Regulation of UAV operations

Subject:

Comments:
: There appears to be some misunderstanding concerning the the regulation of civil aviation, including UAVs in Australia. UAVs, by definition, are aircraft and must be operated in compliance with legislation governing the operation of aircraft. In Australia, those rules are headed by the Civil Aviation Act: : http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/0/159/top.htm. : Section 27 of the Act requires that any aircraft performing a prescribed purpose does so under authorization of an Air Operator Certificate (AOC). The prescribed purposes are listed at Civil Aviation Regulation 206: : <http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pastereg/0/51/1/PR006010.htm> : Most of the tasks capable of being performed by a UAV are prescribed tasks requiring an AOC. While CASA has, in the past, permitted certain UAV operations either through an approval under former CAR 137 or a permission under former Civil Aviation Order 95.21 (Model Aircraft), legal advice has indicated that both options were in breach of the Civil Aviation Act. : In order to enable and promote UAV activities in compliance with the law, Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 101 was developed with the assistance of many elements of the UAV industry: : <http://scaletext.law.gov.au/html/pastereg/2/1485/1/PR005190.htm> : CASR Part 101 governs the operations of Australian UAVs and UAVs in Australian territory, dealing with such matters as who may operate what UAVs, how and where. In some circumstances, UAV controllers (i.e. "pilots") and operators must be approved and certified by CASA. : The concept of an Operating Certificate (OC) was introduced to remove the AOC requirements with which a UAV could not comply and to reduce the regulatory burden normally associated with an AOC. The OC and any approvals granted under it are based on risk assessment principles, where there is minimal risk from the operation of the UAV, there are minimum controls but, where the risks from operation of the UAV are great, there are greater controls up to, and including, prohibition of the operation. : While there are costs associated with acquiring an OC, there are also costs associated with operating illegally. Those operators who wish to continue UAV operations must bear the cost associated with certification of their operation. As someone once said - 'There is no such thing as a free lunch'. This applies to UAVs as much as anything else. : The responsible operator will assess risks arising from his operation and develop procedures to minimize that risk. That will form the basis of his operations manual, while the certification process will identify other requirements to ensure that the public is not put at risk. The result is a framework within which the UAV industry can develop. Regrettably, in the initial period following introduction of Part 101, a number of existing and potential UAV operators saw only bureaucratic interference in an unregulated, but legal, industry. The fact is that the UAV industry as it was was not operating according to the law. It is now. : Part 101 has been in effect for just over one year and there are currently three UAV operators with UAV Operating Certificates with many more being assessed. However, with the emphasis on the fare paying passenger, CASA's limited resources are unable to process UAV operator applications as quickly as we would like. This situation should improve with time. : The civil UAV industry worldwide has been hampered by a lack of enabling legislation. Australia is the first nation to actively address UAV operating rules and the rest of the world is now seeking to develop similar rules. As with any new system, the Australian UAV rules have their fare share of critics and proponents. : A review of Part 101 is due to commence shortly and all interested parties are welcome to submit comments. Details will be available on this website.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: