MPA
Elite Veteran
Location: Australia
| Rich
The CASA issue is not straightforward
The "regulations" in their written form seem to me to be well thought out.
They have consideration for operations by RPV, in that they separate RPV (flown in the line of sight of the operator on the ground, as we do) from a UAV (flown out of sight of the operater, thus requiring navigation systems etc..)
See regulations 101.235, being the definition of what UAV is.
But after reading the regulations, when you speak to individuals in CASA, some tell you to ignore certain regulations and do as they tell you, which they tell you that the regs apply equally to UAV and RPV which in both cases requires an OC (operaters certification)
But they wont put that in writing.
The justification given is that they decided becuase the description of "Aerial Work" applies to full size aircraft requiring on AOC or OC, so it should apply to UAV and Model Aircraft.
But this isnt law, its is just their opinion.
Well it was some time ago.
At the time they pointed to the regulations covering the types of operations described as "Aerial Work" for full size aircraft.
It does state that Aerial photography is "Aerial Work" which requires an AOC, so they interpret that (as an interperative dancer would) this applies to UAV also.
Now if you think that is a bit confusing, more recently those regulations that determine what is "Aerial Work" have changed and at the top of the new regulations it is clearly written,
Aerial Work definition applies to all listed activities (like Aerial photography), "except in the case of UAV".
In short CASAs reasons for stating we need an OC for line of sight operations, has now been contradicted in their own newer regulations covering Aerial work for full size aircraft that state UAV are excluded from that..
So now we are at the point that everyone is at a complete loss to why we are to ignore the regulation that states we do not need an OC for line of sight operations.
That is reg 101.235 part 2, a and b
And the months pass by and no changes and no other advice from them.
Specifically:
The regulations are within the CASR 101 regs covering everything from balloons, rockets, model aircraft and UAV.
101 contains Subparts
Subpart G is for Model aircraft
Subpart F is for UAV
At the begining of 101 it explains what Subpart applies to what
Go to Subpart F for UAV.
Within Subpart F there are a host of regulations covering UAV.
At the begining of Subpart F it states specifically who and what Subpart F applies_to.
It is called "Applicability of this Subpart"
It first states what Subpart F applies to.
(1) This Subpart applies to:
(a) the operation of a large UAV; and
(b) the operation of a small UAV for purposes other than sport or
recreation.
Then below that, it states specifically what Subpart F DOES NOT apply to
(2) Nothing in this Subpart applies to the operation of a UAV if:
(a) while it is being operated, the person operating it keeps it in
sight; and
(b) it is operated in a way that complies with Subpart G.
(3) This Subpart does not apply to the operation of a micro UAV.
Note 1 See subregulation 101.005 (3).
Note 2 For micro UAV, see regulation 101.240.
As you can see it clearly states that NO part of Subpart F applies to line of sight operations.
It states clealry that those operations must abide by the normall regulations for Model Aircraft found in Subpart G.
That is us, Helicams.
1 regulation only covers us, if that was not in the regs we would be stuffed
But CASA says no ignore that regulation, not in writing, only over the phone.
They say, ignore the section that states specifically what Subpart F does NOT apply to
And they state, only adhere to the section that states what Subpart does_apply to.
One of those later in Subpart F is the requirement that UAV operators have an operating certification.
Requirement for UAV operator’s certificate
(1) A person may operate a UAV for hire or reward only if the person
holds a UAV operator’s certificate that authorises the person to
operate the UAV.
So CASA uses that regulation from Subpart F, and tells people to ignore the one above it, 101.235.
Why ? you might ask them, no reason exists that they can give.
As a put it above the only reasons they had has died in the last ammendment to Aerial Work regulations.
If you are thinking, OK CASA can decide whatever it wants when it wants about the regulations.
Well not so, those regulations are L.A.W., Law, some of them where passed into law by the senate in Govt, some of them where refused by the senate.
CASA MUST act only under the authority of the LAW, same as the Police.
CASA are being a law unto themselves and ignoring the law enacated in Parliment.
Like a rogue cop who goes around telling people they have to stand on their head handcuffed and whistle dixie to pass a roadside sobriety test.
So, after a chat to my lawyer, he says to me.
When the law, that is the air safety regulations are ammended to support CASA verbal position, then take some notice of it.
He went on to say, if they dont like that and try to harrass you mis quoting the law as they have (in his view) you have a very strong case to recover damages from them in the case they instruct you to cease commerce and you abide.
So for now I ignore CASA and operate according to the law State law, local by-law and CASA aviation safety regulations.
And continue to read the latest regulations that to date have not stated otherwise.
If I had to give advice to FAA on what to do.
I would say copy the CASA 101 regs as is, they are good common sense regulations for REAL UAV.
But one HUGE consideration
They MUST ensure it contains the regulation 101.235 section 2 which states
(2) Nothing in this Subpart applies to the operation of a UAV if:
(a) while it is being operated, the person operating it keeps it in
sight; and
(b) it is operated in a way that complies with Subpart G.
They MUST ensure that no FAA reps attempt to pervert this regulation or try to tell people to ignore it, for any reasons.
As CASA reps have done.
If that requires the regs are re written to ensure that section of Subart F cannot be mistaken or excluded by anyone then do it.
That one section of Subpart F is what our whole industry swings on.
(a) while it is being operated, the person operating it keeps it in
sight
Remove that one regulation and we are all stuffed so it must be chiseled in stone if they are to use 101 regs.
Anyway thats is the best I can describe where we are at with the regs and how the FAA should view them and not overlook the importance of 101.235 to all of us.
If I note anymore changes at CASA Ill let you know.
Hope that helps.
Cheers.
Dave |
No one is interested in regulating paper airplanes, so don't take this the wrong way.
