Hi Folks,

Simple question: can you point me at the specific CASA paragraph/document or other reference, wherein the privileges of a Remote Pilot's Licence are written?

Thank you,

Mark Felton-Aksoy

G'day Mark

This will likely answer your question

www.casa.gov.au/aircraft/flying-dronesre...-resources-and-links

Cheers

Hi Stuart,

Thanks for the link. Alas, on this matter, I remain as confused as ever I was. It's probably just me, but I am befuddled by a multiplicity of differing requirements with sometimes conflicting and diverse categorisations: Included UAVs, Excluded UAVs, model aircraft, differing weight categories AND the fact that commercial hire/reward operations can even take place with no licence at all!

I chased Soviet submarines around the oceans and flew long range maritime search and rescue operations in RAF Nimrod aircraft. After the Cold War I trained at my own expense to become a pilot. I have UK and FAA PPLs, UK CPL, UK/JAA ATPL, unrestricted (i.e., HF and VHF) Flight Radio Telephony Operator's Licence, Instrument Rating and Flying Instructor Ratings. With my ATPL I moved people and freight all over Europe in manual HS748s. In each of these conventional pilot licensing cases, what you can and can't do are quite clear.

Even after reading through CASA's drone documents and also Bob's excellent RePL book, on this matter, the way is still not entirely clear. To be honest, I thought I sensed a little exasperation at the system in Bob's otherwise excellent writings. The unmanned/remote aerial chariot system seems much less clear cut; at times both lions and Christians appear to engage in role reversal! Looking back, I think I preferred zener diode theory!

Regards,

Mark

Unfortunately this is the world we live in CASA are a law upon themselves, quite often we just have to except the decisions even if they make no sense, case in point requiring a Instrument Rating exam pass to fly BVLoS just the most absurd thing that has ever brought in. CASA is just making up requirements to be seen as being in control the industry but they are flying blind.

Cheers

Stuart, I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Having read through CASA's documentation (CASR, Advisory Circulars, Manual of Standards, pamphlets and brochures), I must confess to having felt that the way the whole regulatory material and training syllabus has been put together smacks, in parts of desperation and not a little laziness. There are elements of fixed wing stuff that seem to have been thrown in incomplete while other aspects seem to have been treated to an untidy, rushed and ill-thought-out "cut and paste". Rather than adopt a cool, calm, collected and thoughtful from-the-ground-up approach to developing the remotely piloted vehicle industry, a reactive, late, headless chicken: "what the hell do we do with this?" attitude by the aviation regulator has led to a "that'll do" cobble together of what was there already approach.

It strikes me that CASA and perhaps in fairness, aviation regulators elsewhere, too, they have been caught sleeping while an entire industry built on new technology has grown around them. I suspect CASA has behaved as though a gang of teenage louts has come to their neighbourhood, kicking up a rumpus. Rather than clearing space to let kids play and channel their energies, the "grown ups" have looked down their noses at them, hoping they'll grow up and go away.

This is not the healthiest approach to adopt. People with no prior aviation knowledge or experience are left disadvantaged while die-hard real aviators' fears are not adequately addressed. Integration requires that die-hard city fathers see that sensible measures are in place - even ones that encourage cross-participation. Half baked newbies serve no one well and do nothing to dissuade the industry city fathers from their lofty suspicions.

A personal view and one which, in the greater scheme of things, is unlikely to affect the price of fish in Calcutta!!!