Drones

<html><body>
<div class="_1665V undefined">
<p>Police are investigating the shooting down of a commercial drone in rural ACT, near Tennent last Thursday.</p>
<p>Evoenergy was using the drone to carry out surveying work when it was shot down.</p>
<p>Nine Entertainemt reported that local landholders had not been notified of the surveying work.</p>
</div>
<div class="_1FVfK">
<div class="adWrapper _2UMq- _1UZJl noPrint ad">
<div id="adspot-970x250_728x90-pos2" class="undefined _2rioU" data-google-query-id="CNLlrqjPwuACFZFKKwodLfQJoA">
<div id="google_ads_iframe_/21671780509/canberratimes/national/act/drones_1__container__">The drone and the equipment it was fitted with are understood to be worth nearly $500,000.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="_1ysFk">
<div class="_1665V undefined">
<p data-gtm-vis-first-on-screen-6236702_632="21718" data-gtm-vis-total-visible-time-6236702_632="4000" data-gtm-vis-has-fired-6236702_632="1">Evoenergy has previously trialled the use of drones as a remote surveying means as it could capture better data and photos from 30 metres above the ground than a helicopter could from 300 metres in the air.</p>
<p data-gtm-vis-first-on-screen-6236702_632="21718" data-gtm-vis-total-visible-time-6236702_632="4000" data-gtm-vis-has-fired-6236702_632="1">The LIDAR system inspects and detect vegetation near power lines and other assets to keep the network safe.</p>
<p data-gtm-vis-first-on-screen-6236702_632="21718" data-gtm-vis-total-visible-time-6236702_632="4000" data-gtm-vis-has-fired-6236702_632="1">One local farmer said farmers were generally wary of unannounced drones in case they were being used by criminals or animal activists to spy on their properties.</p>
</div>
<div class="_1665V undefined">
<p> </p>
</div>
</div>
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Evoenergy drone shot down in rural ACT

<html><body>
<p>GUEST OBSERVER</p>
<p>Drones are quickly becoming the new buzz in the business world.</p>
<p>These remotely piloted aircraft have grown in popularity in recent years not only for recreational use, but also in commercial applications. This includes industries like real estate, tourism, insurance, mining, engineering, marketing, entertainment and sports.</p>
<p>The possibilities are endless for all sectors of business to encompass this new technology and with the new relaxed regulations, implementing the use of drones is now an affordable and efficient option.</p>
<p>As demand grows these virtual-eyes are proving their worth in many Australian businesses. But is this new and fascinating technology exposing these industry leading businesses to serious liability? </p>
<p>For any business utilising this ground-breaking technology, it is important to have adequate and specialised cover.</p>
<p>Not only is it important to protect your investment, but also in consideration to possible liability cases.</p>
<p>A remotely piloted aircraft or drone is defined as an Aircraft1. Under the Damage by Aircraft Act2; owners and operators have strict liability both jointly and individually.</p>
<p>It is imperative that your business understands the implication of strict liability before operating the Drone commercially.</p>
<p>Businesses also need to understand that choosing to operate without adequate insurance could lead to serious liability under the Damage by Aircraft Act3.</p>
<p>It is important to all businesses who operate drones to fully understand the operational limitations imposed by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.</p>
<p>What is a commercial operation?</p>
<ul>
<li>Any operation which is not conducted for sport or recreation is considered commercial.</li>
<li>Even if the use of the drone was not used specifically for selling that businesses services, the use can still be deemed commercial. </li>
</ul>
<p>Analysis conducted at QBE Aviation in conjunction with external data input indicates common cause of loss when it comes to utilising drone technology.</p>
<p>This includes pilot error during pre-flight and flight, wildlife and battery degradation due to excessive use.</p>
<p>To completely understand the legal operational limitations, O’Brien also suggests all business owners who utilise drones to become members of the Australian Association for Unmanned Systems (AAUS) and also obtain a Remote Operators Certificate (ReOC).</p>
<p>It’s also good professional practise to ensure the owners and controllers of the Drone are correctly trained.</p>
<p>This should be done by a registered training organisation.</p>
<p><em><span lang="en-AU">John O’Brien is the Director of Kobe Insurance. He can be contacted <a href="https://kobeinsurance.com.au/about-us/" target="_blank">here</a>.</span></em></p>
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Rise in drones a liability nightmare: John O’Brien

