New CASA Rules Coming in for Drone Usage. Accreditation and Registration to be Required

pegaxs on 11/08/2019 - 20:26

Just floating about and looking at some of the updated I heard about from a fellow quad flyer. Decided to look it up on the CASA website. The new changes are very interesting to say the least. I thought it might be interesting, considering just how many deals we get for quads on this platform…

Later this year, all "drone" pilots (This includes radio controlled quads, heli, aircraft and airships over 250 grams (think DJI Spark and bigger)) will be required to be "accredited" to fly any of these types of aircraft. The accreditation will last for 3 years and is expected to be in operation from early 2020. (CASA Accreditation information page)

"If you're flying a drone or model aircraft for fun or under the 'Sub 2 kg' or 'Flying over your own land' excluded category, you'll soon need to get accredited to fly."

The next part is even more interesting and seems like a bit of a cash grab by CASA. From about the same time, early 2020, all "drones" (250grams and above, for outdoor use) will be required to be registered. (CASA Registration information page)

If you are flying your drone for fun, all drones weighing more than 250 g will need to be registered.

Registration will be quick and easy and last for 12 months. Registration will open in early-2020.

The cost of registration may vary depending on how you use your drone. These fees will be decided following a period of public consultation.

So, I guess this begs the question(s)… Will you be registering your quad? Will you be sitting the accreditation? If you were looking at getting into drones, would this turn you off? Do you think this would curb rogue operators or is CASA just looking at ways to fund itself? How much do you think it would cost for these new requiments and what would you think is a fair price? Is the 250g restriction a little too tight?

Have at it, let me know what you think…

Sports & Outdoors

Related Stores

Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Comments

  • Hybroid on 11/08/2019 - 20:30
    +3

    Things like this are putting me, and I'm sure others, off buying a hobby drone unfortunately..

    Similar thing happening in UK so looks like a copy-paste from there.

    UK Government introduced law to require operators of drones weighing above 250 grams to register with the CAA. The registration system is currently being developed with the target of an October 2019 launch. The scheme will register operators rather than drones.

    https://www.caa.co.uk/News/Drone-registration-charge-consult…

  • first in line on 11/08/2019 - 20:49

    no (profanity) way

  • mbck on 11/08/2019 - 21:32

    How would they monitor this I wonder?

    • elgrande on 12/08/2019 - 03:43
      +7

      Drones

      • dcep on 12/08/2019 - 10:04
        +1

        droneception

  • trustnoone on 11/08/2019 - 21:41
    +2

    I don't really see the reason for this (from a normal view point?) like I understand having laws in place for drone use (for example not in private areas where you can expect to be private, or over flight zones etc) but law in place seems enough.

    Registration and stuff seems like a cash grab to me, definitely won't be getting a drone in the near future for sure. It almost seems a little dumb to me, soon you'll need a license before you can buy some drone in the shop which seems pretty crazy since one can just build one at home.

    Then again Australia following UK law which is a massive nanny government just seems like the way nowadays.

  • thatonethere on 11/08/2019 - 21:58
    +1

    From what I see CASA is seeing the Uberisation of the skys. Previously the pilots have had so called full control but with the drone industry a lot of the "don't ask and don't tell" bits of the industry are coming under new scrutiny which is becoming embarrassing. Work that was once thousands of dollars is now done with $1500 toy.

    A lot of the so called regulation the sky is quite poor and haphazard. E.g. look at mh370. The local skys are even more poorly managed and it basically a bunch of gentleman in the air telling each other over radio where they are going and hoping for the best. It is a mish mash of archaic rules - they dont even use common units.

    Registering the drones is CASA buying time. The bulk of their income comes from aviation fuel excise - drones use 0 aviation fuel and thus generates 0 income for them.

    Source: did remote pilot licence.

    • Blitzfx on 11/08/2019 - 22:36

      Previously the pilots have had so called full control but with the drone industry a lot of the "don't ask and don't tell" bits of the industry are coming under new scrutiny which is becoming embarrassing

      This reminded me of the no-fly zones / domes that is being implemented state-side and relies entirely on the manufacturer to implement into their software. Some of them are even optional to obey (in software).
      Doesn't stop someone from ripping out the flight controller and putting in their own custom one, then flying straight into the White House

    • pjetson on 12/08/2019 - 11:25

      A lot of the so called regulation the sky is quite poor and haphazard. E.g. look at mh370

      I'm not sure what you're saying with that comment. In what way did "poor and haphazard regulation" apply to MH370?

