Posted by Melbourne Remote Aerial Photography Video on November 28, 2003 at 09:35:06:
In Reply to: Regulation of UAV operations posted by Mal Walker on November 20, 2003 at 09:40:50:
Mal regarding a few point made here.
: 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:
>>>>>>> A3.1.4 Regulation 206 has been in effect for a number of years and experience has As I understand it you have reduced this to an OC for some cases but not for the same reasons as the above refers to. It is clear in the above statment that CASA itself beleives that simple aerial work such as Aerial Photography is a private operation where it pertains to a full size aircraft and if 206 is applied to UAV or Model Aircraft then it applies to those as well. Why does CASA depart from this postion on 206 for UAV and only apply the position that simple aerial photography is a private operation. In addition it states >>>> This is a good point but in 101, CASA fails its own view to be in line with international standards. This creates a quandry if in the case a foreign production crew arrives on our doorstep for Hollywood/Bollywood with a Helicam in the gear only to find they cannot use it without special permission limited to 7 days at a time. I propose adpoting the position of the UK on UAV, and in light of the amendment intention of CASA on 206 for simple aerial photography as a private operation, would be the most economical outcome for not only operators but CASA itself. As far the the "legal view" of CASA I think it would be wise for them to review their legal opinion in light of the amendments to 206 for simple aerial photography as a private operation. This would mean no amendment to 101 would be nescecary as the only thing that dictates that 101.235 cannot be applied to aeriel photgraphy for payment is in 206 "in the view of CASA legal" and that appears to be extinguished in its own amendments to 206. Regards
As it states that Mal it also states this in the intended amendments.
PART A –
CAR (1988) Part 14 – Amended Definition of Aerial Work
shown that the ambiguity of the wording in regulation 206 (1) (a), and paragraph (ix)
in particular, has caused confusion within CASA and the industry as to what
activities should properly be regarded as ‘Aerial Work’. This has led to some
inconsistencies in the way in which the rule has been interpreted and in CASA’s
view there are some activities that are currently conducted as Aerial Work that in fact
should not require an AOC.
>>>>>>>Noting this section
Some operations, such as those involving simple aerial
photography, could be classified as being private operations, since the requirement to
operate under an AOC does not appear to add any significant safety value to such
activities.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Some operations will no longer be classified as Aerial Work
A3.2.6 Currently, the provisions in regulation 206(1)(a) require an AOC for some
operations that CASA believes do not require an AOC from a safety perspective.
Under the proposed amendments, only activities which are clearly set out in the new
(proposed) regulation 206(1)(a) will require an AOC. Before an activity is prescribed
for this purpose, it will be assessed against defined safety criteria (see paragraph A3.2.9)
>>>>>
A3.1.2 Amendments to the current regulation 206 (1) (a) are necessary so that the
definition of Aerial Work is clear, unambiguous and harmonised as far as practicable
with international practice.
>>>>
International standards allow me to operate without certification in USA and UK where there are already specific UAV regulatios that are in operation, accepted by operators, and that do work..
Australia is in fact not in line with international standards in their interpretation of 101.
And the rest of us standing here not able to work while they are under special permission.
If they did then a UAV being paid and operating in line of sight could do so as a private operation without certification.
Limited by the Subpart G regulations as 101.235(2)(b) states, which limits private operations to 25Kg outside a designated Model Aircraft area.
If not already it is clear that is the intention and the reasons given follow also as CASA states "Some operations will no longer be classified as Aerial Work"
Dave