Posted by RPV Interested Bystander on January 15, 2004 at 01:30:37:
A message to CASA from a responsible for-profit RPV operator in the UK.
Even from a distance I am concerned that anyone in authority has seen fit to basket Melbourne RPV or similar together with anything UAV.
Melbourne RPV may as well be called Melbourne MAV - Manned Aerial Vehicle - Why? Because the controls are of course manned from the ground - all operation requires hand-eye co-ordination performed by the operator, just like a Kite. The only difference of any substance between the RPV with a camera on board and a Kite with a camera on board is that the string controlling the kite is replaced by a radio signal for a model aircraft/helicopter. FYI Kites can claim nothing like the flawless safety record of RPV operations e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/3045789.stm
Perhaps we RPV operators are have fallen on our own sword a little by using the term RPV - a term that seems all too eagerly attached to the glamorous coat tails of the UAV world. The truth is that an "RPV" has more in common with a child's balloon than a UAV. If the child lets go of the balloon then nature will take its course. The child is therefore responsible either for controlling the balloon or for the consequences of letting it go - end of story. However with the UAV once the operator lets it go that's not the end of the tale, it's the beginning it - the whole UAV concept is to have systems take over so that the UAV performs a function. The UAV function (and any failure of it) is almost always the responsibility of an organisational effort, and by definition cannot be attributed to a single human operator once in un-manned mode.
UAVs have therefore justly earned a different category to RPVs because the brains of the operation can be sent aloft with the vehicle. If there's an accident you can justly say of the UAV 'the machine flew itself into a person/some property, or its systems designed to prevent that outcome failed to function'. With the RPV you can always say 'he (the operator) flew his RPV into a person/property (or failed to prevent it)'. Therefore in the case of RPV the regulations concerning criminal or civil liability rest as always with the man. Law and legal precedents are fully mature in this respect.
In the case of the UAV, the Machine may loose control and become involved in an accident without any direct responsibility falling upon the operator in the field. Indeed the field operatives associated with a UAV could potentially change shifts more than once during an operation. The criminal and civil liability for a failed UAV operation must rest with the Organisation responsible for the UAV in respect of its ability bestowed upon the machine to follow a mission correctly, and for setting an appropriate mission in the first place. This would appear a reasonable target for regulations aimed at an organisation to ensure it has structure and function enabling it to exercise proper controls over this process - such as these CASA regulations.
In conclusion.
There is a simple test to determine whether or not a system and its owner(s) constitute a UAV operation (and should be regulated as such).
The proposed test is: Is the guiding intelligence for the airborne vehicle capable of residing in autonomous systems, or is it at all times vested in the man?
If the answer is 'IN THE MACINE' - it's a UAV.
If the answer is 'AT ALL TIMES IN THE MAN' it's not a UAV. It's just a remote controlled aircraft - or a RPV if we want to flatter ourselves when carrying something with that "vehicle" i.e. camera.
The RPV operator is a legal entity in his own right, HE (not the machine) is at all times responsible for any outcome of the flight and can already be sued, fined or jailed for any number acts or omissions leading to public nuisance or danger. UAV certification is clearly un called for.
Recommendation: It should be made clear without delay to Melbourne RPV and all others affected by the confusion over this issue that his NON-UAV operation (and all other NON-UAV operations) fall outside the scope of CASA UAV control.
Notes for UAV interested parties: It ought to be apparent that an official sanction for the blurring the boundary between UAV and RPV seriously de-values your efforts to produce a distinctive genre of product. It is clearly in your interests to distance yourself from neo-hobbyist RPV operators, just as much as it is our interest to remain free from inappropriate legislation by proxy.
Do you sincerely believe that just because a random bloke straps a camera to a model helicopter and takes a photo good enough to sell then he's worthy of state recognition as a UAV operator just the same as you? If you are argiung that taking photos from model helicopters is the sole preserve of machine intelligence then all human kind should take issue with this utter nonsense, the goverment formost as our representatives in the name of freedom.
Julian Cox