UAV regulation mis interpretations

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ UAV Special Interest Group Messages ]

Posted by Melbourne Remote Aerial Photography Video on November 27, 2003 at 23:16:41:

This is about the 101 regulations and how the regulations read one thing, yet CASA states another.

To my interpretation of the current regulations
101.235(2)a and b states no part of Subpart F applies to small UAV operated in line of sight and complying with Subpart G safety regulations.

UAV AOC and OC are part of Subpart F so the above implies that no part of that applies to small UAV if operated in line of sight and under Subpart G safety regulations.

Subpart A states that a UAV that is not for commercial purposes is simply a "Model Aircraft" and does not relate to the physical sense only determined by the operations performed.

Therefore a non commercial UAV reading Subpart A would refer directly to Subpart G and not Subpart F at anytime.
It is not a UAV.

The only persons who would refer to Subpart F as Subpart A states are commercial UAV (since non commercial are "Model Aircraft".)

And there upon refering to Subpart F it is stated 101.235(2,a,b) that no part applies for line of sight operations and so long as the operator abides by the Subpart G safety regulations.

Abiding by Subpart G does not imply it is for non commercial purposes only as Subpart G does not refer to the commercial aspect of operation at all, only Subpart A does.

To me that makes simple sense (or it did)
It is also the interpretation I am given of the regs by my father who has read them in detail and who was a senior QA engineer for GAF Dept of supply from the begining in the Jindivik through to the FA-18 Hornet and now a retired aviation component manufacturer QA compliance consultant he writes safety and operation manuals as he has done for half a lifetime, and has a clear understanding of the 101 regs as they are written.(or so he thought)

It was obvious to him and me that a person operating a UAV in front of them line of sight using Subpart G regs present no actual safety risk any different than anyone operating a model aircraft in line of sight under Subpart G.

That fact some may get paid for end product is of 0 relevance to the safety, so long as the Subpart G regulations are adhered to by all.
Those getting paid have a lot more to loose by not complying to regulations than those who are paid nothing.
Commercial reality kicks in and the concept of commerce causing operators to cut corners is nonsense with respect to the operation being performed, the equipemnt used and skill required to use it and maintian it, its not just a whipper snipper.
I propose such a notion comes from those who do not in fact operate a UAV/Helicam.

Those who are more likely to cut corners are those who have to delve into their own pockets anytime to get it in the air.
The fact is both are as compelled to go flying a Helicam as each other for money or not because it is a recreational activity number one and any payment is merely a bonus.
That becomes crystal clear to those who do operate them after some months at it.
There is no pot o gold.

But just when my father and I thought the UAV regs made sense I am told by CASA Moorabbin that all paid operation require an OC, regardless of what the act states.
In regard to 101.235(2) I am told this applies to non commercial UAV
But as I see it that is simply wrong because a non commercial UAV is not a UAV as Subpart A clearly states.

101.235(2) cannot be refering to non commercial operations as those are Model Aircraft and refer to Subpart G, not Subpart F.

So the next response I get is that the regulations are "written all wrong" and I am to ignore 101.235(2), even though it has been passed into law by govt.

I was then informed it was not debatable and there where no proposed reviews for some time to come so I would be sent a UAV compliance kit in a few weeks time and that was the end of any debate on it, its a month later and nothing has arrived as yet but Ill sit tight as Im in no hurry to throw any money at a helicam having the benefit of 2 years experience with one.

I have to say at this point the respect my father and I had previously given to what seemed like a solid set of regulations that allowed us to operate and still be paid for pictures to aid devolopment of the system, has evaporated fast.

We get the feeling now that we have had the regulations carved in stone dropped on us by CASA and told conform or cease to exist.

Does CASA have a response to this difference in their interpretation and can they provide a more suitable clarification of why 110.235(2) part a and b does not apply to UAV yet is in Subpart F of UAV ?

And how is it that 101.235(2) applies to non commercaial UAV as CASA states when the Subpart A state otherwise that Subpart G applies ?

101.235(2) makes specific reference to operations in "line of sight" and makes no reference to commerciality.
Subpart F UAV as Subpart A states is for commercial operations only.

If 101.245(2)states "No part of this Subpart applies" to those operation lines of sight then how can CASA claim that AOC or OC applies when AOC and OC are part of Subpart F and, "No part of this Subpart applies", not part of any other subpart of 101 ?
?????????

