Maybe Australia sprawling urban environments also are favourable to testing drone technologies. Australian urban areas also are also dominated by housing compared to many other developing/developed nations.
It means that there is more space between buildings and less obstacles that would impede drone use.
The other factor may be the weather. Generally due to its position in the mid to upper latitudes, it does suffer from very windy lower latitude weather system which can plague north America and Europe. Drones need good weather to be able to be fly safely and reliably.
The third may be like you have said, Australia has been lax in relation to being on the front foot in relation to gig companies. It has reacted legislatively after the horse has run meaning the legislation is often written to suit the continuation of a gig companies activities rather than setting expectations prior to activities occurring in Australia (Uber is a good example where it muscled in and forced the government;s hand).
When drones were developed, cyber security was not a priority.
When anything is developed, security is not a priority. That needs to change !!
the use of drones needs to be carefully regulated
Depends what they mean by “regulated”. If that means “stopping people using drones (in some circumstances)” then that is completely the wrong approach. At the serious end of the scale, people using drones for bad purposes, whether flying their own or hijacking someone else’s, are not going to worry about “regulations”.
About 50% of the problems discussed in the article can be summarised as “don’t have bugs”. Easier said than done though. Government needs to be part of the solution, not part of the problem as they are now. (That percentage is lower than normal, due to some of the unique aspects of drones - and of course I just made that number up anyway. )
Plus a pilots accreditation. one way to spoil the feeling of freedom of the sky’s?
P.S.
CASA uses an analogy of drone registration to motor vehicle registration as a way to ensure ‘responsible’ use of drones.
It would seem CASA agrees. Only registered drones are assured of being used responsibly! Unregistered, stolen, or false plated vehicles are the tools of illegal activity. It would seem that applies universally whether on the road or in the air?
Going off topic but Australia could position itself much better in these situations where an off shore entity with not much more than an app can mean large sums exit the domestic economy. As long as we are not breaching IP the Government should be forward thinking in education and business incentives to develop local competition.
SBS last night aired a reasonably recent UK program which highlights some of the issues faced with the domestic availability of drones. It also looks into the challenges authorities face for those drone operators which use drones for criminal or terrorist intent.
It is worth watching if one has time and one is concerned about the proliferation of domestic drones. It also provides some of the technologies which may be used in the future to control their illegal use.
(Note: One needs to register with SBS On-Demand to view the program).
The comments from Google are in response to a current federal drone noise review.
Residential and environmental noise levels are regulated by the states. Google sees that as an unacceptable outcome. It appears Google is trying to link drone noise to a safety of operation concern, and have the commonwealth act to keep drone operation exclusive to federal control.
Of course the alternative is Google might need to comply with both federal CASA and State/LGA regulation. Nothing new here with Google trying to pretend it is special and can make it’s own rules?
With air operations noise, those of us who live near a major airport flight path know the frustration. Also those of us exposed to regular helicopter operations are aware that this is a grey area. Or not?
In this quieter corner of Australia:
Anyone operating a business or being a good neighbour is subject to state and council noise regulation.
Google should grow up and fit into that community expectation. A drone flight carrying a BigMac and double shot cap at 5am hardly qualifies as an emergency delivery of medical supplies.
One day perhaps drones will be whisper quiet like a gentle breeze in the trees, or our bedroom air conditioner. At which point the concern might be, is that the wind, or is there something at my window looking in?
P.s. Nothing personal against drones, however the push to make them an essential part of our lives Is somewhat alarming. For many reasons; rational, irrational, and unimagined.
In the mean time Google has permission to fly over our house as often as the neighbours use their leaf blowers. Hopefully the two flights per week will be sufficient.
A lesson from the UK on how drones are already out of control whether on purpose or negligence.
It is not only going to be about noise. At some point drone owners are going to demand what they perceive as their rights to cause havoc; some will adhere to doing the right thing but others will not and the latter mob will probably increase over time.
As usual laws will be well behind their need, and prosecution might be left to the individual once the ‘regulators’ are realised as nothing but window dressing like most of the others who make determinations but have no power to enforce them - the plaintiffs must go to the courts with a silk to sue.
Near surface airspace is now a valuable commodity and source of great income for whoever claims it and controls it, just like the RF spectrum with the development of electronics.
And the way it is heading the value extracted may go straight offshore
Not quite?
The legal position suggests that the government has no right to ownership. Although there is the legal ability to control use of air space. Discussion seems to disappear thereafter into Latin phrases.