<html><body>
<p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/66202/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1"></p>
<p>GUEST OBSERVER</p>
<p>Drone footage is everywhere, whether used to film extreme sports, outdoor events, nature, music festivals, or just for its own sake.</p>
<p>Recreational aircraft such as quadcopters, fixed-wing and mini drones are getting ever cheaper and easier to buy. They are fast becoming a must-have item for people who want to document their activities for social media, or just explore their neighbourhood.</p>
<p>As of today it will also be legally easier to use such aircraft in Australia, with the relaxation of Civil Aviation Safety Authority rules about “remotely piloted aircraft”, or RPAs.</p>
<p>The change is partly due to the significant challenges of regulating something that is so easy to buy and even easier to use. As a result, you can expect to see many more drones in the sky from today – and of course, given that they routinely have high-resolution cameras on board, you can expect a lot more drones to be seeing you.</p>
<h2>What do the relaxed rules involve?</h2>
<p>The new, relaxed regulations – first proposed in April this year – will exempt drones under certain weight limits from licensing and notice requirements.</p>
<p>In particular, drones weighing less than 2kg will not need to be licensed at all. Owners only need to notify CASA of their use if it is for commercial purposes. Similarly, drones under 25kg can also be flown without licensing or notification requirements if they are used for “sport and recreation”, or if they are flown on private land and used for private aerial photography, spotting, communications or agricultural operations.</p>
<p>Operators of drones weighing more than 100g will still have to steer clear of certain areas, under the so-called “standard RPA operating conditions”. This means no flying in controlled or prohibited airspace; above 400ft (122m); at night; in swarms; over emergency operations without approval; within 30m of another person; out of the pilot’s direct line of sight; or in an area of “sufficient density of population for some aspect of the operation … to pose an unreasonable risk to the life, safety or property”.</p>
<h2>What about privacy?</h2>
<p>What is notably absent from the standard RPA operating conditions is any requirement to avoid flying over private property. Nor do the rules require the operator to respect the privacy of others or refrain from filming them, either on their own land or in public.</p>
<p>That may concern some people, because in Australia there is little legal recourse if someone films you in your backyard, in a secluded area or even through your window at home.</p>
<p>The loosening of the rules thus has obvious implications for privacy. Every new drone platform is basically an eye in the sky, capable of recording high-resolution images and video.</p>
<p>In 2014, a Commonwealth House of Representatives standing committee warned:</p>
<p>"Remotely piloted aircraft (RPAs) have the potential to pose a serious threat to Australians’ privacy. They can intrude on a person’s or a business’s private activities either intentionally, as in the case of deliberate surveillance, or inadvertently."</p>
<p>The committee recommended a raft of urgent legislative changes to counter the wide-scale adoption of “privacy-invasive technologies” like drones. But the recommendations were not taken up by the government, and nor was the committee’s echoing of the recommendation by the Australian Law Reform Commission that Australia develop a “tort of privacy” to guard people against intrusion by drones.</p>
<p>Such a measure would allow individuals to sue for damages if another person grossly violates their private life or affairs. While this privacy law remedy is available in other countries, Australian courts have generally rejected it.</p>
<p>This is largely a result of a 1936 court case brought against a man called George Taylor, who built a viewing platform on land next to Victoria Park Racetrack so he could call the races over the radio. The racecourse sued him for a breach of privacy but the High Court of Australia rejected the claim, not wanting to set a precedent by which neighbours could sue one another for simply peering over a fence. Chief Justice Latham’s reasoning was simple:</p>
<p>"Any person is entitled to look over the plaintiff’s fences and to see what goes on in the plaintiff’s land. If the plaintiff desires to prevent this, the plaintiff can erect a higher fence."</p>
<p>This reasoning has prevailed in Australia ever since. But as the sky grows ever more saturated with cameras, it becomes harder to justify. No longer can you just build a higher fence, unless of course you want to box in your entire property from any aerial observation.</p>
<p>This is why the legal justification has been criticised by scholars, lawyers and privacy advocates, as well as by parliamentary bodies specifically in response to “privacy-invasive technologies” like drones.</p>
<p>Given that nothing has been done about it – even while agencies like CASA make it ever easier to record invasive footage – it may be time to accept that, in Australia at least, the age of privacy might really be over.</p>
<p><em><span class="fn author-name"><span style="color: #333333;">Brendan Gogarty is<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-gogarty-146584" rel="author"> </a>l</span></span>ecturer in Law, University of Tasmania and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brendan-gogarty-146584" target="_blank">here</a>.</em></p>
</body></html>

