Eagles 9, drones 0. 
Maybe painting the drones so they look like birds wasn’t such a bright idea.
3 Likes
An article regarding drones interfering with bushfire waterbombing operations in WA.
Hopefully the operators responsible will be identified.
1 Like
Looks like the regulations involving the use of drones is changing, with all drone users requiring licences from mid-year.
It appears that the few who can’t use the drones responsibly has forced CASA’s hand with respect to having all drone users obtain licences.
CASA drone website is here…
2 Likes
That wasn’t my take on it at a quick read of your second link.
For sport / recreational use you could still fly under the old rules, which most importantly means “visual line-of-sight” at all times i.e. no true remote operation (and daytime only) but you don’t need a licence (or a certificate).
EDIT: But maybe CASA’s web site hasn’t been updated.
1 Like
It appears to be the case as the drone information webpages are dated mid 2018.
I understand from searching that the change is a result of the outcomes of the consultation on
https://www.casa.gov.au/media-release/have-your-say-drone-registration
This consultation closed later last month and appears that CASA is adopting the mandatory registration of all drones over 250gms in the second half of 2019. I haven’t been able to confirm the date of adoption, but it the ABC website is correct, it is July 2019.
I suspect that CASA may be still working on the processes for registration as a result of the consultation and once known, assume that their website will be updated.
In some ways it isn’t a bad thing as many drone users seem not to understand the requirements for the flying of a drone.
I suspect another reason for registration is from the illegal use of drone to disrupt aircraft flights and also the work of emergency services. How the registration of the drones translates into identification of drones and enforcement action for non-compliance will be interesting to see.
1 Like
I also went looking for a media release. Otherwise how does the ABC know this? Even if CASA doesn’t have the process in place, they should have a media release in place. But apparently not.
Half a step forward? Recognition that the risks need to be managed and the users able to be held to account.
The missing part of the picture!
CASA’s remit is safety in the air?
That was all the public review set out to change/improve?
Who provides the environmental approval - noise and other impacts? Airspace is exempt from state and community regulation?
Does this update change how Google or other potential operators will be able to provide drone based services without further regulation?
Will CASA also authorise autonomous operation and operation after dark for commercial users?
3 Likes
First they need to sort out the Galahs? 
One possible future is given enough drones in the air their days will be numbered. Drones vs Galahs, road kill in 3D, coming to an environmental court near you soon? 
2 Likes
I’d be willing to bet these were Galahs flying without a CASA permit…
5 Likes
In the interim CASA has this on line about the commercial trial of delivery drones in the ACT.
It is a short read. Some simple dot points, CASA’s own words:
-
‘just-in-time’ supplies … might include food, medicines, or even small items of hardware.
-
we have permitted Unmanned Systems Australia to operate over Bonython and in closer proximity to a person, than our regulations would normally permit.
-
As the safety regulator, the issue of privacy and noise is not in our remit.
-
The system is automated—however a licensed drone pilot is always at the helm.
-
While an accident is unlikely to occur, pilots will know instantly if any of their drones operate outside of a standard mission. If this happens, the operator will decide if the safest course of action is to the land the aircraft, rather than continue the flight.
-
In the unlikely event the drone encounters a problem, it is designed to automatically land very slowly. The aircraft are equipped with flashing strobe lights.
-
If you do have one land on your property, Unmanned Systems Australia has an emergency response plan which will despatch one of their own crew vehicles to site immediately. The safest thing you can do is simply to leave it alone until the operator is on site.
-
As the safety regulator, the issue of aircraft (drone) noise is not in our remit.
-
As the safety regulator, the issue of privacy is not in our remit.
The fact there is an ‘Emergency Response Plan’ if a drone lands in your yard, with the advice to leave it alone, is the sort of advice we receive about how to respond to a slither of Eastern Brown snakes in the yard? 
Assume if it crashes in the back yard it is not a problem! 
Does the operator or owner have any right of entry to recover said drone?
3 Likes
No. The owner of a drone would need to seek permission from the property owner to enter to recover a drone…unless possibly it landed on the path to the front door. Otherwise is would be trespass.
I would ask the same question about a vehicle flying under a different (more substantive) licence.
If a helicopter crash / emergency lands in your yard, do Emergency Services have the right to enter your property without your permission to attend the incident. Does the helicopter even have the right to make such a landing? Commonsense would say “yes” to both but what does the law say?
