Chapter 1
Introduction
Referral and terms of reference
1.1
On 13 October
2016 the Senate referred the following matters to the Senate Rural and Regional
Affairs and Transport References Committee (committee) for inquiry and report
by 27 April 2017:
- current and future regulatory requirements that impact on the safe
commercial and recreational use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS),
Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) and associated systems, including consideration
of:
- Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 101,
-
local design and manufacture of RPAS and associated systems,
- importation of RPAS and associated systems,
- state and local government regulation, and
- overseas developments, including work by the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) and overseas aviation regulatory jurisdictions;
- the existing industry and likely future social and economic impact of
RPAS technology;
- the international regulatory/governance environment for RPAS technology
and its comparison to Australian regulation;
- current and future options for improving regulatory compliance, public
safety and national security through education, professional standards, training,
insurance and enforcement;
- the relationship between aviation safety and other regulation of RPAS
for example, regulation by state and local government agencies on public safety,
security and privacy grounds;
- the potential recreational and commercial uses of RPAS, including
agriculture, mining, infrastructure assessment, search and rescue, fire and
policing operations, aerial mapping and scientific research;
- insurance requirements of both private and commercial users/operators,
including consideration of the suitability of existing data protection,
liability and insurance regimes, and whether these are sufficient to meet
growing use of RPAS;
- the use of current and emerging RPAS and other aviation technologies to
enhance aviation safety; and
-
any other related matters.[1]
Conduct of the inquiry
1.2
The committee
advertised the inquiry on its webpage. The committee invited submissions from
interested organisations and individuals, and received 94 public submissions. A
list of individuals and organisations that made public submissions, together
with other information authorised for publication is at Appendix 1.
1.3
The committee
held public hearings as follows:
16 March – Dalby, Queensland
16 June – Melbourne, Victoria
26 June – Sydney, NSW
28 June – Brisbane, Queensland
29 August – Canberra, ACT
17 October – Canberra, ACT
1.4
A list of witnesses
who appeared at the hearings is at Appendix 2. Submissions and Hansard
transcripts of evidence may be accessed through the committee's website.[2]
1.5
On 16 February 2017, the Senate granted an extension of time for
reporting until 6 December 2017.[3]
On 16 November 2017, the Senate granted a further extension of time for
reporting until 28 March 2018.[4]
On 22 March 2018, the Senate granted a further extension of time for reporting
until 31 July 2018.[5]
Terminology
1.6
During the inquiry, the committee received evidence which used a range
of terms to refer to remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) technology,
including 'unmanned aerial vehicles' (UAVs), 'unmanned aerial systems' (UAS) or
'drones'. While the preferred terminology used by the International Civil
Aviation Organization refers to RPAS technology, the evidence gathered during
the inquiry uses a number of terms to describe the broad range of technologies
relevant to the inquiry. Therefore, the terms drone, UAV, UAS, RPA and RPAS may
be used interchangeably throughout this report.
Structure of the report
1.7
The report is divided into three parts, consisting of a total of eight
chapters. Part I of the report comprises Chapters 1 to 3 and focuses on the
current system and structure of RPAS regulations:
-
the remainder of Chapter 1 considers the growing use and
application of RPAS, and the respective opportunities and challenges that have
emerged as a result;
-
Chapter 2 sets out Australia's regulatory framework in relation
to RPAS, including the 2016 amendments to the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations
1998; and
-
Chapter 3 considers the evidence before the committee regarding RPAS
incidents and regulatory responses both within Australia and worldwide.
1.8
Part II of the report comprises Chapters 4 to 6, with a focus on possible
improvements to RPAS management in Australia:
-
Chapter 4 considers the implementation of measures that allow for
the identification and education of all RPAS operators. Measures discussed
include a registration regime, and mandatory education requirements for all
operators;
-
Chapter 5 discusses a number of enforcement measures directed at
the safe and lawful use of RPAS, including the restriction or prohibition of RPAS
use in certain airspace, and the delegation of enforcement powers to local
authorities; and
-
Chapter 6 gives consideration to the use of technology-based
solutions such as geo-fencing and 'detect and avoid' systems. The need for
airworthiness standards for UAS and the potential for unmanned air traffic
management is also discussed.
