Drone discussion paper - Review of RPAS operations (DP 1708OS) - Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Response 510501528

Personal information

First name

(Required)

Steven

Last name

(Required)

Kind

Should all RPA be registered?

Select your preferred registration options.

	None	Above a specific size/weight	For specific operations	All RPA
By RPA Please select all that apply	None None	Above a specific size/weight Ticked Above a specific size/weight	For specific operations For specific operations	All RPA All RPA
By RPA owner Please select all that apply	None Ticked None	Above a specific size/weight Above a specific size/weight	For specific operations For specific operations	All RPA All RPA
By RPA operator Please select all that apply	None None	Above a specific size/weight Above a specific size/weight	For specific operations Ticked For specific operations	All RPA All RPA

Please provide any additional comments:

Registration levels should be directly proportional to the risk (proven) posed. Registration would not act as a deterrent for those using RPAs for nefarious reasons as they would circumvent these processes to avoid prosecution. This would just place the cost of safe flying on those that already fly safely.

Should all RPA users be required to meet training / proficiency criteria?

Select your preferred training and proficiency options.

	None	Above a specific size/weight	For specific operations	All RPA
Training Please select all that apply	None None	Above a specific size/weight Ticked Above a specific size/weight	For specific operations Ticked For specific operations	All RPA All RPA
Demonstration of proficiency Please select all that apply	None None	Above a specific size/weight Ticked Above a specific size/weight	For specific operations Ticked For specific operations	All RPA All RPA

Please provide any additional comments:

Where used in scenarios that pose significant risk to health and safety or property loss, demonstration of proficiency with an aircraft should be mandatory. Where that risk is only posed to the operator and willing participants this is not required.

Should the introduction of geo-fencing be mandated?

Should CASA mandate the introduction of geo-fencing options to limit the operation of RPA in certain areas?

Please select one item

Yes

What should be done about 'counter-drone' technology?

Provide your views on the ways in which counter-drone technologies should be managed and in what circumstances they should be used.

They should be strictly controlled and assessed for safety when available for sale to members of the public. Although an RPA has the potential to cause harm through malfunction or operator error, counter drone technology is generally designed to destroy the flight capabilities of an RPA and cause it to fall uncontrollably, increasing the likelihood of further property damage and injury.
However, the availability of these technologies is advantageous for law enforcement, emergency services or trained personnel as they can be equipped to make accurate risk based desisions on the deployment of such technology.

Are we doing enough of the right things?

CASA seeks your view on the way in which we are approaching regulation of RPA in Australia today and for the future.

I am pleased with the current level of regulation and can see the benefits of the current rules. It would be of great benefit to have stronger links to news media to provide stronger clarification of the laws and regulations already in place. This would alleviate the misconception that flying RPAs in any circumstance is illegal or inherently dangerous