 New drone rules: with more eyes in the sky, expect less privacy

<html><body>
<div>Using drones to inspect the exterior of tall buildings and legalities surrounding maintenance and pre-purchase due diligence reports will drive their use further into the real estate industry according to Archicentre, the building design and advisory service of the Australian Institute of Architects.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Archicentre has launched a new Drone Inspection Service which, Max Martin, commercial business development manager of Archicentre says provides a solution to assessing building and maintenance requirements for commercial premises and apartment buildings.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>He said using drones in such a way has added a major safety factor to building inspections as well as eliminating traditional manual inspection processes such as hiring access equipment and scaffolds to gain access, which can cost thousands of dollars a day.  </div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>"Archicentre inspects thousands of properties a year around Australia in both the residential and commercial sector and the new Drone Inspection Service enables inspections of the most challenging roof and building through the UAV technology, without the architect inspector leaving the ground," he said.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Whilst the Drone is up in the air, an Archicentre Architect will control and view the footage via an iPad device and take photos of the roof and the building. They will zoom in specifically on defects such as cracking, corrosion, storm damage, guttering and facades.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"Archicentre incorporate the photographs as part of the Maintenance Advice Inspection Report with a description of the defect, outlining the defect position on the building as well as recommendations on how to repair it from a qualified architect."</div>
</div>
<div>
<div> </div>
<div>For further information <a href="https://www.archicentre.com.au/drone" target="_blank">click here</a>.</div>
<p> </p>
</div>
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Drones to play an increasing role in building inspections