1.9
Part III of the report comprises Chapters 7 and 8 and draws together the
evidence informing the committee's views and recommendations:
-
Chapter 7 discusses the need for a holistic approach to RPAS
management, with wide-ranging stakeholder consultation, and a whole of
government framework; and
-
Chapter 8 provides the committee's comments and recommendations.
Acknowledgement
1.10
The committee thanks the large number of individuals and organisations
who made submissions to this inquiry, and to witnesses who offered their time
to give evidence at public hearings and provide additional information. The
committee is particularly grateful to those witnesses who travelled substantial
distances to appear before the committee. Both submitters and witnesses
contributed significantly to the committee's deliberations and report.
1.11
The committee started its evidence gathering for the purposes of the
inquiry in Dalby, Queensland where it held an RPAS demonstration and public
hearing on 16 March 2017. The committee would like to thank the operators
for taking the time to demonstrate the use of their RPAS to the committee and
to explain their operations and technology. The demonstration day in Dalby
proved to be critical to the committee's understanding of the use and
application of RPAS and informed its deliberations throughout the course of the
inquiry.
1.12
The committee also acknowledges the 2014 House of Representatives
Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs' report, titled Eyes
in the sky: Inquiry into drones and the regulation of air safety and privacy,
and the subsequent Australian Government response provided in December 2016. As
the focus of this Senate inquiry was on safety and regulation, the committee leaves
the issues of privacy that were raised in the House of Representatives' report
to the ongoing consideration of government.
192 ways to use RPAS [6]
1.13
Early reports of RPAS use dates back to World War I. However, RPAS were reported
to have been used commercially for the first time in Japan in the early 1980s
to spray pesticides on rice fields.[7]
1.14
Since then, RPAS have increasingly been used not only in military
operations but across a growing range of industries for a diverse range of
purposes.[8]
This diversity is reflected in the growth of commercial, scientific and
security applications.
1.15
Today, RPAS are used to perform hazardous work; conduct monitoring and
aerial mapping; gather data and undertake surveillance; assist law enforcement
and public safety agencies;[9]
monitor road conditions and telecommunications infrastructure; deliver
humanitarian aid; carry medicines and urgent medical provisions including
lifesaving blood supplies;[10]
perform search and rescue services; deliver resources to remote and geographically-isolated
places; deliver takeaway in residential areas;[11]
and in industries such as mining, aerial photography, media, and entertainment.[12]
This list is not exhaustive, as the range of applications continues to grow at a
rapid pace. At the same time RPAS have become the fastest growing segment of the
civil aviation market.[13]
1.16
The RPAS economy, which is valued at $137 billion a year, continues to
grow at a rapid pace. United States (US) futurist Thomas Frey has predicted that
by 2030, there will be one billion RPAS in the world.[14]
According to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), there were 1283 remote
operator certificate (ReOC) holders and 7380 remote pilot licence (RePL)
holders registered as at 26 February 2018.[15]
This does not account for the much greater number of operators that are neither
registered nor hold any form of licence or operating certificate.
1.17
The power of RPAS lies primarily in their software. Increasingly, RPAS
are outfitted with business-grade software to serve as data-collecting
platforms. RPAS have been referred to as the 'flying smartphone' for this
reason.[16]
As a disruptive technological advancement, RPAS capability changes the cost and
labour equation for many operational tasks.
