Drones in Australia (UAV/UAS)
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there already are restricted areas around every approved airport, no closer than 3nm, not in any restricted or prohibited areas,
the CASR's 101 already have it covered. and in my opinion, are pretty well thought out and cover pretty much everything..
sadly these things are sold to anyone, and the buyer is given no clue to the rules covering them, or are even told there are any rules at all. this is the problem.
the CASR's 101 already have it covered. and in my opinion, are pretty well thought out and cover pretty much everything..
sadly these things are sold to anyone, and the buyer is given no clue to the rules covering them, or are even told there are any rules at all. this is the problem.
CASA have a pretty easy to follow section on their website for Drones.
https://www.casa.gov.au/operations/s...d-aircraft-rpa
This mob have some pretty pictures but don't seem to know that 3 miles is not actually 4.5 kms !
Drone Laws in Australia - We explain CASA CASR 101 laws for RPAS in Australia
https://www.casa.gov.au/operations/s...d-aircraft-rpa
This mob have some pretty pictures but don't seem to know that 3 miles is not actually 4.5 kms !
Drone Laws in Australia - We explain CASA CASR 101 laws for RPAS in Australia
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been having a read, and as far as I can tell there is nothing in the legislation that prohibits flying model aircraft right up to the boundary fence of an aerodrome, even in controlled airspace, provided its not above 400ft. (And the other points regarding approach paths/creating an obstruction etc are complied with.)
Happy to be corrected if you can point me to the relevant legislation, I'm all for (responsible) model flying, but this doesn't seem ideal.
101.070 Operation in controlled airspace
(1) A person may operate an unmanned aircraft above 400 feet AGL in controlled airspace only:
(a) in an area approved under regulation 101.030 as an area for the operation of unmanned aircraft of the same kind as the aircraft, and in accordance with any conditions of the approval; and
(b) in accordance with an air traffic control clearance.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
101.075 Operation near aerodromes
(1) A person may operate an unmanned aircraft at an altitude above 400 feet AGL within 3 nautical miles of an aerodrome only if:
(a) the operation is permitted by another provision of this Part; or
(b) permission has been given for the operation under regulation 101.080.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2) A person may operate an unmanned aircraft over an area mentioned in paragraph (3)(a) or (b) only if:
(a) the operation is permitted by another provision of this Part; or
(b) permission has been given for the operation under regulation 101.080.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(3) The areas for subregulation (2) are:
(a) a movement area or runway of an aerodrome; and
(b) the approach or departure path of a runway of an aerodrome.
(4) A person must not operate an unmanned aircraft in such a manner as to create an obstruction to an aircraft taking off from, or approaching for landing at, a landing area or a runway of an aerodrome.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(5) An offence against subregulation (1), (2) or (4) is an offence of strict liability.
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
Happy to be corrected if you can point me to the relevant legislation, I'm all for (responsible) model flying, but this doesn't seem ideal.
101.070 Operation in controlled airspace
(1) A person may operate an unmanned aircraft above 400 feet AGL in controlled airspace only:
(a) in an area approved under regulation 101.030 as an area for the operation of unmanned aircraft of the same kind as the aircraft, and in accordance with any conditions of the approval; and
(b) in accordance with an air traffic control clearance.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
101.075 Operation near aerodromes
(1) A person may operate an unmanned aircraft at an altitude above 400 feet AGL within 3 nautical miles of an aerodrome only if:
(a) the operation is permitted by another provision of this Part; or
(b) permission has been given for the operation under regulation 101.080.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(2) A person may operate an unmanned aircraft over an area mentioned in paragraph (3)(a) or (b) only if:
(a) the operation is permitted by another provision of this Part; or
(b) permission has been given for the operation under regulation 101.080.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(3) The areas for subregulation (2) are:
(a) a movement area or runway of an aerodrome; and
(b) the approach or departure path of a runway of an aerodrome.
(4) A person must not operate an unmanned aircraft in such a manner as to create an obstruction to an aircraft taking off from, or approaching for landing at, a landing area or a runway of an aerodrome.
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(5) An offence against subregulation (1), (2) or (4) is an offence of strict liability.
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
The CASA website says the following in plain English.
Quoting rules from a section about CTA is probably not relevant as there's more in there than just that section.
Suggesting that you can fly up to the fence of an airfield because it doesn't say otherwise is like saying that you can fly one in the CBD after drinking 10 beers, because it doesn't say otherwise.
What's allowed?
RPA
Unmanned aircraft activities are approved for operations over unpopulated areas up to 400 feet AGL (above ground level) (120 metres), or higher with special approvals.
