I have long admired the Australian UAS system and I might be getting this completely wrong.
A training scheme might get approved soon, and if you are planning on making some money with sUAS in Australia you might want to kick up a bit.
These bits made me smile
AVIO2004A Conduct frisk search of persons
AVIO2005A Conduct screening using Explosive
Trace Detection (ETD)
AVIO2006A Control access to and exit from an airside security zone or lands
Along with the need to
Requirement for emergency evacuation of aircraft is identified
There will be pots and pots of money to be made with UAS training around the world and bandwagons will be jumped on.
http://www.suasnews.com/2012/06/16329/australia-prepare-to-evacuate-your-unmanned-aircraft/
Comments
I have asked for clarification from TLSIC or whatever it was called, will add a follow up story in sUAS News. I should have kept a closer eye on this it certainly something that will come into play in other countries as regs become defined by authorities. Training organisations will rush to make something up.
I would have thought two years of training instantly stops sUAS being cost effective. The queue of youngsters wanting to fly 172's for buttons in order to gain hours never stops. They have paid for their own training as well.
I have been a Certified UAV Operator for many years here in Australia.
This proposed new Certificate III is a poorly put together piece of rubbish. It 'might' only replace the manufacturer training component but will NOT remove the other formal requirements of CASA such as a an aviation theory exam pass etc.
The whole proposed training package can be downloaded here: http://tlisc.org.au/training-packages/aviation-training/aviation-fo...
The 2nd last unit in the package, AVIY3072A 'Manage RPA energy source' only mentions wet-fuel for instance, and the word BATTERY doesn't appear AT ALL!
For an entry level 'manufacturer training' unit, I would have thought the most prominent energy source today, IS batteries, and the recent OC holders in Australia have mostly been multi-rotor UAV operators.
Aside form that, the magnitude of the errors in the package (Which is nothing more than a poor cut & paste from another TLISC training package related to a Certificate IV - Commercial Aeroplane Pilots Licence) raises serious questions about the quality control within TLISC. How it managed to get this far (Case for Endorsement) beggars belief!
The so called "Case for Endorsement" is here: http://www.tlisc.com.au/training-packages/aviation-training/
Note pages 11 - 20 in the document.
What is most revealing is that they expect this course to 'typically' take 1 -2 years, and up to 4 years to complete!
Who stands to benefit most from this piece of crap? (See the list of members on the TLISC Steering Committee, and the commercial interests listed.)
If you are in Australia and want to be a part of the Australian UAV industry, I suggest you start making some very loud noises about this, BEFORE they sign it off.
As one previous entry noted, once it becomes law, it take a lot to retract it.
What strikes me as odd, is how none of the Steering Committee members, including CASA's so called 'UAS Specialist' STILL hasn't picked up on the errors.
This was a rush job for commercial gain, thiers.
Based on Mikes comment I will throw in my two cents. I think there should be two levels.For the amateur who is competent with a uav and has a camera . By "word of mouth"if some one approached him and asks him to park his quadro copter by the back fence and shoot video or take pictures of a wedding a ball game a car race or if a realtor wnted apicture of a property any thing local where the uav can be in eyeball contact with the operator an able to control it if some thing goes awry. If the person that "asks him to be there" "Slips" him a couple hundred bucks or more I think that is Great! On the other hand If the operator of the uav advertises his services for compensation of $ he is running a commercial air line only without the pilot in the vehicle . Not having the pilot in the vehicle should not give him any special rites . If he wants to act professional he should be professional and he should have the best equipment . He should have at the very least a commercial pilots license with a instrument rating with an endorsement for the type of uav he is flying and demonstrate spin recovery in IFR conditions in case IFR conditions are encountered enroute(not relying on the uav's computer to figure it out or FPV) The UAV should have a
transponder and encoding altimeter so Air traffic control knows where it is at all times and can divert air traffic
around it the operator should file a flight plan and be in constant radio contact with air traffic control at all times.Other wise I just go out stick some Radio Control in the Cessna FPV out the wind shield a couple of live link TV cams on the struts and go out and buzz the Stadium, Rock Concerts etc.for $
One wonders the efforts the vendors of 'amateur/civilian' auto-pilot hardware (whether closed or open source) are making to influence these decisions?
@Andrew. That's the information I got from the CASA. I was initially concerned about this new requirement, and more concerned about the lack of RTOs able to issue qualification, but when I spoke to CASA I was advised this was to address the issue of manufacturer training not being available.
I'm not sure about experimental use of UAVs. From my understanding, CASA's definition of UAV seems different from what most people consider to be a UAV. From CASR 101, there is no practical difference between a model aircraft and a small UAV, except that a model aircraft is flown for sports/recreation and a small UAV is flown for commercial purposes. So its not about autopilots/autonomy, FPV, etc.
It is my understanding that my multicopter is a model aircraft when I fly it for fun and maintain visual contact and comply with all the regulations for model aircraft. However, the same aircraft is a UAV when I charge for the use of the aircraft. So I guess of the experimental UAV is a small UAV, it could be test flown under model aircraft regulations, and for large UAVs, I don't know because they have to have a Certificate of Airworthiness same as a full sized aircraft. I've never dealt with large UAVs.
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?
God Stuff ! you got them talking Gary!
@Not_Sure. I'm not sure how it is possible to fight with CASA legally. Even Dick Smith didn't have much luck.
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.
@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.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next