[Peetwo]

CASA and the UAV media spotlight continues -

First a re-hash:

Amended CASR 101 D-DAY finally arrives -  

New UAV regulations, a lawyers banquet -

Reference - 'Closing the safety loop' thread:

CAsA & ATsB out of the loop on RPA/UAV safety -

Remember this??

Australia leads the way in drone regulation
21 September 2016 Lara Bullock

New drone regulations, to be introduced by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority next week, will impact lawyers in a wide array of practice areas, including insurance, intellectual property and privacy.

The regulator for the use of aircraft in Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), has developed new drone regulations, which will take effect on 29 September...

 

There has been much media coverage in recent days in the lead up to today's official promulgation of amended UAV/RPA CASR Part 101...

1st example via the ABC:

New drone laws 'could lead to mid-air collisions', pilots and air traffic controllers warn
By political reporter Alexandra Beech
Updated yesterday at 1:49pmWed 28 Sep 2016, 1:49pm

Photo: The new laws are aimed to cut the cost and red tape around operating drones that weigh less than two kilograms. (ABC News: Giulio Saggin)

Pilots and air traffic controllers have called for new regulations over the use of drones to be scrapped, warning they could lead to catastrophic mid-air collisions.
The new laws are aimed to cut the cost and red tape around operating drones that weigh less than two kilograms.

The changes will come into effect from tomorrow.

Under the new legislation, small commercial drone operators would not have to pay the current $1,400 in regulatory fees and landholders could operate drones of up to 25 kilograms on their properties without the need for approvals.

Aviation special counsel for Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, Joseph Wheeler, said the move towards deregulation would significantly increase the risk of a crash between a drone and a plane or a helicopter.

Photo: Aviation Lawyer Joseph Wheeler warns that drone deregulation would "raise collision risk". (ABC News: David McMeekin)

He called on the Senate to disallow the legislation at its next sitting and flagged a possible High Court appeal if the laws were not amended.

"If we had greater safeguards to enforce the regulations when things go wrong, that would go a long way towards ensuring with the injuries that inevitably would happen, the ability for people on the ground who are injured to access compensation," he said.

"At the moment, someone could be injured by a drone on the ground with no ability to identify the owner of that drone.

"They have absolutely no capacity to access any insurance or access any compensation for their losses."

'Potential of impact fire' with drone

Australian Federation of Air Pilots president David Booth said rogue drones flying near Australia's airports were a growing concern.

"Sydney Airport in the last four weeks have shut down their airspace or had issues with their airspace on two occasions," Captain Booth said.

"I've been airborne at 12,000 feet over the Hawkesbury River to have air traffic control tell me, flying a 737: 'Hazard alert, unidentified drone flight level 120 in your vicinity'.

"I'll tell you right now, it's not a nice feeling knowing that this drone is in your airspace."

Captain Booth said drones could cause a huge amount of damage if they hit a helicopter's tail rotor or flew into a plane's engine.

"Birds are soft, they might destroy the engine, but with a drone there is the potential of impact fire and they're reinforced with kevlar composite," he said.

"Two kilos at 250 kilometres an hour, or potentially 400 kilometres an hour — there's a lot of energy in that impact."

Drone wars: The definition dogfight

What exactly is a drone? It is a deceptively simple question with a highly contentious answer, writes Mark Corcoran.

But Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said there was a system in place to mitigate the risks.

"We looked at the risks from the various size of drones and we worked out that the safety risks of these very small drones can be managed through a set of standard operating conditions, a notification system and by marking the drones with an identification number," Mr Gibson said.

"It's certainly not a drone free-for-all."

Mr Gibson said penalties of up to $9,000 could be issued for breaches of the regulations.
CASA said there was also a requirement for operators to complete an online notification process so the authority had a record of operators' details.

Next example gets, an obviously Murky prepared, comment from the NFI miniscule Dazzling Dazza's office and a simply hilarious ( ) comment from CASA mouthpiece Pinocchio Gobson: 

• September 28 2016 - 6:38PM
  

'It may be catastrophic': Pilots issue stark warning over relaxed drone laws

• [/url]Michael Koziol
  
  

The Turnbull government has rejected a call from pilots to overturn a relaxation of regulations on unmanned drones, despite warnings they risk catastrophic collisions with commercial aircraft and helicopters.

The liberalised laws, set by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, allow anyone to fly lightweight, remotely-controlled drones without a licence - even for commercial purposes - in a bid to "cut red tape".
   

Video duration01:24

New drone rules to cut red tape

Update: Joseph Wheeler via the Oz today

Relaxing drone regulations makes national skies more dangerous

• Joseph Wheeler
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM September 30, 2016
  

Australia’s position in aviation safety has officially taken one step — some would say several steps — backwards in the past 24 hours through amendments to relax drone regulations.

These changes mean almost anyone can enter the world of commercial drone operation as long as they stay within certain airspace boundaries and heights, and avoid “controlled” aerodromes, but how will they appreciate the restrictions and comply with them when there is no training required?

Aviators and those who practically and silently assure the safety of Australian air passengers each and every day, whether they be domestic or international, are fed up.

It is one thing to cheekily fly a little above the 400-foot (legal maximum height) ceiling in one’s own back yard, where the danger remains isolated to your own property and family. It is quite another to power up your vehicle to push upwards of 4000ft above ground level a few kilometres along the approach path to the runways of Australia’s major international airports in cloud.

