licensing & Operation of Drone

MAIN BODY

Charge related to licence

Issue related to the case law :

Paul has given drone to Oscar which he uses to deliver gift to Paul's daughter Isabel to her birthday party. During the session of flying the drone and delivering gift to Isabel things went awry and resulted in hurting two children, Max with physical injury on his head and another Fiona with a nervous shock. Peter, father of Fiona who is also a police officer got angry about the incident and filed a compliant against Oscar in local police station. He was charged with failing for holding a licence nuder section 6 of The Civil Aviation(Regulation for Drone) Act 2017. He has been charged for flying drone without a licence.

Law related to licensing of drone :

Getting licence and a certification to fly a drone :

Getting licensed or certified is compulsory if you want to fly a drone commercially. The weight range for drone is divided on to two categories: firstly for drones weighing between 100 gm to 2 kg and secondly in drones weighing more than 2 kg. For the first category one can fly drone in excluded category (Jones, 2017). This means the person is not needed to notify the CASA (Australia's Civil Aviation Safety Authority) before flying and operating within the standard operating conditions.

For flying drone commercially outside the standards or when the weight of drone exceeds 2 kg a person is needed to take licence or certification to fly. For individual operation and flying drone a Remote pilot licence(Repl) is needed. The operators of more than one drone needs a remotely piloted aircraft operators certificate(Reoc) who can appoint someone to operate drone under them. An individual appointed by an operator holding a Reoc is required to hold a Repl to fly and operate a drone.

For flying drone recreationally means to fly them for fun at home or play grounds (Flying Drones, 2018). This is done not for earning purpose that is person flying the drone will nit get any compensation or consideration for flying. The flying does not involve performance of any service for any person or organisation (Young, and Nean, 2016). The flying is operated within a sight of vision. But it shall be done within the guidelines of safety.

Rules related to flying drone recreationally or for fun: these rules are made to keep people on ground and in the air safe. These rules do not apply to persons who holds Repl and Reoc or have an authorization from CASA. The rules are stated a below:

• One must fly the drone unto a height of 120 meters or 400 ft above ground.
• The drone must not be flown over or near as area which affects the public safety or an act of emergency operation e.g. an incident of car accident.
• It shall not be flown within 30 meters of people.
• Fly one drone at a time.
• One must fly drone at day time and keep it in visual line of sight means keep an eye on drone and fly it without wearing any goggles or seeing it on a video screen.
• It shall not be flown over people including festivals, sporting ovals, parks, busy roads, footpaths and populated beaches.
• A drone shall not be operated in restricted and prohibited areas.
• A drone must not be flown in a way such that it creates a hazard to another aircraft, person or property.
• In case the weight of drone exceeds 100 gm then, the distance maintained from controlled aerodromes shall be 5.5 km.

Application of Law related to licensing and operation of drone in the case law:

In the given case Oscar was flying the drone in the night time in the padlock of his brothers house. The drone was flown over the children in the party (Clarke and Moses, 2014). Oscar was flying drone to give Isabel her gift a stuffed toy an owl by that drone. The idea was great but was implemented by Oscar without any speculation of miss happening which can occur while giving the gift to Isabel. There are many violations to the rules stated for flying of drone for fun or recreationally. These were flying drone at a night time. The drone was flying below the specified limit of 400 ft that lead to injury max with the rotor blades of drone on his forehead (Meuleners and et.al., 2016). It was flown within 30 meters of people present which is another violation to the rules. The visual of drone carrying a toy owl also gives a nervous shock to Fiona who has a bad experience with big owl last year at a camp.

Conclusion :

With the help of the rules sated by law in the present case it can be concluded that Oscar did not have any ill intention by flying drone at birthday day party of her niece Isabel. But misfortune happened and two children were in injured one physically and another mentally. It is also found that Oscar was in guilty for neglecting the rules established for flying drone for fun or recreationally. He can nit be fined or prosecuted for flying without licence as he was not flying the drone commercially. He was flying the drone without any knowledge of the rules stated in this regard.

Oscar is liable for nominal fine or punishment for injury caused to max, but he not held liable for a nervous shock to Fiona because he was unaware of her experience and cannot knew such a detail about a stranger.

