I recently read a report in RT America, that the FAA expects that there could be 7,500 unmanned aerial vehicles (they refer to them as drones) operating in the USA within a decade. Further, the Teal Research Group estimates that global drone spending may reach $11.2 Billion by 2022. I assume this figure includes military spending which currently surpasses civil spending by a considerable margin.
In Australia, we have seen a steady growth of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) used in civil operations. Australia introduced legislation to enable commercial operations in 2001; and at the time led the world in providing a regulatory framework to enable civil operations.
The USA FAA is currently drafting similar guidelines and legislation to satisfy the Congress requirement to have a regulatory framework in place by 2015. I understand that, among other things, this would require an amendment to the FAA Modernization and Reform Act to require law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant before using surveillance drones on US soil except in emergencies.
Recent Australian reports cite renewed concerns about privacy in UAV operations. It is possible to purchase a relatively inexpensive UAV and rig it with a camera which can be used for inappropriate or even nefarious purposes. Reports of animal activists groups spying on cattle feedlots and similar invasive operations coupled with almost daily media reports of military spying and target operations have raised privacy concerns by the general public. Notwithstanding, that I believe, most if not all legitimate UAV Commercial operators are law abiding and responsible in the use of their systems.
Interestingly, it is reported that the proposed FAA legislation would bar the FAA from offering UAV permits unless the license application, “includes a data collection statement that explains who will operate the drone, where the drone will be flown, what kind of data will be collected, how that data will be used, whether the information will be sold to third parties, and the period for which the information will be retained.” This may appear to reflect the USA public's amplified concern for citizen’s freedoms and privacy, but the underlying public message is, “Don’t use these aircraft for inappropriate spying operations”.
To address this concern, the USA’s has introduced a Bill, “The Drone Aircraft Privacy and Transparency Act of 2013” in a belts and braces attempt to protect its citizens privacy by private companies and Government agencies alike.
Generally, I am an advocate for smaller government and less regulation, but Australia has already experienced some inappropriate use of UAVs by private individuals. The potential is real and the consequences may be significant. Maybe, as the number of UAVs increases and sophistication of the aircraft and the camera gear on board improves, there is some justification for our Government to consider measures to address legitimate privacy concerns.
The unmanned aerial vehicle industry is considered to be the next big opportunity in the aerospace industry. This sector of the industry is reported to be worth about US$3.4 billion annually and is expected to grow to US$7 billion in the next 10 years.
A number of UAV research organizations and manufacturers are already based in Australia. Australia was at the forefront of regulating unmanned aerial systems (UAS) which consist of the UAV and the supporting ground based systems. It made and implemented Civil Aviation Safety Regulation (CASR) Part 101 a few years ago, and I understand has issued a small number of operating certificates to organizations using this equipment. Click here to see CASR Part 101.
Other large aviation countries have not yet made rules to regulate unmanned systems, although have formed committees to start the process. The FAA for example, has recently formed a committee to make the rules but it is unlikely that these will be completed until about 2011. I note that the South African CAA has also done likewise. Notwithstanding, many of these countries have good guidance material which assists industry in research and development.
The stumbling block has always been about the protection of people on the ground and other airspace users. The air traffic managment issues are real if the aircraft has a serious failure and control is lost. System redundancy and emerging sense and avoid technology may be the answer nervous regulators are looking for.
Another issue of concern, but one which may also accellerate regulation of UAS is that of security. Use of military UAV in recent conflicts has proven that they can be a potent weapon or an effective surveillance platform.
All of this points to a good opportunity for Australia which has not been lost on the Federal Governement and the Queensland State Government in particular. Queensland often markets itself as the "Smart State" and one which actively touts for aerospace business. It is a major sponsor the the Queensland UAV Outback Challenge which is an annual event held in Kingaroy. Click here to see the website. Australia has fairly simple and uncluttered airspace and wide open spaces; ideal for testing UAVs. It also has the capability for research, developement and manufacturing UAS equipment.
The Part 101 rule was a really good attempt at regulating this emerging industry sector, but some minor problems were dsiscovered in the implementation. These rules need to be reviewed in light of the changing social and technological environment to ensure that Australia remains in the forefront of UAS regulation. A complementary review of CASA's processes should be undertaken to ensure best possible efficiency and effectiveness of its regulatory function.
