CASA to Licence All Drones.....
The "Explanatory Memorandum" in the
"CIVIL AVIATION (UNMANNED AIRCRAFT LEVY) BILL 2020
CIVIL AVIATION AMENDMENT (UNMANNED AIRCRAFT LEVY COLLECTION
AND PAYMENT) BILL 2020"
has the following
"In line with the Australian Government Charging Framework, registration of RPA (and, from
2022, relevant model aircraft) is a cost recoverable activity. The purpose of the package of
legislation is to ensure that commercial and professional users of RPA contribute to the cost
of program administration and regulation in order to maintain the integrity and fiscal
sustainability of the program over the long term."
but the
"Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy)
Bill 2020
No. , 2020
(Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications)
A Bill for an Act to impose unmanned aircraft levy,
and for related purposes"
makes no mention of 'commercial and professional users'.
"CIVIL AVIATION (UNMANNED AIRCRAFT LEVY) BILL 2020
CIVIL AVIATION AMENDMENT (UNMANNED AIRCRAFT LEVY COLLECTION
AND PAYMENT) BILL 2020"
has the following
"In line with the Australian Government Charging Framework, registration of RPA (and, from
2022, relevant model aircraft) is a cost recoverable activity. The purpose of the package of
legislation is to ensure that commercial and professional users of RPA contribute to the cost
of program administration and regulation in order to maintain the integrity and fiscal
sustainability of the program over the long term."
but the
"Civil Aviation (Unmanned Aircraft Levy)
Bill 2020
No. , 2020
(Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications)
A Bill for an Act to impose unmanned aircraft levy,
and for related purposes"
makes no mention of 'commercial and professional users'.
[The Bill imposing levy] makes no mention of 'commercial and professional users'.
However...
The levy is payable on applying for registration of an aircraft as an RPA or model aircraft (or under Part 101 MOS for permission to operate a foreign-registered RPA or model aircraft). So if you don’t apply, the levy won’t be payable.
I suspect that initially the registration rules will require only ‘commercial and professional users’ to register RPA and model aircraft. Time will tell whether the registration requirement is extended to reach a broader range of RPA and model aircraft users ...
Trees will be registered, for a fee, in case they are shredded and made into paper, which could perhaps find its way into the air, enroute to a rubbish bin or otherwise. Strict penalties apply.
Thread Starter
Here' a 'curly' one....
Will Real Estate agents be required to have an AOC if they use said drone for the purposes of taking aerial photo of property to be sold, for their advertising of such property..??
Seems to be a 'common practice' these days.
Hmmmm....Just curious is all.....
Will Real Estate agents be required to have an AOC if they use said drone for the purposes of taking aerial photo of property to be sold, for their advertising of such property..??
Seems to be a 'common practice' these days.
Hmmmm....Just curious is all.....
Here' a 'curly' one....
Will Real Estate agents be required to have an AOC if they use said drone for the purposes of taking aerial photo of property to be sold, for their advertising of such property..??
Seems to be a 'common practice' these days.
Hmmmm....Just curious is all.....
Will Real Estate agents be required to have an AOC if they use said drone for the purposes of taking aerial photo of property to be sold, for their advertising of such property..??
Seems to be a 'common practice' these days.
Hmmmm....Just curious is all.....
The general consensus of this is that if the agent does it themselves, then there is no AOC required, however if they were to pay someone else to do it, that is a different scenario that is AOC territory.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,969
Received 96 Likes
on
55 Posts
Runaway Gun; Re the comment about landowners 'owning the airspace' above their properties;
According to a paper I once read which was supposedly written by a Lawyer, that concept is complete rubbish!!
A landowner has actually tried that one on the local gliding Club and was laughed out of the Office.
According to a paper I once read which was supposedly written by a Lawyer, that concept is complete rubbish!!
A landowner has actually tried that one on the local gliding Club and was laughed out of the Office.
There was an article in the news today about this. CASA don’t prosecute for breaches of privacy and at best the police could go with would be trespassing or stalking proceedings, but unlikely to happen.
This was in relation to a drone filming a woman topless in her back yard.
This was in relation to a drone filming a woman topless in her back yard.
Griffo... curly indeed..! Photography r 206. "commerce" !!, aerial vehicle instead of a crane or ladder etc
Its all about "safety" and keeping the kindergarten kiddies alive from falling objects.
CAsA had a go some years ago at Real Estate Co in Adelaide for using a drone for pics to use in their own advertising, ie in -house pvt pics...NOT for sale.
This is the sort of bureaucratic BS that we have allowed to get completely out of hand in Oz. & it has to stop.
How to do that is the problem.
Its all about "safety" and keeping the kindergarten kiddies alive from falling objects.
CAsA had a go some years ago at Real Estate Co in Adelaide for using a drone for pics to use in their own advertising, ie in -house pvt pics...NOT for sale.