Per a recognised expert.
18.37 The modern common law doctrine is expressed in the principle that the rights of a land owner in the air space above the land are limited ‘to such height as is necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of his land and the structures upon it’.[57] Cases involving intrusions on privacy have also raised questions concerning the extent of land owners’ rights: for example concerning unmanned surveillance devices flying over land and cameras overlooking land.[[58]](Definitions of property | ALRC)
Ref. Paras 18.35 - 18.37 if your curiosity is aroused.
Of course both the State Governments and Commonwealth have competing interests and claims to free use of air space. It looks a wonderfully fruitful topic for anyone with 200years law experience across 4 continents.
The untested may be at which point is the legal protection of a landowner to ordinary use and enjoyment of their land defeated by government legislation that protects a drone operator from being determined a nuisance to that use and enjoyment?
Google would obviously prefer to keep all of it’s drone operations exclusively under Commonwealth legislation. One source suggests that landowners would then have no recourse for remedy. Alternately the parliament could legislate, but to who’s advantage or loss?
I think there is already some legislation and common law practice that limits a person or persons entitlement to the airspace above their property. I think probably the space above your house that you could claim was your entitlement is rather limited. Councils can control the extent to which a building height is allowed to be built, or indeed the height of a fence between properties. Then State Govt do have rules as do Federal Govt agencies.
Some of these height restrictions and allowances have been argued in the past.
Perhaps an interesting read for some in the following:
My understanding from past experience in the area is that the airspace is not owned by a landholder…unless there is some sort of infrastructure etc however, landholder have rights especially where someone else’s activities impinges on the rights of the landholder to use or enjoyment of the land.
For example, many infrastructure providers (road, rail, electricity etc) can have volumetric easements which go over/above the land. There are cases where a developer/infrastructure provider has built aerially over say a road and it is required to take out a volumetric easement to deal with a range of things such as access and also rights which are impinged by the aerial development.
Airspace for aircraft is regulated by the Commonwealth so one would expect that the same would apply from drones. CASA already has requirements in relation to separation distances from dwellings, persons etc and it is likely that these requirements would be enforced for any commercial drone operations.
I can now understand why many owners of large parcels of land (I was going to say large land-owners, but many may well be short and/or slim) are upset at the thought of mining interests invading their properties - and while not being in that situation think it is absolutely despicable that they can do so.
With respect to land ownership in Qld, our property titles have typically had at least one if not two references to “rights reserved to the crown”. Our solicitor simplified it by saying land ownership is never absolute.
Compulsory acquisition is one such example, mining access and tenure is another. Although in the dark ages in NSW at least the mineral rights were attached to the title for the land. The government soon found a remedy and removed them for the exclusive benefit of the Crown/State.
In the past the determination of compensation in any instance was always in the Crowns favour. The Crown, effectively our politicians make the rules. Some would suggest little has changed.
Perhaps the Commonwealth and States will need to fight out the carve up of low level airspace. As buildings and towers grow ever skyward, drone deliveries increase, flying cars take off, there will be little room left for flying carpets and flights of the imagination. Buzz-zeeee-screeeeeeam.
That is correct for almost all titles in Queensland. There are still a few very old/historical titles which exist that don’t afford the crown rights over than land and the only way for the crown (government) to obtain rights is through negotiation with the landholder (rather than exercise rights which may exist under legislation).
I think regulation (which currently exists for aircraft airspace and controlled by CASA) would be the easiest and cleanest option. Having a ‘fight’ between the Commonwealth and States is unlikely to achieve any amenable outcome other than lawyers challenging new rules associated with ownership and rights…which would lead to class actions against the government from every landowner if any existing right have the potential to be impinged.
The assumption is the Commonwealth (CASA), which does not care that much about environmental noise pollution will see drones any differently to a low flying jumbo?
If drones are not also subject to state regulation for noise and there is no legal recourse by land owners when the drones impact on your right to use and enjoyment of your land!
Who has just won?
P.S.
Tip of the iceberg pending the flying Uber Taxi service.
Hopefully silent when compared to the Bell water bombing choppers or RACQ rescue chopper that lands in the playing fields over the creek.
An interesting article regarding using drones to muster cattle.
I loved this bit. “One engineer described quad bikes as ‘being more stable upside down than the right side up’ so that gives you an indication of how easy it is to roll.”