While I am consoled by the fact we have a review soming up of the regulations I will make this point,

Regulations that are difficult to interperate and exceed the level of skill required for the operations they refer to are as we know not likely to be complied to 100% by shear human error.

It goes that regulations that are only relevant to the safety of the operations and limited to the level of skill relevant to the operations have far more change of being universally complied with 100% due to far greater understanding of them by those they apply to.

If it comes to safety it is surely the most important thing to have all that the regulations apply to, all complying with them, 100%

If it means removing those that are not relevant to add clarity then where does it harm safety if those regulations were not in fact relevant to the operations, in fact the improved understanding of less regulations will more likely be understood better and thus complied with more rigidly.

Sinplifying regulations or rules anywhere ensures greater compliance to them.

If CASA can not give us some clarifcations to the above questions on 101.235 then perhaps they might take the opportunty in the ensuing review and ammend them in such a way that makes it crystal clear but take the opportunity to have some allownace for operations like mine at an amatuer level and help
more to adpot them and operate.

Thus those that do comply with them will do so more rigidly if they are clearly stated and they will be agreed to by the majority if they make some alowances for the UAV that do exist now and not just cut is off for some concern that is yet to eventuate.

There are such low number of UAV operators with physical operations capable of producing a merchantable service or goods it could hardly be argued by anyone in seriousness that we collectively constitue any safety hazard to people or full size aircraft, by comparison to sporting Model Aicraft fliers we are inert.
In numbers we are thin on the ground.

Aerosonde is the only one that possibly operates in controlled airspace but with a Helicam rotor craft I am closer to the ground than I am to controlled airspace at my highest points AGL of operating alltitude.

For those that operate in line of sight from the ground the same as a Model Aircraft does, why do they need certification.
And I dont mean because the regs state they do, depending on who you ask that is, what I mean is can anyone at CASA give me good reason why in plain logic.

How does the fact I might be paid amatuer level money relate to air safety being there are regulations already for Model Aircraft which is what my Helicam is physically, and in all sense of operation except for that fact we dont fly sporting manouvers only to given hover locations and back.

My post are for open comment so if there is anyone with something to add or say, debate then please do so.
Debating it out in the forum will remove doubts before any submission are made and ensure a more represenative submission process than I beleive occured originally.