<html><body>
<p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1"></p>
<p>The Australian drone industry is set for a shake up following the announcement of a long-awaited relaxation of regulations on their operation.</p>
<p>Australia’s Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) says the amended regulations will come into effect in late September 2016, and with them comes the introduction of new categories of what are known as remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS).</p>
<p>The regulations define new low-risk commercial RPAS operations, which will allow operators of sub-2kg craft to fly without the need for an approval or licence.</p>
<p>A drone must be operated in daytime and within visual line of sight of the remote pilot to be classified as low risk. It must not be flown over populous areas and must be kept at least 30 metres from other people.</p>
<p>The drone cannot be flown greater than 130m above ground and it must not be flown within 5.5km of a controlled airport.</p>
<p>Commercial operators in this new category will have to register their operations with CASA on a yet-to-be live website.</p>
<p>Relaxed regulations will also apply to private owners of RPAS of up to 150kg. This is provided they only fly their drone over their private property and they do not operate their aircraft for direct commercial reward.</p>
<h2>Why the change?</h2>
<p>In 2002, CASA was the first in the world to regulate the operation of drones.</p>
<p>The regulations, contained in Part 101 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR 1998), were long considered ground breaking. Much of the success of the Australian unmanned aircraft industry is owed to the flexible approach outlined in the regulations.</p>
<p>In 2007, there were fewer than 25 certified drone operators in Australia. By March 30, 2016, this number had grown to 500, with most operating small multi-rotor RPAS.</p>
<p>But with this rapid growth came the increasing need for regulatory reform. CASA recognised that the regulations needed to keep pace with increasingly capable technology, and the changing operational needs of the sector.</p>
<p>It also realised that processing an ever increasing number of regulatory applications was not sustainable.</p>
<h2>Welcome news</h2>
<p>The new changes will significantly reshape the drone industry.</p>
<p>Operators already licensed by CASA are expected to face increased competition from the new sub-2kg RPAS operators. These new operators will be able to provide equivalent aerial photography and inspection services without the same regulatory overhead.</p>
<p>Similarly, there will be an increase in the number of end-users choosing to own and operate their own internal RPAS capability instead of contracting existing RPAS service providers. Examples include the use of small inspection drones on building sites and the use of drones by tactical police units to assist them in hostage situations.</p>
<p>But it is not all doom and gloom for the current licensed RPAS operators. The standard operating conditions applicable to the new low-risk categories are restrictive.</p>
<p>Larger and more reliable drones will still be needed to carry bulky and more expensive payloads such as laser scanners, and hyper-spectral and cinema-quality cameras. These drones will still need to be operated by licensed operators.</p>
<p>Approval is still required for first person view (FPV) outdoor flying operations, where the remote pilot flies by means of a camera mounted on board the drone.</p>
<p>Similarly, autonomous drones, which operate without any input from a pilot, also require CASA approval on a case-by-case basis.</p>
<p>Research and educational institutions, such as universities, are also expected to benefit from the new categories, provided they operate their aircraft over their own property and in accordance with all other operational restrictions.</p>
<p>Previously, these institutions were subject to the same licensing requirements as commercial operators.</p>
<h2>Hobby users</h2>
<p>The amended regulations do not address concerns posed by the rapidly growing number of hobby drone users.</p>
<p>Regulations applicable to hobby or recreational users are contained in CASR 1998 Part 101.G, which is the subject of a separate CASA regulatory reform project.</p>
<p>There is growing concern over the risks hobby users pose to other aircraft and to members of the public. Some of these hobby users are not aware of the potential danger their drone may pose.</p>
<p>There have been numerous near misses of small drones with passenger aircraft in recent years. As the rate of these incidents increases, there is real concern that a drone will eventually be ingested into an aircraft engine causing catastrophic damage – or worse, an airline crash.</p>
<p>Others are well aware of the dangers their drones may pose to the public but they are deliberately mischievous anyway.</p>
<p>Education remains the only effective tool, with CASA leading a campaign to educate hobby users on the safe operation of their aircraft and the regulations that apply to them.</p>
<p>Without doubt, the release of the amended regulations will mark a significant milestone in the history of the Australian drone industry. They will help to sustain the safe and viable growth of the sector.</p>
<p>But the devil may still lie in the detail, of course, with the accompanying manual of standards yet to be released by CASA. The manual will contain more detailed requirements including those for remote pilot licences, flights in controlled airspace, and flights beyond visual line of sight of the pilot.</p>
<p>CASA’s exact interpretation of “Aerial Work” and “Commercial Reward” also remain unclear.</p>
<p><em><span class="fn author-name" style="line-height: 1.3em;">Reece Clothier is s</span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">enior lecturer, RMIT University and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/reece-clothier-248964" target="_blank">here</a>. </span><span class="fn author-name" style="line-height: 1.3em;">Jonathan Roberts is p</span><span style="line-height: 1.3em;">rofessor in robotics, Queensland University of Technology and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jonathan-roberts-94843" target="_blank">here</a>. Both are authors for The Conversation.</span></em></p>
</body></html>

Drones

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Drones

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News