I agree Bob. Is it because they don't know have some sort of measure to assess an operator competent as yet? So it's a case of BAK and PPL will do for now until they will have to sit down with those involved to work out what knowledge is relevent/required and come up with a syllabus of training.
What an amazing demonstration. It will be interesting to see what other applications they will find for these machine to do.
PPL minimum and in visual contact with the UAV (up to 400ft and outside of 3nm from an airport) and IREX if operating the UAV out of sight via FPV (outside of the 400ft and 3nm restrictions) I think is logical........ As a CPL H driver and a UAV operator I'd like to think the UAV operator has some idea of what they are doing and talking to. After all it is a commercial aviation related operation!
I still think the theory requirements are crazy. The IREX syllabus concentrates heavily on recency requirements for an IFR pilot, interpretation of ADF and VOR indications, planning for an alternate aerodrome, calculating climb gradients, minimum equipment required for IFR charter, private and aerial work - with and without passengers. The list goes on.
PPL theory includes carburettor icing, detonation, passenger briefs, the one-in-sixty rule for navigation and carriage of animals. Can someone tell me what all that has got to do with flying a UAV?
I'd go along with an air law type exam and radio procedures, but the present requirement is just the result of lazy thinking.
I agree totally with your comments and also that a IREX exam needs to be written and suited for the UAV operators. Hopefully CASA will get this reviewed with the help from industry feed back sooner than later as the UAV industry will suffer from the lack of experienced controllers.
A lot of UAV operator's are finding it hard going due to it and with a shortage of controllers with that sort of knowledge let alone the operational experience to fly in that type of airspace would seem very daunting and operationally frustrating.
Topic Author
