UAVs in National Parks, Western Australia

[bushie]

Has anyone seen anything further on the change in policy that was announced and then withdrawn. Can I fly in a National park in WA with out any problems?

I have trawled through the relevant departmental web pages but they still just have the regulations banning UAVs posted.At the moment I am assuming I am OK and will take a copy of the change in regulations with me to show if I am pulled up.

 

[Rodkat]

Hey mate, if the law has been repealed then you're fine, good idea to keep a copy of the current legislation section that applies but double check your info is current. Sounds like at the very least you'd have a 'mistake of fact'defence (any person who honestly, reasonably but mistakenly believes a set of circumstances to exist is no more criminally liable for any act or omission than if the circumstances they believed to exist actually did) to any prosecution so at worst a warning. Most likely the cops would be interested in the drone.

 

[bushie]

It would not be a police matter. At the most a NP ranger.

 

[Simmo]

All I could find Bushie?

Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) - Drones



Remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs), also known as unmanned aerial vehicles or drones are growing in popularity for both recreational and commercial use, particularly for filming and photography.
In parks and reserves these craft can pose potential danger to visitors, other air users and operators if they crash. There are also environmental concerns relating to visual and noise impacts that may affect wildlife as well as the increased risk to wildfire if craft crash, particularly if they have combustion engines. These craft may detract from other visitors’ experiences, places of cultural significance as well as impact on visitor privacy. Traditional owners have also raised concerns over the impact of RPAs on cultural values. Model aircraft, rockets and RPAs are considered aircraft under the Civil Aviation Regulations 1998.Therefore under regulation 65 of the Conservation and Land Management Regulations 2002 (CALM Regulations), launching, landing or making a touch down of such aircraft, except in an emergency on any estate managed by the Department of Parks and Wildlife is only allowed if lawful authority (written permission) has been issued for a specific purpose.
Application form
Members of the public and commercial operators can request permission to operate drones by completing the RPA recreational use application form391.17 KB and contacting the local Parks and Wildlife Office.
Applications must be submitted at least six (6) weeks before the intended use of the RPA. Applications may not be processed in time if submitted less than six (6) weeks before use.
RPA use is not permitted in some areas of the State, and all applications will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Members of the news media should in the first instance contact Parks and Wildlife media on (08) 9219 9999 to request permission to operate a drone for the purpose of news.

 

[bushie]

All I could find Bushie?

Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) - Drones



Remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs), also known as unmanned aerial vehicles or drones are growing in popularity for both recreational and commercial use, particularly for filming and photography.
In parks and reserves these craft can pose potential danger to visitors, other air users and operators if they crash. There are also environmental concerns relating to visual and noise impacts that may affect wildlife as well as the increased risk to wildfire if craft crash, particularly if they have combustion engines. These craft may detract from other visitors’ experiences, places of cultural significance as well as impact on visitor privacy. Traditional owners have also raised concerns over the impact of RPAs on cultural values. Model aircraft, rockets and RPAs are considered aircraft under the Civil Aviation Regulations 1998.Therefore under regulation 65 of the Conservation and Land Management Regulations 2002 (CALM Regulations), launching, landing or making a touch down of such aircraft, except in an emergency on any estate managed by the Department of Parks and Wildlife is only allowed if lawful authority (written permission) has been issued for a specific purpose.
Application form
Members of the public and commercial operators can request permission to operate drones by completing the RPA recreational use application form391.17 KB and contacting the local Parks and Wildlife Office.
Applications must be submitted at least six (6) weeks before the intended use of the RPA. Applications may not be processed in time if submitted less than six (6) weeks before use.
RPA use is not permitted in some areas of the State, and all applications will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
Members of the news media should in the first instance contact Parks and Wildlife media on (08) 9219 9999 to request permission to operate a drone for the purpose of news.

That was the regulation but a change in policy was posted which basically said that provided you complied with CASA regs, and did not annoy other users or animals you were OK. Then the quoted regulation was again posted so it is now unclear if the old or the new policy is in force.

