Comment by Andrew Rabbitt on June 1, 2012 at 3:41am

What's there to admire about Australia's regulatory system?  It is as corrupt, onerous, bureaucratic and incompetent as any other.  The fact that UAS regulations appear to be way more advanced/forward than any other is likely down to the efforts of one (or no more than a handful of) far-sighted individual(s) within CASA. (I can't believe I just wrote that sentence!)

I'd hazard a guess that the pollies in Can'tberra haven't heard of UAS's aside from the word 'drones' in a media report.

That a few are trying to knock together a badly-specified training course to market to unsuspecting individuals is no surprise at all, given the commercialisation of our higher education system.

 

Comment by Carl La France on June 1, 2012 at 3:50am

Good Post! You are all over it Gary!The problem is once that stuff gets put into regulation It Take big $ to change it

Moderator Comment by Hai Tran on June 1, 2012 at 5:13am

@Andrew, off you go again.....  Its far easier to have a knock something that to add anything constructive isn't it?  The fact that Australia has UAS regulations means that unlike places like the USA, we are actually able to start a UAV business and use UAVs for commercial civilian use.

@Gary, I read the draft training package for the Certificate III in Aviation (Remote Piloted Aircraft - RPA).  I was a little amused at some of the competencies required, such as the need to be able to demonstrate the you can operate a computer.

I think the issue is actually that because its a Certificate III course , it must be delivered by a Registered Training Organisation (RTO), such as a TAFE or college.  The issue is that most general aviation training is conducted by flying schools, and most are not RTOs.  The problem is that I doubt that RTOs ready to deliver such a course, and if someone was able to deliver the course, it takes 6-9mths to become an RTO.  This will mean that obtaining a RPA might even be harder than it is now.

On the positive side is, that because its a Certificate III course, a person that can demonstrate competency through evidence, can be assessed for recognition of prior learning.  The catch is that the assessor will still charge you $$$ to carry out the RPL assessment before issuing the certificate.  

Moderator Comment by Hai Tran on June 1, 2012 at 5:14am

I was told that anyone with a UAV Controller Certificate will be grandfathered an RPA level 1 licence automatically.

Comment by Andrew Rabbitt on June 1, 2012 at 5:29am

Hai, I dón't wish to wind you up again - it's completely not my intention, however I wish you would read what wrote rather than what you think I wrote.

Tell me, is a certficate 3 qualification a licence?  I didn't think so.  As far as I understand, it's a piece of paper from a university or college that CASA may (or may not) look favorably upon when granting an actual licence.

So, what this load of old bollocks is about is just some people whipping up a bunch of course work they can charge money for.  They appear to be tripping over themselves in their haste to reach the pot of gold at the end of the UAS rainbow.  Good luck to them, but I feel sorry for the poor bastards who get caught up in their web.

Moderator Comment by Hai Tran on June 1, 2012 at 5:41am

@Andrew, from what I have been told, the Certificate III will allow people who are not able to receive manufacturer training (as is the requirement now), to complete a Certificate III instead.  My concern with this if they make a mandatory for everyone, or whether it ends up being so easy that its not worth the paper its written on.

Comment by Not Sure on June 1, 2012 at 5:55am

I agree with you Andrew,  I've heard the grandfather clause bandwagon, and heard the madrigra groups trying to promote a  TAFE style replacement for a license system.

Pity that in australia, a now uav pilot's license is "suggested" to be changed by some working groups to a TAFE style cert 3 or 4 piece of paper.  This would be to my knowledge the first instance world wide, where a pilot's license becomes not a license if certain people if advisory groups who want casa to do these things get their way. 

It is good that not all uav operators in AUS think and feel this way, and we will fight it legally if we have too.  CASA like all government bodies need regulating too.  First place to start is with your local member of parliament.

Moderator Comment by Hai Tran on June 1, 2012 at 6:01am

@Not_Sure.  I'm not sure how it is possible to fight with CASA legally.  Even Dick Smith didn't have much luck.

Comment by Carl La France on June 1, 2012 at 6:21am

God Stuff ! you got them talking Gary!

Comment by Andrew Rabbitt on June 1, 2012 at 6:21am

OK, I think I understand now Hai.  It's just a substitute for the manufacturer training aspects of the requirement.  The remaining CASA requirements must still be met for the issue of an RPL or whatever it's called.  That makes some sense, I guess.

Given the state of the industry, what I'd be interested to know Hai, since you're obviously well connected with CASA in these things, is what about the experimental use of UAV/S's. i.e. the product development process.  How is this handled for those who are developing commercial UAS's?

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page