Not here to cause trouble however need to ensure things are clear with CASA and unmanned aircraft operations (all contained in CASA 101 regulations)
Specifically :
"101.085 Maximum operating height
A person must not operate an unmanned aircraft at above 400 feet AGL
except:
(a) in an area approved under regulation 101.030 as an area for the
operation of unmanned aircraft of the same class as the aircraft
concerned, and in accordance with any conditions of the approval;
or
(b) as otherwise permitted by this Part. "
Source http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/rules/1998casr/101/101c03.pdf
additionally backed here:
http://www.rpastraining.com.au/casr-101-uav-drone-legal-or-illegal
remember 1500 ft in your area is there lowest height however the Aviation authority wish there to be a 1000FT seperation for safety between us and them therefore the 400ft applies. Permission can be granted for exception however this is on a case by case situation.
Without predujice
Jody
Hi Jody,
Not wanting to be argumentative but you are looking at a very narrow piece of text, you need to consider the full regulation to understand what that part is saying.
Yes 101.085 applies, note the text "as otherwise permitted by this part". Note that 101.400 is the key here, which is in sub part 101.G
We fly under model aircraft rules which is sub part 101.G. Sub Parts A, B and C also apply.
101.400 Operation of model aircraft outside approved areas
(1) A person may operate a model aircraft outside an approved area above 400 feet AGL only if he or she:
(a) keeps it in sight; and
(b) keeps it clear of populous areas.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
Note 1: For populous area, see regulation 101.025.
Note 2: CASA must publish details of the approval of an area (including any conditions) in NOTAM or on an aeronautical chart—see subregulation 101.030(5).
(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.
Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
Populous areas are well defined in the regulation. A park that I was at is not a populous area if there are few or no people present. If a cricket game was underway then it would be a populous area. There are also provisions to stay out of controlled airspace.
Trust me the regulation is not what CASA wants. Note that commerical UAV sub part has no easy get out of jail free card in it, that is why the RPA's training material says what it does. I disagree with it being pushed by CASA, they need to change their regulations then educate people. Trying to educate people while not have any legal standing for it is wrong and a waste of tax payer dollars.
Also like CASA claiming that controlled airspace covers all of Sydney, sure it does but it has a floor to it too, think of an upside down stepped cone. No one in the aviation industry (or in the legal world) would look at it any other way.
On the separation issue, that is a true, separation is key but again that is not what is legislated. I do need to get out of any full size aircraft way and am extremely unlikely (nor do I want to be) to ever be in that position. Simply I'm in Class G airspace and requires a visual separation (vertical and horizontal) to be maintained, as a modeler I am expected to yield to all full size (as it should be).
I've debated this particular regulation elsewhere. I fully believe it will be changed in the review this year, but at present there are few limitations on us modelers. Please note that CASA AC's are not considered regulations or rules, they are guidelines to follow - of course they would impact in a court case as it would be considered best practice.
Regards,
Chris
