[Peetwo]

CASA and the UAV media spotlight continues -

Relaxing drone regulations makes national skies more dangerous

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

[/url]
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.”

 

Further update - Aviation Alphabet groups ramp up rhetoric on CASR Part 101

Via Avbiz magazine online:  

First:


Industry bodies condemn relaxation of small drone rules
6 October 2016

Australia’s peak professional bodies for pilots and certified drone operators have joined forces to warn the travelling public is being put at risk of catastrophic collisions if new drone laws that came in to force last week are not scrapped.
The Australian Federation of Air Pilots (AFAP), Civil Air Australia and Australian Certified UAV Operators (ACUO), with the assistance of Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, are considering a High Court appeal if the relaxed regulations are not disallowed by Parliament at its next sitting.
 
“There is a growing problem of rogue drones violating controlled airspace at primary airports,” said AFAP President Captain David Booth. “In the last month alone we have had at least two instances of drones being on approach paths to runways in Sydney. I personally have flown in airspace that has been violated by drones during the last 12 months.”
 
“In one incident a drone was sighted at 12,000 feet (FL120) north of Sydney which led to the broadcast of a hazard alert by ATC and deviation off the planned flight path. Another pilot I know had a near miss with a drone at 1,000 feet at the Gold Coast airport. How many other events have occurred that we don’t know about?” said Capt Booth.
 
The union representing Virgin Australia Group pilots, VIPA, has also expressed serious concern at the relaxation of drone regulations, saying the risk of an aircraft hitting a drone has increased considerably.

VIPA President, Captain John Lyons, himself a fully licensed UAV operator, says “CASA has been forced to lift the licensing restriction on UAV as a result of the explosion in small low-cost drones available to the public and its [CASA’s] lack of resources to monitor illegal use”.

 “Small drones in unqualified hands equate to a potentially lethal weapon. They are prone to loss of control, battery and structural failure. Even a small UAV falling out of the sky over a public area can cause lethal injury and serious damage” said Captain Lyons.

VIPA’s concern is for the safety of its members and the travelling public. “A drone inadvertently or deliberately flown into the path of an airline on approach to or departing an airport could easily cause a disaster” says Capt Lyons.

Before the changes were promulgated the ACUO warned that they were based on a two-year-old consultation and research that was out of step with modern technology, as well as industry law in both the United States and Europe.

“This amendment allows people to fly drones up to 2kg in weight without any training, insurance, registration or certification,” said ACUO President Joe Urli. “It will open a Pandora’s Box in terms of new dangers for airlines and the general public

Read more at http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/lates...r5Q0zDZ.99

---

& from Avbiz Editor Phil Smart's weekly wrap:



Editor's Insights - why lack of small drone regulation scares industry
6 October 2016

The best illustration I know of why regulation for small drones is a good idea is one where a professional, experienced commercial unmanned aerial system operator with an aviation background used that knowledge to avert a potentially dangerous situation.
The commercial UAS operator, also a highly-experienced helicopter operator, was conducting aerial UAS operations near an airport in Australia's outback, when the weather changed for the worse. Lowering cloud base and changing winds presaged a storm.
Nothing said the unmanned aerial system operator had to stop flying. But with the "gut feel" of the experienced pilot, he visualised a map of the nearby airport and surrounds and thought of what he would be doing if he was a pilot operating locally and trying to make the airport before the approaching storm either closed it or forced a diversion. Most of the answers included flying right through his pre-assigned box of sky.

He was right. Within minutes of landing the UAS as a precaution aircraft and helicopters began shuttling through his area of operations. That aviation background and situational awareness may not have actually saved lives that day, but it probably at least saved some unnecessary heartache.

This is the problem aviators see with allowing members of the public to operate even small drones without any form of licensing, test or environmental indoctrination. It's not just about technical skill and airframe reliability, it's about attitude and understanding.
Until now anyone flying an airframe could be expected to have had some formal training, laced with a thorough indoctrination in to the culture of safety. That culture includes implicit safety ground rules, such as knowledge that anyone in the sky is part of a system, that the actions of one can affect others, and that having two airframes in one piece of sky is a situation to be avoided wherever possible.

But most private drone operators won't see the world through the eyes of an aviator. They will see it through the eyes of friends who marvel at the vision they produced by flying so high or getting so close, or even through those of internet stars who tape GoPro video cameras to their helmets before jumping off buildings. For some of these people the knowledge that they're doing something daring, risky and even against the rules, can be part of the thrill.

The implicit pursuit of safety above all else will not necessarily be part of their understanding. And that means airframes may enter an air traffic system while being flown by people who don't see themselves as part of that system, who "don't know what they don't know". And that is never a precursor for sake skies.

Read more at http://www.aviationbusiness.com.au/lates...thyCz2p.99

 
This is beginning to get interesting...


MTF...P2