I know emergency (unplanned) landing is a bit of an issue with balloon joy rides.
If this gets legislated, there should be a legal requirement to delete all video and still images as soon as reasonable to do so e.g. could retain longer if there was some kind of emergency incident. What’s the betting though that the government has other ideas and sees yet more opportunity to extend the surveillance state.
1 Like
I’d have thought they would need your permission. If they force the issue it would be reasonable to use appropriate means to secure your property.
They would also need some way of proving they owned or were in some way legally responsible for the drone. You’d not want the ‘real owner’ turning up 10 minutes later to find you’d handed over their drone and the 9 family size pizzas it was carrying to the wrong person. That said, I’d always consider a food delivery as ‘airport tax’ if it was my yard.
Ultimately a call to Inspector Plod would sort out any discrepancies.
I’d guess they would only do so if they had no choice - at which time there are people in my back yard and even if they toasted my property I’d be hoping they and I were safe. If they were just landing to check out the birdbath that might be a different story. A drone landing is just a machine.
I imagine teams of politicians, lawyers and other ‘experts’ will sort all this out into a concise 900 page act of parliament … all except the privacy …
3 Likes
This has likely happened often enough, light aircraft, balloon flights, etc for the answers to be reasonably defined.
For a UAV, if you apply the same standard it would likely be an accident scene. One to be secured, cordoned off, for the NTSB, Boeing, Donald Trump etc and the TV doco crew to attend. Sorry, left CASA off the list. Who gets the black boxes?
What CASA has published suggests the ERT is provided by the UAV operator? It’s not the local fire and rescue, nor even ‘Plod’ and a CASA investigator! So if the pizza delivery (sorry, critical emergency medical supplies) are floating in your pool along with a semi submerged UAV, what risk?
Of course the UAV could have crashed, shorted out and started a bush fire, next to your house (rural urban)?
@draughtrider suggests that calling the police or in my view perhaps 000 might be the go. It just might be the best way to be sure that the event is properly responded to and reported.
It remains amazing that the CASA advice commits the UAV to making a slow controlled landing, if something unexpected occurs in operation. Perhaps also a rule they CASA might like to put out there for Boeing, Airbus etc. we’d all feel so much safer! 
Emergency services power of entry is provided by Laws in each relevant state and does not apply to drone operators.
In Queensland for example, the law is quite explicit in relation to entry rights. Section 149A outlines the grounds where entry to a property without a warrant or consent of the owner/occupier is allowed. Even in such circumstances, the emergency services personnel has to try (with reasonable attempt) to tell the occupier or seek consent of the occupier of the entry and tell the occupier that the personnel is authorised to enter without the occupiers consent under the Act.
In relation to trespass which would be the offence caused by the unauthorised entry of a drone operator to recover a downed drone, this is covered by separate legislation. In Queensland, it is the Summary Offences Act 2005 (Section 11).
I made the comment about being access the pathway to the front door as it is It is 'generally implied that a homeowner consents to any person entering using the usual point of entry to reach the front door, unless there is a sign indicating the lack of consent or a locked door or gate restricting access to the front door’.
This is an interesting question as aircraft noise is regulated by the Commonwealth under the Air Navigation (Aircraft Noise) Regulations 2018.
It appears however that the legislation has not kept up with use of drones for commercial or recreational purposes and this Canberra Times article indicates that regulating/controlling drone noise may have slipped through the system.
Airservices Australia only apparently regulate noise within 5km of a airport.
If one has heard a small (250gm+) drone operating, they produce significant noise from their high velocity rotors.
I expect that in time the responsibilities for drone noise will be resolved, and if it is like past examples, The Commonwealth will devolved it to the States, who in turn will devolve it to the local governments.
3 Likes
Only in the case of an angry man demanding his drone back 
000 would certainly be the best number if there’s a need for real emergency services.
3 Likes
If you can’t get access to the backyard by the owners.Then you should use a drone,not before
True, but to land in most backyards, the drone would have been flown (illegally) against the CASA drone flying requirements. …namely separation from housing and people.
If a drone landed in my backyard I would deny access to the drone operator and would take it to the local police for them to take action, if and where necessary, against the drone operator.
1 Like
Some actual info from CASA about the new registration requirements:
If talking specifically about the current commercial trial in Canberra though, CASA says: “As a result, we have permitted Unmanned Systems Australia to operate over Bonython and in closer proximity to a person, than our regulations would normally permit.” (my emphasis)