Make no mistake: these things are happening now, and they have been on an alarmingly more frequent basis since the Civil Aviation Safety Authority promulgated the drone amendment regulations in March that came into effect yesterday. Put simply, it seems as if certain operators, who never intended to follow rules, decided that the new CASA legislation was their ticket to a kind of freedom of the skies that is wholly incompatible with common sense and safety.

The problem with opening up commercial drone operations of even “very small” (under 2kg) drones is that without appropriate forethought and an understanding of why drone operators misuse drones, one cannot instil the requisite level of social responsibility into them.

Rigorous standards of risk mitigation are ingrained into operators through aviation training. In short, certified remote pilots come to respect their abilities and their own and their vehicles’ shortcomings and practical limitations, and are equipped to prevent accidents.

The untrained child who can now make pocket money on the internet doing video pranks and dares with dangerous equipment that has the capacity to bring down your average Melbourne to Sydney flight does not. It takes good law and education to foster that.

Decision-makers in the Senate have been briefed on all sides of this policy question and there remain four sitting days for a stand to be made by way of disallowance to repeal this problematic legislation before too many take advantage of its leniency and the confusing and illogical patchwork of non-legally binding guidance material that has sprung up in the past few weeks to try to explain the inadequate law.

Can you read a VTC chart, identify an RA3 area using ERSA or identify exclusion zones for the HLS instrument approach for YWST? The CASA guidance implies you should, but there is no legal requirement that you be trained to know those terms.

Therefore, CASA has no way of figuring out if your failure to gain such aeronautical knowledge presents a danger until your shiny new Christmas present drone strays into dangerous airspace trafficked by professional pilots and causes a safety issue.

Now, in the week this law comes into force, even more organisations have come forward to stand in support of Australia’s foundational commercial drone operators association, Australian Certified UAV Operators, in rolling back the laws.

The Australian Federation of Air Pilots, Australia’s largest professional pilot association and union, together with Civil Air Australia, Australia’s professional association and union of air traffic controllers, have stood side-by-side in denouncing the new laws and in supporting their repeal because of the way they jeopardise safety.

Members of both organisations are aware of frightening unexpected encounters with drones and civil passenger jets and helicopters in Australia.

When they talk, we should listen. Enough is enough.

Joseph Wheeler is the principal of International Aerospace Law & Policy Group, aviation legal counsel to the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and special counsel (aviation) to Maurice Blackburn Lawyers. He acts for Australian Certified UAV Operators in its pursuit of disallowance.

And now thru Insurance Biz magazine, multi-national insurance giant QBE voices it's concerns on the possible negative impact of the amended CASR Part 101...

[url=http://www.insurancebusinessonline.com.au/au/news/breaking-news/drones-could-cost-businesses-millions-224333.aspx]Drones could cost businesses millions

by Mina Martin 04 Oct 2016

QBE, Australia’s largest aviation insurer, has warned that the implementation of new drone regulations, which took effect last week, could cost Australian businesses millions of dollars for property damage and injury.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has relaxed its regulations around drones or remotely piloted aircrafts (RPAs), allowing very small RPAs, or those weighing less than 2kg, to be used for commercial purposes as long as it’s compliant with standard RPA operating conditions. 

Whereas the previous law required drone operators to hold both a Remote Operators Certificate (ReOC) and a Remote Pilot License before they can use drones for commercial purposes; the new regulations only require operators to register with CASA five days in advance and adhere to existing safety rules.

Simon Hooper, specialist aviation underwriter at QBE and Australia’s first RPA underwriter, said that while the move presented Australian businesses with exciting opportunities, it also has its implications. 

“We’re expecting to see a steep rise in the number of RPAs in use as businesses realise the potential of using them, but there is a worrying lack of understanding that there are still major risks associated with drones,” Hooper said.

Should something go wrong, Hooper said that strict liability for any injury or damage caused may be imposed on operators, irrespective of whether there is negligence or intent.

“Given many operators won’t have had extensive training, if any, this presents a genuine risk, which could leave operators exposed. The cost associated with an injury or property damage could go into the millions – in the worst case, they could lose everything.

“This type of cover typically won’t fall under standard business policies, so we’d advise them to ask their broker to ensure they have a specialist policy.

“In less serious incidents, it can still prove costly to repair damage caused to the aircraft itself, or caused by any accidents. We’ve already seen a number of incidents amongst our existing customers where poor flight planning has resulted in collisions with trees, buildings, or even birds. 

“So whilst the relaxing of regulations will make RPAs more accessible, we’d urge operators to ensure they have adequate protection.”

Lee Carseldine, chief pilot of Droneit, said hobbyists planning to use drones in the workplace should be aware of the risks.

“While the new rules and regulations might be exciting for all drone users especially for hobbyists who can use commercially now, you need to define how you want to use them,” Carseldine said. 

“Small activity is obviously lower risk, but for anything external then it’s highly recommended you get covered.

“Trust me, when it comes to drones they are fickle machines and gravity does not discriminate. Two kilos might seem small, but they can still do a lot of damage.”

 
So is QBE truly concerned that start up drone operators may face serious 'strict liability' fines when they pinged for illegally flying a drone in contravention of Part 101; or are they simply concerned that they miss out on their slice of the UAV pie??  


MTF...P2