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

Response 531366462

Personal information

First name

(Required)

Gregory

Last name

(Required)

Smith

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

Please provide any additional comments:

Micro drones (less than 150g) excluded. Registration and knowledge test to be web based and less than $20 per person. Drones to be labelled with rego number.

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 Above a specific size/weight	For specific operations For specific operations	All RPA Ticked 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 For specific operations	All RPA All RPA

Please provide any additional comments:

Training and demonstration for RPA less than 5kg to be online with online assessment of knowledge during registration.

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

Please provide your comments:

Too costly for smaller non GPS equipped drones. Perhaps mandatory for drones 5kg plus. Geofencing capability of drone should be declared when registering.

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.

Counter drone technology should be used in a) Defined and sign posted exclusion zones near airports, and b) where an emergency situation exists such as fire fighting. Usage regulated by state police, federal police, and military forces only. Private use not allowed.

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 do acknowledge and appreciate CASA's efforts to maintain a reasonable environment for hobby / recreational flyers such as myself. Prohibition would likely be counter productive - perhaps producing greater dangers to other aircraft and the public.

Registration and safety knowledge testing important and supported provided cost is reasonable. Would also support compulsory squawk-like transmission requirements on drones over (say) 1kg.

General comments

Please provide any final comments about CASA's review of RPA operations. You can use the comments box or upload a file submission.

CASA is doing a good job being proactive in this front. There are still a lot of things to consider - such as legal aspects in case of accidents.

My concern is the wide range of drones/RPAs in the hobby market. Toys (small and unsophisticated - liable to fly away), racers (low altitude, fast, hard to fly and direct hit to a person would cause injury), camera (larger, often GPS positioned and greater range with falling to ground being main hazard). How to balance regulations accordingly not easy. Difficult to classify just using weight alone. Maybe based on capability (eg with and without GPS return to home and Geofencing functions).