Special approvals are also required for other areas.
Operations are not permitted in controlled airspace without CASA approval and coordination with Airservices Australia
Can be operated in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) and /or instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) with appropriate approvals.
Model aircraft
You should only fly a model aircraft in visual line-of-sight, in day visual meteorological conditions (VMC). What does that mean?
no night flying
no flying in or through cloud or fog, and
you should be able to see the aircraft with your own eyes (rather than through its point-of-view camera) at all times
You must not fly a model aircraft over populous areas such as beaches, other people's backyards, heavily populated parks, or sports ovals where there is a game in progress.
In controlled airspace, which covers most Australian cities, model aircraft must not be flown higher than 400 feet (120 metres)
You should not fly closer than 5.5km from an airfield.
RPA
Unmanned aircraft activities are approved for operations over unpopulated areas up to 400 feet AGL (above ground level) (120 metres), or higher with special approvals.
Special approvals are also required for other areas.
Operations are not permitted in controlled airspace without CASA approval and coordination with Airservices Australia
Can be operated in visual meteorological conditions (VMC) and /or instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) with appropriate approvals.
Model aircraft
You should only fly a model aircraft in visual line-of-sight, in day visual meteorological conditions (VMC). What does that mean?
no night flying
no flying in or through cloud or fog, and
you should be able to see the aircraft with your own eyes (rather than through its point-of-view camera) at all times
You must not fly a model aircraft over populous areas such as beaches, other people's backyards, heavily populated parks, or sports ovals where there is a game in progress.
In controlled airspace, which covers most Australian cities, model aircraft must not be flown higher than 400 feet (120 metres)
You should not fly closer than 5.5km from an airfield.
Suggesting that you can fly up to the fence of an airfield because it doesn't say otherwise is like saying that you can fly one in the CBD after drinking 10 beers, because it doesn't say otherwise.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with your sentiment Squawk, my point was more in regards to operations near aerodromes, where it seems operating inside 3nm below 400ft is permitted. The advice stating 'should not fly closer than 5.5km', in my view, only creates ambiguity when the CASR state otherwise. If that's the standard CASA want to regulate, then legislate it. I'd like to think common sense would prevail, but there'll always be idiots who push the limits and give the rest of us a bad name.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Penalty: 25 penalty units.
(3) The areas for subregulation (2) are:
(a) a movement area or runway of an aerodrome; and
(b) the approach or departure path of a runway of an aerodrome
(3) The areas for subregulation (2) are:
(a) a movement area or runway of an aerodrome; and
(b) the approach or departure path of a runway of an aerodrome
and as for the
'should not fly closer than 5.5km',
For some time a year or so back CASA were working on a number of Advisory Circulars putting more detail around CASR Part 101 WRT UAV ops. but I haven't been following things to know if they were ever issued or not.
I can say that their position was that UAVs including model aircraft must not be flown at any level within 3NM of a controlled aerodrome, without prior specific approval from both CASA and the relevant ATC unit.
Further here:
Unmanned Aerial Systems in controlled airspace | Airservices
CASA also would not permit the vehicles being flown beyond visual line of sight of the operator, without their specific approval.
I can say that their position was that UAVs including model aircraft must not be flown at any level within 3NM of a controlled aerodrome, without prior specific approval from both CASA and the relevant ATC unit.
Further here:
Unmanned Aerial Systems in controlled airspace | Airservices
CASA also would not permit the vehicles being flown beyond visual line of sight of the operator, without their specific approval.
Thread Starter
Are you being harassed by swarms of feral drones ? 
This may be the answer...
12 gauge shotgun anti drone munitions from: DROP THE DRONES WITH DRONE MUNITION
.
This may be the answer...
12 gauge shotgun anti drone munitions from: DROP THE DRONES WITH DRONE MUNITION
.
Thread Starter
The Israelis would have to have one of the toughest to crack computer systems around, and yet...
"...An indictment presented to the Be'er Sheva District Court on Wednesday asserts that Majd Ouida, a computer engineer and tech expert from Gaza, managed to hack into the IDF's drone surveillance system, allowing the leaders of the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization to view HD footage from drones hovering above the Gaza Strip...
...According to the indictment, Ouida joined the Islamic Jihad five years ago, later developing a program with which they infiltrated the IDF drone system. The program also allowed the organization's leadership to view footage from Israeli traffic cameras.
Ouida also developed a program that allowed the Islamic Jihad to monitor plane traffic at Ben Gurion Airport. It also gave the organization access to passenger manifests and technical details of departing and arriving planes..."