  • qwerty on 11/08/2019 - 22:25

    If im going to get zapped a big fine for being unregistered i might as well fly wherever i want

  • Blitzfx on 11/08/2019 - 22:30
    +1

    Few years back in 2015 the FAA introduced mandatory registration on drones, which was struck down but reinstated again, but that didn't stop the number of incidents occurring up until today. They are only going up and up.
    https://www.faa.gov/uas/resources/public_records/uas_sightin…

    This is completely stupid rule which doesn't stop people from crashing their drone or irresponsibly flying it. If you're a bad actor, you're definitely not going to want to register your drone. Plenty of times you'll hear about quadcopters flying near airports and police never being able to find the culprit. It's next to impossible to enforce. Plus the user can just fly the drone far far away and crash it, and never get caught.

    Secondly, people buying a drone won't know of this rule. Where are they going to learn about it? How will they even know about it? This isn't like every day life where growing up you know the rules of the road long before you even get to sit in a car. You grow up learning that you must pass a drivers test before being allowed to drive. This isn't the case for drone flight.

    Implementing this rule isn't well defined either. I assemble my drones from scratch with custom parts sourced from everywhere. I don't buy DJI or whatever overpriced consumer drone is out there right now. If I swap out the motors, is that considered a different drone? What if I swap everything out except the propeller? Is that considered the same drone? This is Theseus' Ship Paradox manifesting itself in today's age.

    I've followed CASA regulations on drone's for almost a decade now and they still don't have their shit straight. I was part of the UAV outback challenge back in the early days and it occurred to me that there were a lot of holes in the law that would need to be patched and exceptions dealt with. I remember hearing stories about people having near-misses over the roads (because there isn't a lot of free space near urban areas in Australia) and I realised that as popularity took off, this kind of thing cannot continue because of how popular it is and because you simply can't trust people to be responsible.
    Disappointed that a decade later, the old fogeys at CASA haven't thought much about this at all.

    What it looks like to me is that hobbyist flight trainers have bribed them to introduce this useless rule to make money. Same thing with getting a radio operator's license. Anyone can pick up a radio and start talking shit over the air. THAT one is impossible to enforce.

    This is a sad and stupid situation, sad because this used to be a hobby, with a high cost of entry, where everyone relied on good faith and common sense not to cause harm and injury to people around them; and it's stupid because of everything I've just said.

  • Forenti on 11/08/2019 - 22:46
    +3

    'Empty skies are safe skies' - CASA

  • MarsTitan on 12/08/2019 - 00:14

    Space — The final frontier…

  • whooah1979 on 12/08/2019 - 04:54

    Having a competent person pilot these UAV makes sense.

  • tomleonhart on 12/08/2019 - 07:12
    +1

    I'm sitting on the fence not how I should feel about this.

    I had an extremely close call with a drone around 4 weeks ago coming back from the training area. I was flying at 1500 feet, cloud base was at 1700. Logged an incident report to CAA (yes, i'm in New Zealand) but that's all I can do. I understand it would be next to impossible to identify the culprit.

    Part of me understands that most responsible drone pilots would have read the rules and do not fly above 400 feet AGL, and the idiot who was piloting that drone obviously didn't know the height limit.

    But part of me also think had I crashed and burnt and died with that drone, would this force of registration help in anyway help identifying the culprit ?

    • EightImmortals on 12/08/2019 - 08:33
      -1

      Probably not, but the government would have a few extra bucks in it's wallet. You can never have enough of other people's money don't you know?

  • SnowDragon on 12/08/2019 - 08:44

    Who would even fine you if you weren't registered? I always fly with nobody around anyway.

    Also does the 250g include the LiPo? If someone comes knocking I could just take off my GoPro and LiPo and it'll be around the 250 mark.

    • pegaxs on 12/08/2019 - 09:22

      From what I have read, it's similar to the USA(FAA) rules where the weight limit is based on flight weight. If it needs a LiPo to fly, it is included. Attachments like camera that can be removed are considered as payload and not included.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join