GADGETS

Australia's Drone Flying Rules Relaxed For Commercial Pilots

CAMPBELL SIMPSON11 JUNE 2015 4:00 PM

Australia’s civil aviation safety body will slightly loosen the rules around commercial drone operation within the next couple of weeks, making it easier for you to make a bit of money on the side from your drone photography or drone video business.

The Australian reports that lightweight drones — those under 2 kilograms, which would include the popular combination of DJI Phantom 3 plus a GoPro or other compact video camera setup — will be allowed to be operated by commercial drone pilots or companies undertaking commercial work, without having to apply and be granted a commercial drone operation licence.

For companies and operators to be exempt from those licencing requirements, though, the drones they operate will have to follow the same rules as recreational users:

• Stay at least 30 metres away from people with your drone.
• Keep your drone under 400 feet (121.92m).
• You may not operate your drone above a large gathering of people (e.g.: at sporting events, over crowds at the beach or groups of protestors).
• You must keep your drone within sight while you’re operating it.
• You may not operate your drone within 5km of an airport and a place where planes take off or land from.

Drone operators’ licences are still in high demand at CASA; the authority has a backlog of over 100 applications for commercial pilots, and has granted over 200 licences thus far. [The Australian]

Have you subscribed to Gizmodo Australia's email newsletter? You can also follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

DISCUSS

21 COMMENTS | REPLY

fenix @fenix

JUNE 11, 2015 4:11 PM

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS !

Reply 1
Dr_Stef Guest

JUNE 11, 2015 4:29 PM

I could live with that.

Reply 1
gr3i @gr3i

JUNE 11, 2015 4:30 PM

CASA is about 9 months in to a 24 month process of changing every single civil licensed pilots license to a new licensing regime, and the aircrew licensing division has been slowed to a crawl due to this. I'm actually surprised they have managed to process that many licenses and keep the backlog down to that level.

Reply 1
CAT7 @felixyim

JUNE 11, 2015 5:42 PM

So, we allowed to fly it over / around the Harbour Bridge? Always wanted to get a good shot of the sunset from a higher angle...

Reply 0
- aerogirl @aerogirl
  
  JUNE 12, 2015 7:42 AM
  
  Short answer, No.
  
  However, in saying that, you can still get that shot if you really want to.
  
  Sydney Harbour is located within a Restricted Area, as with all of Sydney Harbour both east and west of the bridge, and flight within it by real aircraft is only permitted with clearance from air traffic control at Sydney Airport for pilots of real aircraft. (Like me :) )
  
  How does this relate to quadcopters?
  
  Well, the rules are similar, first you must have a Radio Operators License and a radio, you must also have a RPA (Remotely Piloted Aircraft) license.
  
  You must apply to CASA first for permission to fly in the Restricted Area (any Restricted Area or Controlled Airspace, such as around airports), this includes things like where you are going to fly, what time, how long, etc.
  
  Once you have that permission, then on the day, you need to contact ATC, and coordinate with them your movements, and they will give you the final permission to take off and do what you have intended to do.
  
  The reason behind all this is simple, Sydney Harbour contains a dedicated seaplane landing zone, has quite a bit of air traffic from both fixed wing, and rotary wing aircraft flying up and down it (in controlled airspace), therefore there is a chance of conflict with other aircraft.
  
  One last problem with your sunset over the bridge, you are not allowed to fly at night (which I personally think is stupid, you can see the quad's easier at night with their flashing LED's), therefore you must be back on the ground before last light, but again you may be able to get permission to allow you to fly after last light from CASA.
  
  On a side note, I have personally piloted a real aircraft over the harbour many many times, both in daylight and at night, and it is truly beautiful at both times. I have even flown directly over the harbour bridge (west to east) late on New Years Eve a few hours before sunset, it was great, the amount of people below was amazing.
  
  LAST EDITED JUNE 12, 2015 7:49 AM
  
  Reply 2
  - fenix @fenix
    
    JUNE 12, 2015 8:58 AM
    
    Hey aerogirl,
    
    You seem to know a fair bit about this stuff and I have some questions I'd rather not post here :) Do you have an email account or somewhere I can PM you?
    
    Regards,
    Guy who wants to fly his phantom3 for monetary gain occasionally but doesn't want to break the law :)
    
    Reply 0
    - aerogirl @aerogirl
      
      JUNE 13, 2015 5:29 PM
      
      Yes, be more than happy to answer your questions.
      
      But I do not really want to post my real e-mail addresses etc here, as you could probably understand, so I made a burner account on gmail, you can get me at ihaveaburneraddress@gmail.com.
      
      Reply 1
crossmember @crossmember

JUNE 11, 2015 6:02 PM

Well my Phantom 1, with gimbal, gopro ready to fly weighs 2.3kg.
So the new Phantoms better have lost weight, otherwise they will be over the limit, which I think CASA has done to stop people making money while flying the Phantoms etc.

No @CAT7 thats one way to get the laws changed again. People have already flown around the bridge and crashed into it.

Reply 0
Annonymous Guest

JUNE 11, 2015 6:57 PM

That's a spit in the face for those who've already spent thousands of dollars to get a license to do photography/video.

