Have your say on new CASA rules

[Phill]

Click on public feedback and have your say

Have your say on proposed new drone rules
CASA is seeking public feedback on new draft rules for commercial or professional drone operations.
The new rules are designed to improve safety and certainty for remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) operations (popularly known as drones). They aim to:

• create clear standards for remote pilot training and training organisations
• create Australia’s first official syllabi for RPAS accreditation, in particular, the remote pilot licence (RePL)
• clarify requirements for RPAS operations in controlled and prescribed non-controlled airspace
• facilitate extended visual line of sight (EVLOS) operations
• formalise record keeping and notification requirements for RPAS operators generally.

The rules are contained in the draft manual of standards (MOS) of Part 101 of Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR). The MOS helps standardise the professional drones industry by setting specific training and operational requirements. These support the rules already in place under CASR Part 101.
Only a small section of the proposed new rules will directly affect recreational users – clarifying the requirements to operate in controlled and non-controlled airspace. So, for people who fly for fun, all the basic drone rules remain the same.

 

[Simmo]

Its pretty much for the Repl and RTO's. Only a couple of questions for sub 2kg operators.
Most of the questions I answered 'not my area of expertise'...

 

[Phill]

Its pretty much for the Repl and RTO's. Only a couple of questions for sub 2kg operators.
Most of the questions I answered 'not my area of expertise'...

Me too but at least they let us have a say.

 

[Simmo]

Yeah Phil, hearing ya mate.
One thing that really suprises me, is that they seem not to be planning to scrap the Sub 2kg class....
When the Senate Hearing was evaluated, I had a heated arguement with a RePL. OC trainer, that said the sub 2kg class was gone......
And read back then, I agreed....
But read this now, we might still be in the dance???

 

[AnzacJack]

I was on the CASA advisory group that compiled the report that was submitted advice to the senate hearing. There was nothingwithin that about abolishing the sub 2kg

 

[Simmo]

You were on ONE of the advisories....
Read the Submission from the Senate, and tell me where is says 'we whole heartedly think that the sub 2 kg class is a good idea'???
Or direct me to almost paragraph one, that says 'we recommend an immediate change..' or words to that effect....

 

[AnzacJack]

Thanks @Simmo for pointing that out. Yes I was a member of 1 of the 2 groups that met for a week at CASA offices for a week in July collating information from various inputs and sources around Australia, and writing the risk assessment documents for recreation use of RPAS in Australia. The other group that met the week before us did the same thing for commercial.

 

[Simmo]

Yeah, I'm not really bothered about the rec use, because nothing has really changed, or seemingly intended to change.

The CASA notification even says as much:
"Only a small section of the proposed new rules will directly affect recreational users – clarifying the requirements to operate in controlled and non-controlled airspace. So, for people who fly for fun, all the basic drone rules remain the same."
The recomendations from the Senate, seem way too hard to implement.

My point is :
Read the Submission from the Senate, and tell me where is says 'we whole heartedly think that the sub 2 kg class is a good idea'???
Or direct me to almost paragraph one, that says 'we recommend an immediate change..' or words to that effect....

Or the exact wording which is

• the immediate reform of the current regulations (Part 101 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998) which commenced in September 2016 and which had the effect of (controversially) relaxing the rules for drones weighing less than 2kg, a position that the Senate committee was critical of;

 

[AnzacJack]

I dont have or see a problem with that. Surely anyone who is a serious commercial flyer, would prefer it that every man and his dog that can fly commecially, unregulated, be reigned in. Can you imagine if they said that any G.A. pilot could operate commercially as long as the aircraft was in a specic weight range. A lot of people would loose a lot of money, and safety WOULD be compromised.
I would think that you and I will not be on the same side on this, so lets agree to disagree

 

[Simmo]

Proposed new remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) registration and RPAS operator accreditation scheme (PP 1816US) - Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Citizen Space

 

[Phill]

Proposed new remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) registration and RPAS operator accreditation scheme (PP 1816US) - Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Citizen Space

Thanks for the link.
Just did it.

 

[Simmo]

Thanks for the link.
Just did it.

No Worries!

 

[AnzacJack]

Be interesting how they get kids with this registration process

 

[Phill]

Be interesting how they get kids with this registration process

The only way for it to work is for drones to be registered at point of sale otherwise those that do register will end up paying for those that don't and with so many being bought o/s on ebay etc it just isn't going to happen.

 

[Phill]

Be interesting how they get kids with this registration process

I'd like to know how they're going to enforce it all.
Are we going to have hundreds of inspectors driving around looking up?

 

[Simmo]

I think they are going to nominate 'authourised officers', so that could be Police, council wardens, Rangers....
And with a fee of potentially almost $200 per Drone, per year, plus $20 registration, they will have a bit of money for their dedicated RPA team.

 

[Phill]

I'll register if they bring it in but I reckon it will be a mess.
Imagine all of the kids having to carry their ID to fly.
I already have an ARN so they know I have a drone so why the need for registration?

 

[Simmo]

I agree with you.

 

[Muttley]

I'd be interested in other people's feedback to this legislation. I'm pretty happy with it overall except maybe the yearly registration of each RPA. If you own multiple birds it could end up costing a bit. If they went one registration fee per operator rather than RPA's I'd be happier.

 

[Simmo]

Its only a proposal at this stage, not legislated yet.
The $1-160 touted fee is only for Excluded or commercial users.
Rec. operators would still have to do a 'weaker' exam, and pay $20 per year.