Update on the AP legislation situation in Australia

[Tonystott]

Following gentle prompting by Patrick Egan of RCAPA, I today contacted CASA, the Oz equivalent of FAA and spoke with a Mal Walker, who gave me an update on CASA current thinking regarding R/C AP. Here are the points he made:-

* UAVs under 100kgs do not require certification, maintenance and operation manual etc
* CASA is generally only concerned about UAVs operating below 400 feet if near controlled air space. Obviously over that, they are extremely interested!
* Operator certificate required (info/application pack being emailed to me) to satisfy CASA as to competence of the operator
* There are currently now 15 registered UAV operators in Australia rather than 1or 2as previously thought
* A small R/C helicopter (I mentioned sub-2kg) would be able to operate from an area as small as a roadway intersection (I was amazed at this statement, as it impies that urban operation is not out of the question!). He added that CASA would assess the aircraft's performance/weight envelope in determining acceptable operational areas. Initially they investigated using kinetic energy as a determining factor until someone pointed out that a small bullet might have similar kinetic energy to a blimp! (please note: I did not pursue the question regarding larger aircraft, but assume from the above that the bigger it is, the more restrictions will apply - fair enough IMHO)
* The level of CASA intervention/flexibility is determined by practical risk assessment, and is reasonable (!)
* When I asked if CASA was likely to adopt the impending solutions being worked in by the FAA, he suggested that it was more likely that the reverse would apply (hmmmm)

I will follow this through of course, and keep you updated. I really really hope that reality matches the above CASA position

Tony Stott

[KarbonBird]

Good work on getting this info Tony ... a believe that there are quite a few of us in Oz monitoring this topic closely. So, if my interpretation is correct, small helis such as T-rex 450 and 600 could be operated without a license (if done so away from a controlled space). Good news indeed if this is so!

Cheers

Rossco

[spork]

Initially they investigated using kinetic energy as a determining factor until someone pointed out that a small bullet might have similar kinetic energy to a blimp!

People have used both kinetic energy (1/2*M*V*V) and momentum (M*V) as a metric for potential damage done. It seems that neither one alone is sufficient, as they cause damage in different ways.

I would suggest that using limits on both kinetic energy and momentum would yield a reasonable metric.

[Griffo]

That's great news Tony, thankyou for taking the time to chase this up!
I had similar conversations with a member from CASA. Let us know how you find the operator application.

[Tonystott]

That's great news Tony, thankyou for taking the time to chase this up!
I had similar conversations with a member from CASA. Let us know how you find the operator application.
Time for a miserable update! :arggg: :arggg: :arggg: :arggg:

Well, I have now delved further into the CASA minefield, and now have contacted Greg Bath, who is responsible for the issue of UAV controller Certificates. (In Oz, any R/C aircraft doing commercial work is classed as a UAV. Our helis (between 100g and 100Kg!!!) are classed as "small UAVs")

To sum up? TOO HARD!

Greg had attempted to reduce the requirements for really small AP commercial aircraft (current definition of "small" is between 100g and 100kg!), but was told that there was no possibility of change.

Here is what is required to become a UAV Controller as per CASA regs.
"101.295 Eligibility for certification as UAV controller
(1) Only an individual is eligible to be certificated as a UAV controller.
(2) A person is eligible to be certificated as a UAV controller if he or she:
(a) qualifies for the issue of a radio operator’s certificate of proficiency; and
(b) has been awarded a pass in an aviation licence theory examination (other than a flight radio operator’s examination);
and
(c) has been awarded a pass in an instrument rating theory examination; and
(d) has completed a training course in the operation of the type of UAV that he or she proposes to operate, conducted by the UAV’s manufacturer; and
(e) has at least 5 hours experience in operating UAVs outside controlled airspace.
(3) A person who holds or has held:
(a) a flight crew licence with a command instrument rating; or
(b) a military qualification equivalent to a licence and rating mentioned in paragraph (a); or
(c) an air traffic control licence, or a military qualification equivalent to an air traffic control licence;
is taken to satisfy the conditions in paragraphs (2) (a), (b) and (c).

101.300 Conditions on certification as UAV controller
(1) CASA may impose a condition on the certification of a person as a UAV controller in the interests of the safety of air navigation.
(2) For example (without limiting the generality of subregulation (1)), a
condition may:
(a) allow the person to control UAVs of only specified kinds; or
(b) limit the areas where he or she may control UAVs; or
(c) allow him or her to control UAVs only in VMC.
(3) It is a condition of a UAV controller’s certification that he or she must not operate a UAV in controlled airspace unless he or she holds an aircraft radiotelephone operator’s certificate of proficiency."

Apart from the impossibility of meeting 101.295 (b), as to my knowledge Align does not run operator training courses (!), the controller needs to pay the cost of attending courses in instrument rating theory, radio operator, aviation licence theory, AND pay CASA an estimated $A5-6000 for their time at $130/hr for the certification process. Of course the Operator also has to have a working VHF radio for communications with control towers and other aircraft.

Gee, I am beginning to understand why there are only 15 certified operators in a country of 20 million...

