Overview

In 2021, CASA conducted a regulatory post-implementation review (PIR) of Part 101 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998, and its Manual of Standards. Following the PIR, we released a policy proposal for public consultation. This contained recommendations related to research and development operations.

One of those proposals suggested inserting a new excluded purpose for micro, very small, and small remotely piloted aircraft (RPA).This proposal would have allowed people, organisations, or businesses to operate under the standard RPA operating conditions (SOC) for the R&D of RPA.

On reconsideration, it does not appear that adding this proposed R&D purpose would significantly improve the regulatory environment for R&D. This is because micro and very small excluded RPA, already have no restrictions on the purpose of the activity.

There may, however, be benefit to industry in expanding the small RPA excluded category profile.

Additionally, the discussion paper also invites industry feedback on how CASA’s safety regulatory framework for uncrewed aircraft operations can be improved to better support R&D operations. This will ensure that the framework remains flexible and efficient, that regulatory requirements are risk proportionate and that they do not impose an undue burden on industry participants.

Key elements of the discussion paper we are seeking feedback on include:

• an outline of key elements of CASA's safety regulatory framework that enable uncrewed aircraft R&D operations
• discussion of work in progress that is aimed at improving the flexibility of the framework and improving R&D pathways for industry
• a preliminary proposal for potential further amendments to improve the flexibility of the framework
• a consideration of how 'sandboxes' and flight testing are supported under the framework.

Small RPA excluded category profile

Currently the small RPA excluded category profile limits operations to land owned or occupied by the RPA owner, and for one or more of these purposes:

• aerial spotting
• aerial photography
• agricultural operations
• aerial communications retransmission
• the carriage of cargo
• any other activity like those listed above, and
• activities where no remuneration is received by the operator or owner of the RPA, the occupier or owner of the land, or any person for who the activity is being conducted.

R&D is not specifically mentioned nor is it necessarily similar to the activities for the permitted purposes above.

Proposal – small RPA excluded category profile

Considering the air and ground risk of small RPA operating within the SOC, and the risk mitigators that apply, CASA is considering the following:

Rather than defining and inserting R&D as a purpose in the small RPA excluded profile, the purpose requirements could be removed. The existing requirements to operate within the SOC and over land that is owned or occupied by the RPA owner, are considered sufficient to mitigate risk, regardless of the purpose or whether the operation is commercial. The excluded profile could be expanded to allow small RPA operations within the SOC outside land owned or occupied by the RPA owner. To manage potential increased safety risk, for operations that are not over land owned or occupied by the RPA owner, the remote pilot would need to hold a RePL to operate the RPA.

This would mean that provided operations are within the SOC, RPA weighing more than 2 kg but not more than 25 kg could be flown for renumeration either:

• without a ReOC or a RePL over land that is owned or occupied by the RPA owner. The remote pilot would still need to hold RPA operator accreditation, or
• without a ReOC but with a RePL for operations over land not owned or occupied by the RPA owner.

Operations in the small RPA excluded category profile would remain subject to general prohibitions against unsafe operations.

The proposed expansion could create safer pathways for R&D operations and support commercial operations more broadly, reducing regulatory burden for industry.

We acknowledge this would be a change from existing arrangement and seek your feedback to ensure the proposals are proportionate to safety risks and that we have considered all possible industry impacts.

If the proposal is implemented, other issues, such as record-keeping requirements, would also need to be considered.

Why your views matter

We would like to hear your views on what we have presented in this Discussion Paper (DP). Are we on the right track?

To support safe R&D operations, we would also like to understand:

• the types of R&D operations industry are seeking to conduct
• the environments in which these operations are likely to occur.

Your feedback will make a valuable contribution to CASA’s policy decision-making process and help to fully inform CASA on how it can better enable R&D for the RPAS and AAM sector.

Please submit your comments using the survey link on this page.

If you are unable to provide feedback via the survey link, please email regulatoryconsultation@casa.gov.au for advice.

Documents for review

The documents related to this consultation are:

• Discussion Paper - 2521US, which provides background on the proposal
• MS Word copy of online consultation for ease of distribution and feedback within your organisation.

What happens next

At the end of the response period, we will:

• review all comments received
• make responses publicly available on the consultation hub (unless you request your submission remain confidential)
• publish a Summary of Consultation which summarises the feedback received and outlines any intended changes and next steps
• continue working to better support R&D operations.