The Australian Government’s response to the Senate Inquiry into the future of drone regulation: why it reads like the Wizard of Oz…

Published: 29 November 2018

The Australian Government’s response to the Senate Inquiry (Inquiry) into the future of drone regulation is so dry, garment makers are using it as a replacement of Silica Gel packets when selling new bags and shoes. On second thought that’s a bit mean. In reality, it’s a cogent and concise piece of writing explaining the Government’s pollice verso of the Senate Inquiry’s recommendations.

The actual Government response can be found here, the following is my executive summary and commentary.

Inquiry recommendation 1: sub-2kg ‘excluded category’ to be wiped

The Inquiry recommended the removal of the current ability of drone pilots to fly drones that weigh less than 2kg’s for commercial purposes without any sort of drone licence.

GOVERNMENT REPSONSE:

“Noted”. That is, the Government will review its position on these matters as drone technology advances. (Code for “someday, but not today”).

The Government does not consider that the current international research supports the need for an immediate redraft of the regulations for drones below 2kg. The Government considers the current framework as sufficient, but will “continue to follow international developments” in drone regulatory frameworks and will amend the regulations if appropriate.

Inquiry recommendation 2: if it weighs more than a packet of Scotch Fingers – register it!

This recommendation is for a mandatory registration regime for all drones weighing more than 250 grams.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

Agree! The Government states that it has identified measures by which this recommendation can be put into action.

“The Government supports the implementation of an appropriate mandatory testing regime as part of the registration process, under which recreational and other drone users in the excluded category must successfully demonstrate an understanding of the safe and lawful use of RPAS.”

The Government notes that CASA has begun to develop options for a registration scheme.

Inquiry recommendation 3: unlock the levels like a video game

This recommendation is that the Australian Government develop a tiered education program whereby drone pilots progressively unlock drone capabilities upon completion of each level of training.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

“Noted”. That is, the Government will review its position on these matters as drone technology advances. (Code for “to the bottom drawer”).

The Government supports a broader education scheme and mandatory registration which will be implemented by CASA. Also, CASA is developing an appropriate education package for the safe use of drones across the usage tiers.

The Government notes that the full implementation of this recommendation would require technological capabilities to be implemented by all drone manufacturers; currently not feasible given the many sources from which drones can be acquired.

Inquiry recommendation 4: no flying over “important” places

The recommendation is that CASA, the Australian Federal Police and other relevant authorities prohibit the use of drones in the airspace above significant public buildings, critical infrastructure and other vulnerable areas.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

Agrees “in principle”. That is, the Australian Government “will progress work relating to these recommendations as identified.”  (Code for “under the rug”).

The Government states that mechanisms are already in place to allow CASA to designate certain airspace as prohibited, restricted or danger areas.

Inquiry recommendation 5: kumbaya sessions between government and manufacturers

This recommendation is that the Department of Infrastructure, Regional Development and Cities (DIRDC) and CASA have a fireside chat with drone manufacturers to develop future solutions to drone safety, including the implementation of technical restrictions on altitude and distance for ‘off-the-shelf’ RPAS.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

“Noted”. That is, the Government will review its position on these matters as drone technology advances. (Code for “Yeah, but no.”)

The Government notes that CASA will continue to support manufacturer’s efforts to utilise geo-fencing technology to prevent drone operations in areas where operations are not permitted, including at or near major airports and certain classes of restricted airspace. However, due to the multitude of drone manufacturers, predominantly based overseas, achieving consistent technical restrictions is unlikely to be feasible.

Inquiry recommendation 6: you must be worthy of air!

The Inquiry recommends that the DIRDC and CASA develop appropriate airworthiness standards for drones of all sizes and operations. At a minimum, fail-safe functions such as ‘return to home’ and safe landing functionality, and forced flight termination.

GOVERNMENT RESPONSE:

Agrees “in principle”. That is, the Australian Government “will progress work relating to these recommendations as identified.” (I think that’s the definition of ‘vague’).

The Government states that CASA is currently developing a long-term strategy for safe drone operations in Australia, including the examination of airspace integration, risk and safety management, unmanned traffic management, operations near and to/from aerodromes and initial and continuing airworthiness and certification standards.

The Government notes that adopting appropriate airworthiness standards is a long-term matter to allow for appropriate consideration for integration into Australian airspace.