Source: http://www.cybertechuav.com.au/IMG/rubon13.png
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/391585,customs-seizes-80k-worth-of-unauthorised-drones.aspx
Unlike the Civil Aviation definition of UAV v Model Aircraft being Commercial v Hobby use, the Defence and Strategic Goods list (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2013C00051/Html/Text#_Toc345675289) defines a UAV as any unmanned aircraft that has an autopilot OR can fly beyond line of sight.
Feeling very nervous after reading the article above because you could get into alot of trouble traveling with your Arducopter or Arduplane.
One might think "surely my quad isn't covered under export control" but whilst the CyberQuad looks like quite an impressive aircraft, under the hood, it's an off the shelf flight controller that you can buy from a hobby shop.
Terrorist obviously don't have the brains to buy drone parts from China and assemble it themselves.
Comments
I am very sympathetic to what has happened to them, as it seems like under the letter of the law, we could all be stung by the same regulation, hence why I posted this article.
I agree Lachy, Cyber Technology are very professional and the leading manufacturer of small UAVs. I have nothing bad to about Cyber Technology. I'm quite proud that both Australia's leading manufacturer, and Australia's leading operator of UAVs both come from Perth, Western Australia.
What scares the hell out of me after reading that article is potentially any of us could be busted for carrying or sending UAV out of the country.
I performed my Manufacturers Type Training with CyberTech while gaining my UAV Controller Certificate. I met many of their staff and learnt a lot from their Chief Instructor. Overall I believe them to be a very professional organisation who, like Hai's Coptercam company, try to perform their business in an ethical and safety focused manor with the best intentions for small UAV operators in Australia. The last things these companies want is see anyone in their industry with bad publicity as it will affect the growth of all the whole industry. CyberTech spoke very highly of Coptercam while I was in Perth and I would expect the reverse to be true too.
Not having any import or export knowledge, I cannot comment on this accusations, however I do hope that whatever court proceedings follow, it leads to updating of laws to reflect the technology enhancements and how easily merchandise can be shipped around the world so that it doesn't stifle a good growth industry in Australia.
From a hobbyist perspective, I recently traveled to Vietnam and decided last minute not to take my QAV250 but that was mainly due to the unknown nature of Vietnamese security and customs, and after seeing how open they were to discussions over there, I am now more concerned about our own customs and police! ahh, the missed opportunities of filming Ha Long Bay from the quad... will just have to go back one day I suppose - will just have to order all my parts to Vietnam and build it over there though!
I worked for a company exporting mining equipment, with over 95% of their customers out of Australia, and we had to go through the process of gaining defence department approval for one sale. My only direct involvement was reading over the final application before it was submitted but those actually working on the approval had to go through several stages and address all defence concerns. It was made more challenging because this involved export to a country with extra restrictions. Approval was eventually given for the permit.
It can be a difficult process but that doesn't mean an exporter should not make the effort.
According to the itnews story, this relates to two seizures that were a month apart. After the first shipment customs seized the company really should have been aware of the issue and not been caught out again only a month later...
Laws exist to set limits on what is legally allowed and this applies to both businesses and people. There is nothing new about this and the law that caused these UAVs to be seized is not new, having existing in some form since 1996. That there are restrictions on exports and imports is well know and I would expect an export business to investigate how any export related laws would impact on their business.
The relevant section is 9A012 on page 246. It might be a stupid and pointless restriction at a time when cheap open source flight controllers are available but ignoring the law can have serious consequences. A better option is obtaining the correct permits and lobbying for the law to be changed. It is difficult to be sympathetic in this case, particularly when the commercial UAV operators in Australia are lobbying for laws to restrict hobbyists.
Pointing out to the government the insanity of being able to import similar equipment from China will be met with blank looks.
Governments are not handling well the fact that open source, open hardware and truly international cooperation has resulted in stuff they previously thought to be among their most closely held military assets is now irretrievably in the public domain.
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next