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

Response 981781860

Personal information

First name

(Required)

Ron

Last name

(Required)

McDonald

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:

Because any RPA including model aircaft, in the hands of an irresponsible or malevolent individual, has the potential to be used as a weapon not dissimilar to a firearm or heavier ordinance, I believe the requirements for purchase, ownership and use should also be not dissimilar.

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

Please provide any additional comments:

For the reasons stated in the first question, I believe training and proficiency should be certified and proven, and a licence issued, before an applicant may be entitled to purchase an RPA

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:

Because an RPA could be used to carry out an act of terrorism, I believe CASA &/or other commonwealth agencies must progressively introduce geo-fencing options, particularly at RPT airfields, but also at other potential terrorist targets such as major sporting facilities, centres of government, and public transport hubs.

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.

I don't think I have sufficient information about the specifics of counter-drone technology. Certainly if geo-fencing provisions cannot be 100% effective in preventing an RPA from entering a restricted or prohibited area, then other defensive measures may be necessary.

Specify any particular aspects of counter-drone technology or its potential uses to which CASA should be devoting more attention.

I think CASA and the various law enforcement agencies are more qualified than I to respond to this question/issue.

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 think both CASA and government are moving far too slowly in the regulation of RPAs. If there are already around 50,000 units operating in Australia, with the vast majority being un-registered and unlicensed, and the current regulations only likely to be respected by informed, responsible, and licensed operators, then very little risk has been mitigated to date.
With no requirement for registration and permanent identification marking on RPAs before, or at the point of sale, there is also little prospect of successful prosecutions for breaches of the current regulations.