 

[Peter Hughes]

I went over to Australia last Feb and contacted the various NP authorities for permission to fly my Mavic. I was politely refused in most cases with “Cultural considerations “ given as the reason.
Fair enough, I respected the decisions but had to wonder about the “cultural considerations “ given to the tourist helicopters flying around Uluru who no doubt pay a fee for the permission.
I totally get that drones and helicopters don’t mix but cultural considerations? Really? Seems like you can buy a lot of culture if you have enough $$$.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Hey mate, if the law has been repealed then you're fine, good idea to keep a copy of the current legislation section that applies but double check your info is current. Sounds like at the very least you'd have a 'mistake of fact'defence (any person who honestly, reasonably but mistakenly believes a set of circumstances to exist is no more criminally liable for any act or omission than if the circumstances they believed to exist actually did) to any prosecution so at worst a warning. Most likely the cops would be interested in the drone.

That is potentially poor advice. Ignorance is not always a reliable defence.

 

[WithTheBirds]

I went over to Australia last Feb and contacted the various NP authorities for permission to fly my Mavic. I was politely refused in most cases with “Cultural considerations “ given as the reason.
Fair enough, I respected the decisions but had to wonder about the “cultural considerations “ given to the tourist helicopters flying around Uluru who no doubt pay a fee for the permission.
I totally get that drones and helicopters don’t mix but cultural considerations? Really? Seems like you can buy a lot of culture if you have enough $$$.

Do you get to decide who might operate a sUAV from any property you might own? To the extent the traditional owners might be paid by the tour operators so what? Your making a weak point here from what I can see.

 

[Peter Hughes]

Do you get to decide who might operate a sUAV from any property you might own? To the extent the traditional owners might be paid by the tour operators so what? Your making a weak point here from what I can see.

What I’m trying to say, perhaps poorly, is, in this instance it may have been more understandable if a case of safety was put forward OR request a fee to fly. It looks as though dual standards are being applied.

 

[WithTheBirds]

What I’m trying to say, perhaps poorly, is, in this instance it may have been more understandable if a case of safety was put forward OR request a fee to fly. It looks as though dual standards are being applied.

And fair enough- absolutely I can see your point. What counters that is the cultural significance of Uluru to the Anangu people. Their creation beliefs are arguably of the same significance and should attract the same respect as any other.

 

[Peter Hughes]

And fair enough- absolutely I can see your point. What counters that is the cultural significance of Uluru to the Anangu people. Their creation beliefs are arguably of the same significance and should attract the same respect as any other.

That’s absolutely spot on. So what I’m asking is why ok for a huge noisy helicopter and no for small drone. I totally respected the decision and choose to give the place it’s proper name out of respect just have a problem with the logic. Take care and safe flying.

 

[WithTheBirds]

That’s absolutely spot on. So what I’m asking is why ok for a huge noisy helicopter and no for small drone. I totally respected the decision and choose to give the place it’s proper name out of respect just have a problem with the logic. Take care and safe flying.

Ah- now thats an interesting consideration. It might be that they have no control of manned aircraft flying in the area (probable). Take off and landing might be (almost certainly is) a totally different issue.

 

[bushie]

And fair enough- absolutely I can see your point. What counters that is the cultural significance of Uluru to the Anangu people. Their creation beliefs are arguably of the same significance and should attract the same respect as any other.

The cultural significance of Ayers Rock (I refuse to call it anything else) is a load of c**p. I first went there in the 60s when I lived in the territory. Not an aboriginal in site. Motels at the foot of the rock and no problems climbing it.

It is only since the **** Labor governments gave away MY heritage that all this rubbish came in. Smoke ceremonies, recognition of country etc. All c**p

 

[WithTheBirds]

The cultural significance of Ayers Rock (I refuse to call it anything else) is a load of c**p. I first went there in the 60s when I lived in the territory. Not an aboriginal in site. Motels at the foot of the rock and no problems climbing it.

It is only since the **** Labor governments gave away MY heritage that all this rubbish came in. Smoke ceremonies, recognition of country etc. All c**p

Your heritage? The Aboriginal people were on this continent for 65+ thousand years before Captain Cook arrived- along with the giant wallabies and wombats recorded in their artwork

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

That was the regulation but a change in policy was posted which basically said that provided you complied with CASA regs, and did not annoy other users or animals you were OK. Then the quoted regulation was again posted so it is now unclear if the old or the new policy is in force.

Exactly QLD parks policy.
If WA has gone this way, it’s a huge step forward for exposure to the World of our amazing state managed landscapes here in Oz.

We only need to get the other main states and territories to follow this line, so hopefully flyers can show we do have common sense and not annoy other park users or wildlife.