De-regulation proposal to the Minister for Transport

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

Posted by Melbourne RPV on January 08, 2004 at 03:10:21:

I am proposing to send a letter to John Anderson,
Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in which I intend to lead in with a proposal that would release wasted resources in CASA put to 101 regulations that simply duplicate regulations already served by state and local law.

This would also pass on the cost of administering activities below and not in controlled air space from the Federal to the state and local govt level to absord, offering the Ministry of Transport another effective cost saving while releasing CASA resources wasted on 101.

I can cite many examples and have given a few where the regulations regarding operation not in controlled airspace are simply poorly duplicating what is in fact controlled by state and local law and patrolled far more effectively by state and local law enforcement.

For an example the regulations covering flying at a safe distance from bystanders is a fixed figure that all operators must be aware of, not that they are.
State law has the instruments to cover this under the law of "public endangerment"
It is illegal to endager the public under state law be it a model aircraft or anything that may constitute a danger.

If such an incident was too occur then it would be best to have the offender dealt with by state police and judiciary and if that was the case there would be
little need for CASA to have anything to do with the issue. It is not in controlled airspace.

In addition, the regulation given by CASA is not something that is common knowledge and most who fly are not aware of the CASA specified distance, or cannot remember it.
Any non compliance by a flier would more than likely by due to ignorance of the regulations so in effect the regulations CASA have do not serve as a deterent
because the regulations are not apparent using simple common sense.

State law covers it in a common sense fashion by not stating a number everyone must remember, (without the aid of traffic signs), but how it effects the member of the public.
If the public considers the aircraft constitutes a threat then the distance should not be a factor, the law covering "endangerment of the public" should be all that is needed to deal with it to the satisfaction of the public.

At best the only regulations that need to exist are:

#1 no-one operates in controlled airspace or near to any airport.
#2 those in clubs that do operate above that level need to notify locations as is currently the case to notify full size aircraft of the club field.

All other regulations in 101 for activities not in controlled airspace are already be served elswhere by other authorties.

Large UAV can simply be for all regulatory purposes, a full size aircraft and certified to that level..
Small UAV that operate in controlled airspace as some do can keep there new UAV regulations but only applicable to operations in controlled airspace, so it only effects those it pertains to.
And doesn't inflict extinction on all others with RPV.

In additon to that matter and the example given in the letter to the Minister, I will address the ill effects of the 101 regulations to date on all those with real world RPV applications who have been made extinct bar 2 of them to cater for those who have no working operation, that like RPV could pay taxes.

And that UAV in general has nill return by comparison for govt, less proven potential to earn, and UAV mostly absorbs sums from govt in the forms of funding that occurs for UAV, but not for RPV that is self funded by those who operate..like me.
Only we cant be paid for any operation because of UAV regulations.

My intention is to put it up in final condensed form to attract signatures of support from others who beleive it is the best outcome and send that and those signatures on to the Minister for Transport.

If that letter ever gets a look at by the Minister and considered as an option.
CASA wont have to worry about processing applications it cant manage to do.
CASA wont have to come here and make with threats.
CASA wont have to promise things it cannot provide.
CASA wont have to review a load of fantasy regulations to foster flawed aviation concepts from a handfull of nutty professors..

Everyones problems solved in one move as I see it.

Melb RPV site

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
: I am proposing to send a letter to John Anderson, : Minister for Transport and Regional Services, in which I intend to lead in with a proposal that would release wasted resources in CASA put to 101 regulations that simply duplicate regulations already served by state and local law. : This would also pass on the cost of administering activities below and not in controlled air space from the Federal to the state and local govt level to absord, offering the Ministry of Transport another effective cost saving while releasing CASA resources wasted on 101. : I can cite many examples and have given a few where the regulations regarding operation not in controlled airspace are simply poorly duplicating what is in fact controlled by state and local law and patrolled far more effectively by state and local law enforcement. : For an example the regulations covering flying at a safe distance from bystanders is a fixed figure that all operators must be aware of, not that they are. : State law has the instruments to cover this under the law of "public endangerment" : It is illegal to endager the public under state law be it a model aircraft or anything that may constitute a danger. : If such an incident was too occur then it would be best to have the offender dealt with by state police and judiciary and if that was the case there would be : little need for CASA to have anything to do with the issue. It is not in controlled airspace. : In addition, the regulation given by CASA is not something that is common knowledge and most who fly are not aware of the CASA specified distance, or cannot remember it. : Any non compliance by a flier would more than likely by due to ignorance of the regulations so in effect the regulations CASA have do not serve as a deterent : because the regulations are not apparent using simple common sense. : State law covers it in a common sense fashion by not stating a number everyone must remember, (without the aid of traffic signs), but how it effects the member of the public. : If the public considers the aircraft constitutes a threat then the distance should not be a factor, the law covering "endangerment of the public" should be all that is needed to deal with it to the satisfaction of the public. : At best the only regulations that need to exist are: : #1 no-one operates in controlled airspace or near to any airport. : #2 those in clubs that do operate above that level need to notify locations as is currently the case to notify full size aircraft of the club field. : All other regulations in 101 for activities not in controlled airspace are already be served elswhere by other authorties. : Large UAV can simply be for all regulatory purposes, a full size aircraft and certified to that level.. : Small UAV that operate in controlled airspace as some do can keep there new UAV regulations but only applicable to operations in controlled airspace, so it only effects those it pertains to. : And doesn't inflict extinction on all others with RPV. : In additon to that matter and the example given in the letter to the Minister, I will address the ill effects of the 101 regulations to date on all those with real world RPV applications who have been made extinct bar 2 of them to cater for those who have no working operation, that like RPV could pay taxes. : And that UAV in general has nill return by comparison for govt, less proven potential to earn, and UAV mostly absorbs sums from govt in the forms of funding that occurs for UAV, but not for RPV that is self funded by those who operate..like me. : Only we cant be paid for any operation because of UAV regulations. : My intention is to put it up in final condensed form to attract signatures of support from others who beleive it is the best outcome and send that and those signatures on to the Minister for Transport. : If that letter ever gets a look at by the Minister and considered as an option. : CASA wont have to worry about processing applications it cant manage to do. : CASA wont have to come here and make with threats. : CASA wont have to promise things it cannot provide. : CASA wont have to review a load of fantasy regulations to foster flawed aviation concepts from a handfull of nutty professors.. : Everyones problems solved in one move as I see it.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

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