate. 'twill be interesting for sure....
But I can see my sub 2kg commercial permission gone.... sooner than later...
I mean just last week, CASA changed the Sub2 reporting period from 2 yrs, to 3 yrs..... then the Senate hearing came out??
 

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
50,684
Messages
592,472
Members
74,963
Latest member
cheshirefamily