Shin-Bet: Islamic Jihad member hacked into IDF drone system - Israel News, Ynetnews
So just how secure are the 'monitoring' computers in the land of Oz...
.
"...An indictment presented to the Be'er Sheva District Court on Wednesday asserts that Majd Ouida, a computer engineer and tech expert from Gaza, managed to hack into the IDF's drone surveillance system, allowing the leaders of the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization to view HD footage from drones hovering above the Gaza Strip...
...According to the indictment, Ouida joined the Islamic Jihad five years ago, later developing a program with which they infiltrated the IDF drone system. The program also allowed the organization's leadership to view footage from Israeli traffic cameras.
Ouida also developed a program that allowed the Islamic Jihad to monitor plane traffic at Ben Gurion Airport. It also gave the organization access to passenger manifests and technical details of departing and arriving planes..."
Shin-Bet: Islamic Jihad member hacked into IDF drone system - Israel News, Ynetnews
So just how secure are the 'monitoring' computers in the land of Oz...
.
change of name...
Not UAS/UAV...now RPV Remotely Piloted Vehicle.
Big spiel in today's Oz where the "safe" (sic) pros continues the propaganda that the 'amateurs' are a gross health hazard.
< 2kg operate by anybody now..and i would bet that most people do the right thing ...ie within the prescribed parameters.
In the new regs 101 update CAsA is again beating their meat that if you take a photograph from yr 2kg RPV for money, you are a criminal doing commerce.
CAsA is a safety regulator NOT, repeat NOT a commercial regulator. But like a junkie on heroin, they just wont give it up.
Where's the safety case, where's the cost benefit analysis to support this rubbish..? Oh that's right... NEVER done ! Just good old bs control freakery!
As a photographer, and who isnt these days...I have to following rights
,,,to take an image from a public space.
...to be paid for that image, commissioned job or not.. ie if I sell it later.
...to earn a living by my chosen profession.
...and the right to happiness, since I enjoy aerial photography... and food on the table.
But rampaging regulation will continue to deny those rights.
Big spiel in today's Oz where the "safe" (sic) pros continues the propaganda that the 'amateurs' are a gross health hazard.
< 2kg operate by anybody now..and i would bet that most people do the right thing ...ie within the prescribed parameters.
In the new regs 101 update CAsA is again beating their meat that if you take a photograph from yr 2kg RPV for money, you are a criminal doing commerce.
CAsA is a safety regulator NOT, repeat NOT a commercial regulator. But like a junkie on heroin, they just wont give it up.
Where's the safety case, where's the cost benefit analysis to support this rubbish..? Oh that's right... NEVER done ! Just good old bs control freakery!
As a photographer, and who isnt these days...I have to following rights
,,,to take an image from a public space.
...to be paid for that image, commissioned job or not.. ie if I sell it later.
...to earn a living by my chosen profession.
...and the right to happiness, since I enjoy aerial photography... and food on the table.
But rampaging regulation will continue to deny those rights.
So.....Wot happens now that our Aust. Post is gunna give these 'things' a trial..??
"Got a parcel for ya mate, do ya want me ta drop it orf?" Literally...
I am wondering wot 'our' CASA is gunna say...???
Hint....is this really a commercial op..? Does Aust Post make $$s..??
Cheeeerrrsss
"Got a parcel for ya mate, do ya want me ta drop it orf?" Literally...
I am wondering wot 'our' CASA is gunna say...???
Hint....is this really a commercial op..? Does Aust Post make $$s..??
Cheeeerrrsss
AusPost and 'drones' and CASA
Australia Post to trial drone parcel delivery of online shopping - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
"Trials in an enclosed, fenced-off field will continue for another two weeks and if successful, Australia Post will apply to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for a trial of parcel deliveries to customers."
...
"A CASA spokesman said the authority would identify all relevant safety requirements to ensure there were no risks to people, property or aircraft.
He added CASA currently did not approve drone operations over populous areas, "so drones cannot currently deliver parcels down city or suburban streets".
CASA will review drone regulations later this year and the authority said it would work with the remotely piloted aircraft sector as drone technology developed and improved."
"Trials in an enclosed, fenced-off field will continue for another two weeks and if successful, Australia Post will apply to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for a trial of parcel deliveries to customers."
...
"A CASA spokesman said the authority would identify all relevant safety requirements to ensure there were no risks to people, property or aircraft.
He added CASA currently did not approve drone operations over populous areas, "so drones cannot currently deliver parcels down city or suburban streets".
CASA will review drone regulations later this year and the authority said it would work with the remotely piloted aircraft sector as drone technology developed and improved."
Moderator