[Peetwo]

Binger reviews IPA submission 56 - Institute of Public Affairs (PDF 294 KB)  Attachment 1 (PDF 1645 KB)  

Via the Oz:

          
Drone deregulation support widens

12:00amMITCHELL BINGEMANN

The IPA says a requirement for operators to be within visual line-of-sight of remotely piloted aircraft should be axed.

The Institute of Public Affairs has come out in staunch support of the aviation regulator’s moves to de­regulate the commercial operation of drones, saying more red tape needs to be cut to unleash the ­potential of remotely piloted aircraft.

The free-market think tank called for a slashing of red tape in a submission to the Senate com­mittee investigating safety implications of new rules allowing commercial operators to fly without a licence drones weighing less than 2kg.

In its submission, the IPA said the regulatory requirement for commercial drone operators to be within visual line-of-sight of remotely piloted aircraft should be abolished and a “permissionless” approach where harm must be demonstrated before intervention needed be adopted.

“Achieving minimally effective drone regulation is important, not only to stimulate investment and economic growth as this multi-billion-dollar industry grows, but more importantly to enable this technology to raise Australian ­living standards and make us more prosperous,” IPA research fellow Darcy Allen said.

“CASA’s changes are a sensible trade-off between community safety and the regulatory flexibility entrepreneurs need to grow and develop the technology.”

The IPA’s calls for a “permissionless” approach to regulation will rile pilot unions and airlines, including Qantas and Virgin Australia, which have hit out at moves to deregulate the commercial ­operation of remotely piloted aircraft. These groups have said the rule relaxation could lead to a collision between drones and passenger planes. The IPA argued that those calling for the reversal of the rules are “those who have the most stake on maintaining the status quo”.

“Indeed, the political economy of regulation suggests not only a supply of regulation in the ‘public interest’, but also that there is a demand for regulation in the ‘private interest’ largely driven in search of the supernormal profits of regulatory protection,” Mr Allen wrote.

“A permissionless approach suggests harm must be demonstrated before government restriction and intervention are justified. This is on the understanding there are existing laws that would encompass many of the potential harms and dangers of drone technology.”

The IPA joins companies such as Telstra and Dominos in calling for further deregulation of drone operations. Telstra has called for a relaxation on rules that prohibit the ­flying of drones beyond a pilot’s line of sight. The telco giant has argued that its vast network of mobile towers could play a role in keeping tabs on remotely piloted drones when flying beyond visual sight. Under current rules, pilots must keep drones within sight.

“Achieving minimally effective drone regulation is important, not only to stimulate investment and economic growth as this multi-billion-dollar industry grows, but more importantly to enable this technology to raise Australian ­living standards and make us more prosperous,”  

Q/ Where was the IPA over the last 30 years while the rest of the GA industry was being suffocated by the 'Big R' regulator CAsA while they mind-numbingly slowly  were implemented the RRP with voluminous, draconian, totally unreadable and virtually unusable regulations...  

  
MTF...P2