1.18
In the agricultural sector, RPAS are recognised as integral to the next
phase of innovation, given their capacity to change the way food and fibre are
produced.[17]
To this end, Australian farmers are increasingly applying UAV technology to
improve agricultural techniques, manage large areas of land, improve risk
management approaches, predict weather and yields with greater accuracy, and
maximise returns.[18]
1.19
In coastal regions, the Little Ripper Lifesaver uses state of the art
UAV technology to enhance existing search and rescue services. The Little
Ripper Group is developing and integrating lifesaving devices into lightweight
marine, land and snow pods that can be mounted and deployed from the Little
Ripper UAV.[19]
In partnership with the University of Technology Sydney's School of Software,
the group also developed best practice aerial detection of sharks using
real-time sensor and pattern recognition algorithms.[20]
1.20
In September 2017, Little Ripper UAVs equipped with the shark-spotting
system began patrolling a number of Australia's beaches. The UAVs are able to detect
a shark, with swimmers then warned by megaphone.[21]
In January 2018, in a world‑first, the Little Ripper UAV was used to save
two swimmers at Lennox Head, New South Wales. According to lifeguard
supervisor, Jai Sheridan, who was piloting the UAV at the time, the use of a
UAV shaved minutes off the time it would have taken a lifeguard to locate the
swimmers and then reach them with a flotation device.[22]
1.21
Throughout the inquiry, the committee heard that Australia is at the
forefront of RPAS technology as we have been 'doing it longer, better and in
more diverse ways than anyone else'.[23]
This is primarily because Australia was the first country in the world to allow
commercial RPAS activities.[24]
However, as RPAS grow in popularity and application across the country, a
number of opportunities and challenges have arisen as a result.
Opportunities and challenges
1.22
Whilst providing considerable opportunities, the prospect of an RPAS-driven
society raises a number of difficult questions not only for the committee but
for all Australians.
1.23
The increasing application of RPAS, including for routine daily purposes
such as the delivery of parcels and pizza,[25]
together with the growth in the number of RPAS purchased and used in Australia,
raises fundamental questions about safety, privacy and security. The use of RPAS
by non-state actors to drop bombs or poisons, as well as the potential use of RPAS
to traffic drugs, including into prisons, also highlights concerns about
regulation and enforcement.[26]
1.24
Across Australia, RPAS are used by an increasing number of recreational or
hobbyist users. As RPAS have become more popular, affordable and accessible,
the number of recreational RPAS users has skyrocketed. Having first been made
available in retail stores in 2010, rapid advances in technology and falling
prices have led to a substantial rise in off-the-shelf RPAS purchases. Reports
suggest that recreational RPAS have been amongst the highest selling Christmas
gifts in Australia every year since 2014.[27]
1.25
While the total number of RPAS sales in Australia is difficult to determine,
particularly given the rise of internet-based and second-hand sales, CASA
estimates that there are now more than 50 000 users of recreational RPAS across
Australia, as well as over 1000 commercial operators.[28]
By way of comparison, in the US, 2.4 million hobbyist RPAS were purchased
in 2016 alone, which was more than double the 1.1 million purchased the
previous year.[29]
These figures also do not account for the number of home-made RPAS, now made
available through 3D printing technology.[30]
1.26
One of the most attractive features of an RPAS is that it can be
operated by almost anyone. However, this factor also raises a series of
challenges. First and foremost, it means that anyone can fly an RPAS without
any training, safety awareness or aviation experience. For this reason, the
proliferation of the incidental recreational user was central to the
committee's inquiry and a primary concern of many witnesses and submitters.[31]
1.27
Mr Mike Mrdak, then-Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure,
Regional Development and Cities (DIRDC),[32]
and Chair of the Aviation Policy Group, noted some of the challenges at Budget
Estimates on 23 May 2017:
...the whole aviation regulatory system has been built for the
best part of a century on creating a regulatory structure where you have to
reach certain qualifications to enter into the system. The system's safety is
built on the qualifications and the protections built in around the
airworthiness of the aircraft, the training of the pilot and the training of
the air traffic controllers, as appropriate. What unmanned drones or unmanned
aerial vehicles do is create a new category of operator that operates outside
that closed system. That is the real challenge for policymakers and regulators.[33]
1.28
The rapid rise of RPAS brings new challenges that were not considered in
historical aviation regulatory frameworks. Civil aviation has historically been
based on the notion of a pilot operating an aircraft from within it. Removing
the pilot from the aircraft has thus raised serious technical and operational
questions. The required shift away from an aircraft-centric approach to that of
an operation-centric approach places responsibility directly onto the RPAS
operator. As noted by the International Civil Aviation Organization:
The functions and responsibilities of the remote pilot are
essential to the safe and predictable operation of the aircraft as it interacts
with other civil aircraft and the air traffic management (ATM) system.[34]
1.29
Mr Mrdak observed that the current regulatory structure is designed to
prevent the operator of an RPAS interfering with the operations of an aircraft.