Reply 0
- aerogirl @aerogirl
  
  JUNE 12, 2015 7:53 AM
  
  Removed
  
  LAST EDITED JUNE 12, 2015 7:57 AM
  
  Reply 1
- rbrdly @rbrdly
  
  JUNE 12, 2015 5:23 PM
  
  Not really. I'd suggest that if anyone has gone to the effort of getting certified, they're not flying sub-2kg 'toys' around as their primary crust earner. I recently took the prop guards off my P2 and giggled because I have no reservations that if I rocked up to a job with it, they'd think I was taking the piss.
  
  I'm not saying a sub-2kg platform can't do a 'nice' job - but it's rarely - if at all - going to be a professional's 'go to' aircraft.
  
  Reply 0
symo @symo

JUNE 11, 2015 7:04 PM

So no insurance now? This was the whole point of a UOC. The UOC and Insurance go hand in hand, you can not have one without the other.

And the 3nm restriction must include all registered and non registered aerodromes and helipads. This will block out 90% of the sky for most areas, helipads are EVERYWHERE!

Of course if you no licensed your not trained to have VTC and VNC charts so you won't know you are breaching the rules any way.

Dumb move CASA.

Reply 0
magani @magani

JUNE 11, 2015 10:45 PM

Might be worth pointing out that there's a distinction between a 'commercial pilot' and a person who wants to fly a drone for commercial purposes. The first requires a great deal of expense to achieve; the second, not so much.

Reply 0
poita @poita

JUNE 11, 2015 10:45 PM

Good luck finding a space that is less than 5km from an airport or helipad. It would be most, if not all of anything interesting to shoot in a city.

Reply 0
- g-man @g-man
  
  JUNE 11, 2015 10:49 PM
  
  Or even outer suburbs with hospitals too.
  
  Reply 0
justanotherpleb @justanotherpleb

JUNE 12, 2015 11:13 AM

The press has missed a critical point: much of what everyone has been reporting as illegal isn't actually law. Everyone points to a guidance document, the AC from 2002. But that is not enforceable law (and it says so on page 1). The actual 'law' that is current is the Regulations CASR 1998 (which refers back to the Act from 1988 as its primary statute). Fines that have been issued come in the forms of Infringement Notice of that 1988 Act. The Act is enforceable law. The Regulations are enforceable law. The AC is not.

If you read the Regulations, CASR 1998 (Part F) 101.235(2), you will see people are currently -legally - allowed to fly an RPA under the same restrictions as a Model Aircraft (Part G).

It is a funny thing when a regulator has a law that they hate (and rightfully so, in many aspects it is ludicrous). But is it illegal as everyone has reported? Has anyone been fined for flying while an RPA for commercial work while they were observing all conditions set out in 101.235(2) and Part G? No. Even for pay or reward? No. Because it isn't actually illegal if all conditions are met in that clause. And you can't actually fine someone who hasn't broken an actual law. Fines have gone to those who have not observed the conditions as set out in 101.235(2) and Part G.

The difference between a Model (regulated in part G) and an RPA/UAV (regulated in part F) is defined by CASA not by equipment, and is based on commerciality: non-commercial use is automatically regulated by part G, with no need to consider part F. So the clause which allows for these exemptions, which sits specifically within part F and refers specifically to UAVs, is legally significant.

The AC 2002 is a best practice guidance for commercial operators, but it itself is not law. The press have constantly cited that as policy; it is not. The focus has been on pay/reward or sport/recreation. That is actually not part of the enforceable law currently in Australia under 101.235(2).

Journalists do your homework: go ask a lawyer. Then ask those who cite this as 'illegal', ask the hard questions. Go be journalists.

In a few months it may not matter, except perhaps to those who have paid thousands of dollars under the impression (or having been told) that their activity was illegal when actually, that may not have been true.

The best thing to come out of this will be clarity. Which we should all welcome.

Reply 0
matt0 @matt0

JUNE 12, 2015 12:15 PM

will be allowed to be operated by commercial drone pilots or companies undertaking commercial work, without having to apply and be granted a commercial drone operation licence.

Does this mean without any licence I can use my drone for commercial work shooting Real Estate?

Reply 0
- noobetsky @noobetsky
  
  JUNE 12, 2015 3:32 PM
  
  They better fecking not. i have spent too much time and money getting the permits to have it taken away by a hobbyist.
  
  Reply 1
  - matt0 @matt0
    
    JUNE 12, 2015 7:35 PM
    
    I agree mate, I'd be filthy if I was in your position and they made the licensing effectively irrelevant. Even though I'd benefit from it, I think it's a terrible move to make the change.
    
    Reply 0
bravo @bravo

JUNE 12, 2015 2:24 PM

within the next couple of weeks,
Where does this information come from?

Reply 0
justanotherpleb @justanotherpleb

JUNE 13, 2015 1:31 PM

This was announced last year in their Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), so not a surprise move. http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1420576881:pc=PC_102028

It does clarify the rules around 2kg RPAs, though if you read the current regulations, this current move could be interpreted as actually making it stricter by eliminating the existing exemption for commercial qualification found in 101.235(2). Technically, that allows for legal UAV flight currently (including of larger, heavier RPAs) under similar conditions to those they are proposing. So, in that respect, this new rule actually restricts - rather than relaxes - current legal operation by capping the weight class at 2kg.

It is a sensible move by CASA though, much clearer and safer. No criticism. That said, it is a rare day when a regulator can actually tighten restriction on activity and have the press report that they are 'relaxing' regulation.

Read the primary legal documents.

Reply 0