Regards
Dave

Melb RAPV web site

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: This is about the 101 regulations and how the regulations read one thing, yet CASA states another. : To my interpretation of the current regulations : 101.235(2)a and b states no part of Subpart F applies to small UAV operated in line of sight and complying with Subpart G safety regulations. : UAV AOC and OC are part of Subpart F so the above implies that no part of that applies to small UAV if operated in line of sight and under Subpart G safety regulations. : Subpart A states that a UAV that is not for commercial purposes is simply a "Model Aircraft" and does not relate to the physical sense only determined by the operations performed. : Therefore a non commercial UAV reading Subpart A would refer directly to Subpart G and not Subpart F at anytime. : It is not a UAV. : The only persons who would refer to Subpart F as Subpart A states are commercial UAV (since non commercial are "Model Aircraft".) : And there upon refering to Subpart F it is stated 101.235(2,a,b) that no part applies for line of sight operations and so long as the operator abides by the Subpart G safety regulations. : Abiding by Subpart G does not imply it is for non commercial purposes only as Subpart G does not refer to the commercial aspect of operation at all, only Subpart A does. : To me that makes simple sense (or it did) : It is also the interpretation I am given of the regs by my father who has read them in detail and who was a senior QA engineer for GAF Dept of supply from the begining in the Jindivik through to the FA-18 Hornet and now a retired aviation component manufacturer QA compliance consultant he writes safety and operation manuals as he has done for half a lifetime, and has a clear understanding of the 101 regs as they are written.(or so he thought) : It was obvious to him and me that a person operating a UAV in front of them line of sight using Subpart G regs present no actual safety risk any different than anyone operating a model aircraft in line of sight under Subpart G. : That fact some may get paid for end product is of 0 relevance to the safety, so long as the Subpart G regulations are adhered to by all. : Those getting paid have a lot more to loose by not complying to regulations than those who are paid nothing. : Commercial reality kicks in and the concept of commerce causing operators to cut corners is nonsense with respect to the operation being performed, the equipemnt used and skill required to use it and maintian it, its not just a whipper snipper. : I propose such a notion comes from those who do not in fact operate a UAV/Helicam. : Those who are more likely to cut corners are those who have to delve into their own pockets anytime to get it in the air. : The fact is both are as compelled to go flying a Helicam as each other for money or not because it is a recreational activity number one and any payment is merely a bonus. : That becomes crystal clear to those who do operate them after some months at it. : There is no pot o gold. : But just when my father and I thought the UAV regs made sense I am told by CASA Moorabbin that all paid operation require an OC, regardless of what the act states. : In regard to 101.235(2) I am told this applies to non commercial UAV : But as I see it that is simply wrong because a non commercial UAV is not a UAV as Subpart A clearly states. : 101.235(2) cannot be refering to non commercial operations as those are Model Aircraft and refer to Subpart G, not Subpart F. : So the next response I get is that the regulations are "written all wrong" and I am to ignore 101.235(2), even though it has been passed into law by govt. : I was then informed it was not debatable and there where no proposed reviews for some time to come so I would be sent a UAV compliance kit in a few weeks time and that was the end of any debate on it, its a month later and nothing has arrived as yet but Ill sit tight as Im in no hurry to throw any money at a helicam having the benefit of 2 years experience with one. : I have to say at this point the respect my father and I had previously given to what seemed like a solid set of regulations that allowed us to operate and still be paid for pictures to aid devolopment of the system, has evaporated fast. : We get the feeling now that we have had the regulations carved in stone dropped on us by CASA and told conform or cease to exist. : Does CASA have a response to this difference in their interpretation and can they provide a more suitable clarification of why 110.235(2) part a and b does not apply to UAV yet is in Subpart F of UAV ? : And how is it that 101.235(2) applies to non commercaial UAV as CASA states when the Subpart A state otherwise that Subpart G applies ? : 101.235(2) makes specific reference to operations in "line of sight" and makes no reference to commerciality. : Subpart F UAV as Subpart A states is for commercial operations only. : If 101.245(2)states "No part of this Subpart applies" to those operation lines of sight then how can CASA claim that AOC or OC applies when AOC and OC are part of Subpart F and, "No part of this Subpart applies", not part of any other subpart of 101 ? : ????????? : While I am consoled by the fact we have a review soming up of the regulations I will make this point, : Regulations that are difficult to interperate and exceed the level of skill required for the operations they refer to are as we know not likely to be complied to 100% by shear human error. : It goes that regulations that are only relevant to the safety of the operations and limited to the level of skill relevant to the operations have far more change of being universally complied with 100% due to far greater understanding of them by those they apply to. : If it comes to safety it is surely the most important thing to have all that the regulations apply to, all complying with them, 100% : If it means removing those that are not relevant to add clarity then where does it harm safety if those regulations were not in fact relevant to the operations, in fact the improved understanding of less regulations will more likely be understood better and thus complied with more rigidly. : Sinplifying regulations or rules anywhere ensures greater compliance to them. : If CASA can not give us some clarifcations to the above questions on 101.235 then perhaps they might take the opportunty in the ensuing review and ammend them in such a way that makes it crystal clear but take the opportunity to have some allownace for operations like mine at an amatuer level and help : more to adpot them and operate. : Thus those that do comply with them will do so more rigidly if they are clearly stated and they will be agreed to by the majority if they make some alowances for the UAV that do exist now and not just cut is off for some concern that is yet to eventuate. : There are such low number of UAV operators with physical operations capable of producing a merchantable service or goods it could hardly be argued by anyone in seriousness that we collectively constitue any safety hazard to people or full size aircraft, by comparison to sporting Model Aicraft fliers we are inert. : In numbers we are thin on the ground. : Aerosonde is the only one that possibly operates in controlled airspace but with a Helicam rotor craft I am closer to the ground than I am to controlled airspace at my highest points AGL of operating alltitude. : For those that operate in line of sight from the ground the same as a Model Aircraft does, why do they need certification. : And I dont mean because the regs state they do, depending on who you ask that is, what I mean is can anyone at CASA give me good reason why in plain logic. : How does the fact I might be paid amatuer level money relate to air safety being there are regulations already for Model Aircraft which is what my Helicam is physically, and in all sense of operation except for that fact we dont fly sporting manouvers only to given hover locations and back. : My post are for open comment so if there is anyone with something to add or say, debate then please do so. : Debating it out in the forum will remove doubts before any submission are made and ensure a more represenative submission process than I beleive occured originally. : Regards : Dave

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ UAV Special Interest Group Messages ]