Following a demand for relaxation of certification and licensing requirements on commercial remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) operations, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) responded on September 29, 2016, by issuing amended federal safety regulations. The amendments aim to reduce the cost and legal requirements for commercial RPA operations that are considered low-risk. Following is an insight into the said amendments.
Weight Classification
CASA made amendments to part 101 introducing new weight classifications:
· Micro -
“Excluded” or “Included” RPA © 2016 Australian Association for Unmanned Systems
Commercial Operation by Private Land Owners
Thanks to the new “excluded RPA” category, private land owners with small RPAs will not need RePL or ReOC to use them for some commercial-like operations within the confines of their land. However, those flying medium RPAs are required to hold an RePL to operate. Additionally, operators in this category cannot apply for further exemptions and will be required to follow all the Standard Operating Conditions (SOC).
Standard Operating Conditions
SOCs apply to most excluded RPA operators and some private land owners. The conditions are as follows:
The RPA is operated:
· During the day;
· At least 400 feet above the ground; and
· By visual line of sight (VLOS)—close enough to see, achieve accurate tracking and flight, and maintain orientation.
The RPA is not operated:
· In a restricted area without permission;
· In a restricted area classified as RA3;
· Over populous areas;
· Closer than 30 meters from people not associated with the operation;
· Within 5.5. kilometres of a controlled aerodome; and
· In an area where emergency operations are underway.
Additionally, operators should fly only one RPA at a time. Operators also need a CASA certification and/or license to fly outside the recommended SOCs.
Autonomous Flights Prohibited
Autonomous flights are prohibited under the amendments. However, CASA may approve autonomous flights on a case-by-case basis, and it is working on developing suitable regulations for these flights.
Opposition to the Amendments
The Association of Australian Certified UAV Operators (ACUO) comprises 112 members who represent 1/8th of commercially certified RPA operators. It accuses CASA of failing to harmonize the amendments with international regulations seeking to integrate unmanned and manned aviation. It also submitted a report criticizing some of CASA’s amendments including:
1. Introduction of a new classification system, including the category of “excluded RPAs”;
2. Relaxation of pre-existing pilot and training qualification requirements;
3. Allowing private landowners to use RPA up to 25 kg in weight without an operator’s certificate or pilot’s license provided they adhere to RPA standard operating conditions, and allowing the same private landowners to use RPA up to 150 kg in weight without an operator’s certificate provided they hold a pilot’s license; and
4. Relaxation of the prior requirements for all RPA operators to avoid all the aerodromes and replace it with a condition that such an aircraft must keep away from only controlled aerodromes.
Additionally, ACUO made 19 recommendations for improvement, but some of them are outside CASA’s regulatory jurisdiction.
The Australian Airline Pilots’ Association (AusALPA) considers the use of RPA for commercial activity as a threat to the ultra-safe economic model of traditional air transport. It demands that RPA operators comply with the existing rules and regulations. It also recommends CASA to adopt the IFALPA position on RPAs, which requires that RPAs be regarded as aircraft. It also backs ACUO on the concerns about relaxed safety and certification rules.
Support for CASA’s Amendments
The Australian Aviation Unmanned Systems submitted a report to the Senate expressing its support for CASA’s Amendments.
The Nature of Safety and CASA’s Risk-Based Approach to Regulation
The emergence of RPA commercial operations is disrupting the status quo of “safety first” represented by the Conventionally Piloted Aircraft (CPA). To this end, CASA had adopted a risk-based approach that assumes that absolute safety cannot be achieved. As such, it aims at controlling the greatest potential threats.
Regulatory Principles: The Precautionary Principle and Permissionless Innovation
The precautionary principle to risk management places the burden of proving that an action or policy is not harmful—in the absence of scientific consensus—to those taking the action if the action or policy has the potential to cause harm to the public and/or environment. However, this principle ignores the risk of not introducing the technology and, consequently, the lost opportunities. To this end, it is considered a hindrance to progress.
Resolving Unsafe Technology with Technology
RPA use has been opposed over safety concerns. However, CASA has identified several emerging technologies that can improve RPA operations and mitigate safety concerns. These technologies include:
· Detect and Avoid/Separation and Collision Avoidance
· Command and Control (C2)
· Geo-fencing
· Automatic Avoidance
Model aircraft are not affected by CASA’s amendments. Model aircraft are RPAs that are used for sports or recreational purposes.