Anyone know where I can obtain a 200 foot mast? (I wish I was being flippant)

Oh yes, I also asked whether CASA could smooth the waters by allowing me a copy of a similar application, so I wouldn't have to reinvent the wheel.

First response:- look up approved controllers and ask them (list not supplied!)
Second response: Nobody else has applied for approval for a sub-5Kg UAV, so I am a "trailblazer", so there is no precedent to draw on.

Marvellous....
PS. Spoke with the pilot of an R/C blimp operation (several up to 20 feet) and discovered it took them THREE YEARS to get CASA approval. Goodness know what that cost....

So, my helicam is going to provide photos for nothing as an amateur and not classified as a UAV, while I invoice commissioned work done with the polecam at the same site...Silly solution, but they started it....

[askman]

sorry to hear. what about tethered balloon? on calm day, they do work well, and technically none aircaft.

[Tonystott]

sorry to hear. what about tethered balloon? on calm day, they do work well, and technically none aircaft.
I checked the regs on them as well. They are not banned if used below 400 feet and away from airports, but CASA has a little kicker even for these
(1) A person may operate a tethered balloon only if:
(a) each mooring line has coloured streamers attached at intervals of
no more than 15 metres along it, with the first streamer no more
than 150 feet above ground level; and
(b) the streamers must be visible for 1.5 kilometres

The mixed metric and imperial measurements are an example of the clear thinking applied by CASA :arggg: . So if you use a tethered blimp at (say) 120 metres, you have to add the weight of at least 5 large streamers, so that aircraft flying below their authorised floor don't run into the tether. I wonder how many blimp operators comply with this regulation?

I am still looking for the clause about the man walking along in front waving a red flag :FThat

[kgfly]

Gosh Tony, that's a bugger :(

[Tonystott]

Gosh Tony, that's a bugger :(
It's sorta not really... as the regs have been drafted in a totally stupid way (I need a VHF radio to talk with passing aircraft??? give me a friggin break!) I will just ensure that my helicam is only used in an amateur capacity. On the other hand, every site I take photos with my heli, I will be taking professional photos with my Askman pole-mount cam, and charging appropriately. Then, Tony Stott the amateur might make a gift of any nice photos taken from the heli in a totally amateur capacity.

It is a little unusual arrangement, but my lawyer has advised me that as long as all contractual arrangements relate to photographs taken from a device outside the jurisdiction of CASA, I won't be breaking any laws.

I reckon that is a practical solution, even if a bit weird, but weird isn't my specialty... There is a bunch of people polishing their backsides on their office chairs in a certain government body. I think the picture explains it better :wink:

[Cryofix]

Dont charge for your onsite service and add the additional cost to the rights of the photos. If you were to make $400 a shoot and $250 was an onsite fee just sharge that to them in the rights deal.

THis way you make nothing for taking the pictures and can remain amateur, but are a pro photo sales man.

[Tonystott]

Dont charge for your onsite service and add the additional cost to the rights of the photos. If you were to make $400 a shoot and $250 was an onsite fee just sharge that to them in the rights deal.

THis way you make nothing for taking the pictures and can remain amateur, but are a pro photo sales man.
Thanks mater! I am sure there are many ways of skinning this particular cat.

[Efliernz]

These rules suck...

I'm trying to get some guidelines out of CAA in New Zealand over requirements / regs for AP and all I'm getting is a spam... I hope they don't follow the Aussie way...

[Crjbenny]

I think cryofix might be onto something. Here in the states you dont have to be a commercial pilot to do commercial photography from a full size aircraft.
The reason being that the flying is incidental to the operation of the aircraft. Or simply you sell the photos not your flying services.

[Tonystott]

I think cryofix might be onto something. Here in the states you dont have to be a commercial pilot to do commercial photography from a full size aircraft.
The reason being that the flying is incidental to the operation of the aircraft. Or simply you sell the photos not your flying services.
This has been discussed on other boards. Unfortunately there is wording along the lines of "directly or indirectly involved in commercial operations. It was in relation to FCC licencing and use of amateur radio bands, but I fear that it would be relevant also for AP sales.

To make it worse here in Australia, the MAAA, the Oz equivalent of the AMA, does not cover model aircraft, even if used for sport or recreation, if they are equipped with GPS or flight stabilisation. Bsatards!

So if I fit an AP20001 to my AP heli, and take photos and give them away, I cannot legally fly under either CASA's UAV regs OR MAAA amateur rules! Double bsatards! :arggg: :arggg:

[kgfly]

To make it worse here in Australia, the MAAA, the Oz equivalent of the AMA, does not cover model aircraft, even if used for sport or recreation, if they are equipped with GPS or flight stabilisation. Bsatards! What :!: :dontknow

I have not been a fan of the MAAA but given their recent speedy response to getting the DX7 certified I am feeling much more positive. Have you tried contacting them for clarification of the reasoning or to discuss an amendment ?

[Tonystott]

Not yet, but I suspect the ruling is designed to avoid an aircraft continuing flying after loss of signal. Surely all that is needed is assurance that failsafe condition results in chopped throttle. I can agree with GPS ban though, as that is a whole different ball of wax.