[Peetwo]

Conundrum #101 - "Disallow me?" 

Yes indeed "K" the UAV/RPA issue is a new world conundrum that perhaps needs a little more forethought from our big "R" regulator, than simply washing their hands of the problem with a self-regulate edict for UAVs below 2kg -

Aviation law expert Joseph Wheeler brings up the prospect of the UAV licensed operators invoking the not entirely foolproof path of a disallowance motion in the new Parliament. A Parliament that may very well carry a rising Nick Xenophon/NXT element. NX being a Senator that is very well versed in DMs of CASR legislative instruments, with a 50:50 strike rate: 

Drone operators invoke rare process to overturn shoddy legislation

• Joseph Wheeler
  
• The Australian
  
• 12:00AM July 1, 2016
  
  When CASA made amendments to Australia’s drone laws in March, they came with high expectations from a maturing industry that things would improve for operators and the public.
  
  Businesses need certainty; the public and airspace users need safety. Simple, right? Maybe not, because now operators are taking things into their own hands.
  
  What actually happened was a raft of amendments which, purportedly because they refer to certain operations being “considered … lower risk”, pulled the rug out from underneath the most highly qualified and competent drone operators in the country.
  
  Under the law, from September 29, 2016, anyone with a 2kg device can start a commercial drone business and to do so would simply need to notify CASA and promise to obey already generally known operating conditions.
  
  There was no consideration of better enforcement measures or investigative options like appropriate registration or penalties for those who breach the rules.
  
  And, when one considers the US Federal Aviation Administration approach to the same subject, in rules published on June 21, the differences stand out even more starkly. For the US: training? Required. Age minimums? Required. Preflight inspection of your aircraft? While it seems obvious, yes, required.
  
  All of these requirements may seem obvious but that theme doesn’t carry through into the CASA legislation.
  
  There is something to be said for real clarification in laws for a fledgling industry.
  
  Even though Australia has an agenda of red tape reduction, the lack of simple prohibitive and explicit legislation to outlaw certain conduct (and thus complementary reliance on general criminal law for example) means that ambiguity abounds.
  
  It seems anachronistic that operators of “very small” (100g to 2kg) drones should not have to be qualified, security screened, or trained (or monitored) by anyone, and yet can ply their trade with equipment that if misused, or maliciously directed, could cause serious direct and secondary harm.
  
  We don’t live in the age of The Jetsons just yet, so I would strongly argue that anyone with anything but a feather-light toy, confining themselves to flight in a sheltered backyard, needs to have credentials to share airspace with others, or be explicitly taught how to avoid them at the very least.
  
  It is not enough that drones be restricted or prevented from entering controlled airspace or be operated away from populous areas.
  
  Relaxing reasonable impediments to commercial operations sends the wrong message and won’t prevent mishaps. It is against this background that commercial drone operators have sought the last bastion of fairness in Australian legislation — the process of disallowance under the commonwealth Legislation Act 2003, in this case the Civil ­Aviation Legislation Amendment (Part 101) Regulation 2016, with its raft of misconceived mechanisms.
  
  It is a rarely used process which provides for either house of parliament to effectively veto delegated legislation (for example, regulations, and instruments created by agencies).
  
  In aviation, the procedure has been used with mixed success.
  
  Recently, Part 145 Manual of Standards Amendment ­Instrument 2014 (No 1), made under the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) was successfully disallowed in 2015, but an attempt at disallowance of CASA’s Civil Aviation Order 48.1 on pilot fatigue, while debated, failed in 2013.
  
  Thus, it is by no means a certainty that disallowance can be achieved with aviation (or any) legislation.
  
  Seeking the repeal of CASA’s new drone laws isn’t an end in itself. Operators seek safety, clarity and certainty.
  
  Should a motion to disallow be put to the new parliament in ­either house, we would hope that party lines be forgotten in the hope of facilitating new technologies safely and sensibly for aviation generally, and our communities.
  
  Joseph Wheeler is principal of IALPG, aviation legal counsel to the AFAP and Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, and is retained by Australian Certified UAV Operators Inc in pursuit of its present disallowance campaign.

Hmm...interesting times ahead for OST in Parliamentary Estimates I would say...



MTF...P2