However, noting that the number of recreational RPAS users in Australia
continues to rise, he also acknowledged that questions remain as to whether the
current regulatory requirements are adequate and balanced.[35]
Dr Rob Weaver of Airservices Australia highlighted the rapid pace at which the RPAS
sector is moving, and the challenges associated with 'responding to the
changing environment in terms of both the number of drones and the technology
that's available'.[36]
1.30
The question of how to facilitate and integrate RPAS into a pre-existing,
conventionally piloted aviation system is central to the challenge.[37]
Although many submitters raised the question of how to safely integrate RPAS
into Australia's national airspace system, whilst keeping RPAS out of
controlled airspace, those within the aviation sector brought forward key concerns
about unregulated RPAS which pose a growing threat to aviation security.
1.31
A primary and growing concern of aviation authorities and experts is
that of the number of incidents whereby RPAS have come into contact with or within
close range of aircraft.[38]
According to the Australian Airline Pilots' Association (AusALPA) there were
over 160 'air proximity events' involving RPAS reported from 2015 to 2016.[39]
The Australian Transport and Safety Bureau (ATSB) provided a figure of 180
near-encounters with RPAS reported to air traffic control between 2012 and 2016.
It informed the committee that none of the involved RPAS were operated by
commercial operators.[40]
In 2017, there were 151 reported near-encounters with manned aircraft, representing
a 119 per cent increase from the previous year.[41]
1.32
As the rate of incidents continues to increase, there are growing
concerns that an RPAS will eventually be ingested into an aircraft engine or
helicopter rotor and cause a catastrophic aviation accident. Australian aviators
are not alone in their concerns, with the number of RPAS-related incidents and
complaints increasing throughout the US, United Kingdom (UK), Canada and New
Zealand.
1.33
At the same time, the committee was made acutely aware of growing public
anxiety regarding RPAS. This anxiety is stimulated by reported incidents of RPAS
coming into close range of buildings and events, and over people on their own
property as well as in public spaces. According to CASA, on average, 15 people
are prosecuted for flying RPAS dangerously in Australia every year alongside
scores of others who are subject to monetary penalties.[42]
Between 1 November 2015 and 8 November 2017, CASA issued 23 counselling
letters to individuals in relation to apparent breaches of the regulations
relating to the operation of RPAs.[43]
However, these figures do not reflect the large number of illegal drone
operations that remain unreported.
1.34
In light of these concerns, the committee has focused its attention on
the impact of relaxing the regulations regarding RPAS use, and how the
regulations contribute to keeping Australia's skies and the Australian public
safe. Throughout the course of the inquiry, the committee considered the
various challenges arising from the proliferation of RPAS in Australia. Key
amongst them is the question of balance between safety, privacy, security,
social benefits and economic impost.
1.35
The challenge is in establishing a regulatory regime which does not
impede continued innovation, whilst also instilling community confidence and
providing assurances with regard to safety and privacy. During the inquiry, the
committee considered these matters and the fundamental question of whether current
regulations have kept up with the growth and increasing application of RPAS
technology in Australia.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page