This is the sort of bureaucratic BS that we have allowed to get completely out of hand in Oz. & it has to stop.
How to do that is the problem.
FWIW - here in the UK any use of a drone or model aeroplane by or in support of a commercial operation (ie the usual "for hire or reward" thing) requires a form of Air Operator Certificate from the CAA.
But...
These AOCs are neither difficult nor expensive to obtain. The principle requirement is an agreed ops manual which defines the scope of operation and the procedures for ensuring minimal risk to third parties (distances within which other people must be informed etc). I have assisted three organisations in getting their certificates - one wildlife photographer, one specialist roofing contractor and one estate agent. Each was less than an hour's work.
PDR
But...
These AOCs are neither difficult nor expensive to obtain. The principle requirement is an agreed ops manual which defines the scope of operation and the procedures for ensuring minimal risk to third parties (distances within which other people must be informed etc). I have assisted three organisations in getting their certificates - one wildlife photographer, one specialist roofing contractor and one estate agent. Each was less than an hour's work.
PDR
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW - here in the UK any use of a drone or model aeroplane by or in support of a commercial operation (ie the usual "for hire or reward" thing) requires a form of Air Operator Certificate from the CAA.
These AOCs are neither difficult nor expensive to obtain. The principle requirement is an agreed ops manual which defines the scope of operation and the procedures for ensuring minimal risk to third parties (distances within which other people must be informed etc). I have assisted three organisations in getting their certificates - one wildlife photographer, one specialist roofing contractor and one estate agent. Each was less than an hour's work.
These AOCs are neither difficult nor expensive to obtain. The principle requirement is an agreed ops manual which defines the scope of operation and the procedures for ensuring minimal risk to third parties (distances within which other people must be informed etc). I have assisted three organisations in getting their certificates - one wildlife photographer, one specialist roofing contractor and one estate agent. Each was less than an hour's work.
But here CASA will be requiring drone registration for recreational purposes. If a child under 16 is flying (away from a CASA-approved model airfield) they must be supervised by an adult that holds registration...
Yes, we have that too (even when on flying club sites), but only for over 250g models/drones. There was a fuss when it was first set up, but to be honest it's a pretty negligible effort increase. People have rarely been allowed to fly model aeroplanes in public parks, so I fail to see why drone flyers should assume they are somehow different.
Also worth remembering that (in the UK) the rules are only seriously strict for a drone/model which has a camera*. Those without a camera operate under much fewer constraints.
PDR
* Any sort of camera - stills or video, streaming or just recording to on-board storage, even if it's just part of an FPV system with no intent or capability to record the images. The CAP treats them all the same.
Also worth remembering that (in the UK) the rules are only seriously strict for a drone/model which has a camera*. Those without a camera operate under much fewer constraints.
PDR
* Any sort of camera - stills or video, streaming or just recording to on-board storage, even if it's just part of an FPV system with no intent or capability to record the images. The CAP treats them all the same.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne,Vic,Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
This was an Australian drone
Synopsis Whilst performing a demonstration flight, the remote pilot lost control of the 95 kg Alauda Airspeeder Mk II scale demonstrator. After the loss of control had been confirmed by the remote pilot, the safety ‘kill switch’ was operated but had no effect. The Unmanned Aircraft then climbed to approximately 8,000 ft, entering controlled airspace at a holding point for flights arriving at Gatwick Airport, before its battery depleted and it fell to the ground. It crashed in a field of crops approximately 40 m from occupied houses and 700 m outside of its designated operating area. There were no injuries.
The AAIB found that the Alauda Airspeeder Mk II was not designed, built or tested to any recognisable standards and that its design and build quality were of a poor standard. The operator’s Operating Safety Case contained several statements that were shown to be untrue.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...g_na_03-21.pdf
Synopsis Whilst performing a demonstration flight, the remote pilot lost control of the 95 kg Alauda Airspeeder Mk II scale demonstrator. After the loss of control had been confirmed by the remote pilot, the safety ‘kill switch’ was operated but had no effect. The Unmanned Aircraft then climbed to approximately 8,000 ft, entering controlled airspace at a holding point for flights arriving at Gatwick Airport, before its battery depleted and it fell to the ground. It crashed in a field of crops approximately 40 m from occupied houses and 700 m outside of its designated operating area. There were no injuries.
The AAIB found that the Alauda Airspeeder Mk II was not designed, built or tested to any recognisable standards and that its design and build quality were of a poor standard. The operator’s Operating Safety Case contained several statements that were shown to be untrue.
https://assets.publishing.service.go...g_na_03-21.pdf
Don’t underestimate the technology, the time will come when you won’t be able to start unregistered drones, let alone fly then even in your kitchen cupboard in Australia.