Charge related to injury caused by Drone

Issue related to case law :

Max a guest at the birthday party of Isabel got injured by the rotor blades of the drone handled by Oscar uncle of Isabel (Yao and et.al., 2017). Oscar was giving his gift a stuffed toy owl to Isabel through the drone. In the process harry the dog of Paul and Cathy are patents of Isabel got interested in the toy and started running behind the drone. Oscar tries to take drone inside the home and in all this hassle max got injured and resulted in lacerations to max and got few stitches on forehead. The drone got crashed on the floor and harry tore apart the toy owl seeing this another guest Fiona got distressed and found difficult to breath, letter she was taken to hospital and kept there for overnight observation for suffering a nervous shock.

Law related to penalties for injury caused by drone :

An injury caused to any person due to drone can be in form of a cut, bruise graze, rupture or any other wound. It can be severe or minor(Corcoran, 2014). The person who was in charge of the drone is liable for fine or imprisonment or both if found guilty. The injury so caused must be proved to be done by the drone. A relation between the drone and person operating shall also be established. In lack of both the above mentioned criteria the person can not be held liable for injury caused by drone.

The civil Aviation (drone regulation) Act 2017, provides standard and safeguards for use of drone in trade and commerce in civil society(Koh, and et.al., 2018). This act also insures that those who sustains either personal or property damage by a drone weather in commercial or recreational use, have means to seek compensation.

Any person who is operation a drone and that injures another person is guilty of committing offence which is punishable by a fine up to $250000 for a first offence and with an imprisonment of up to 5 years for second and subsequent offences. This legislation is also applicable for an offence committed in times of peace. One condition for non applicability of this regulation is when an injury is caused during the times of war. This means an injury caused by a drone at any time except during war is a punishable offence.

Application of law :

With the reference of case of Oscar with his drone and applicable law stated in the law it can be stated that any person who get injured form a drone is liable for a compensation. The person who is liable for such an act of injury is liable for punishments in form of fine or imprisonment. According to law it is necessary to establish a relationship between the drone and its operator. In the present case all the people at the party are eyewitness for the injury caused by drone (Finn, 2017). It is also very clear that the drone was operated by Oscar. It is not yet clear about the ownership of the drone as Paul has given drone to Oscar weather as a gift or just for operating. For the incident it can be said that drone belongs to Oscar and he was liable for the incident and injuries to children. with the reference of law a person can seek compensation for a physical injury or a property damage but it is not mentioned anywhere that a person who have sustained a mental injury can also seek compensation. Get Online Assignment Help at lowest cost by Australia.

Conclusion :

from the reference of above mention law and its application it can be stated that Oscar is in the breach of the section 7 injury by drone of The civil Aviation (drone regulation) Act 2017. the section 7 says that if a physical injury or a property damaged is suffered by any person due to an operator of drone while flying it is liable to foe compensation. Here in this case Max who has suffered a cut on his forehead by rotor blades of drone operated by Oscar is liable to seek compensation. With the help of above mentioned law it is clear that only a person with physical injury can claim compensation so Fiona who has suffered as nervous shock is not liable for any compensation. Fiona has not suffered any physical injury on compensation claim can be made by her and her father. This is the first offence committed by Oscar while flying a drone, thought he will not be prosecuted with imprisonment but will have to pay s compensation to max. the amount of compensation will be fixed by the Civil Aviation authorities under the Act.

CONCLUSION

You May Also Visit : Evaluating Growth Opportunities-Allied Worldwide Ltd

From the above report we can conclude that the laws related to fly a drone in Australia has become for prominent with the implementation of The Civil Aviation (Drone Regulation) Act, 2017. this act lays down all the regulations related to a drone weather it is related to licensing or operation of a drone or penalties attached to it in case of injury or other harm or miscount. Form the above report it is also concluded that Oscar was flying the drone in a good faith to give a surprise to his niece Isabel. Oscar was nor needed to get himself a licence to fly the drone because he was flying for fun and recreation, it was mandatory for him to follow and comply with the rules stated for flying a drone without certification or a licence. He did not, so he is liable for punishment under the law of civil aviation drone regulation.

REFERENCES

• Clarke, R. and Moses, L. B., 2014. The regulation of civilian drones' impacts on public safety.Computer Law & Security Review.30(3). pp.263-285.
• Corcoran, M. A., 2014.The rise of drone journalism 2012-13: the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (Drones) as airborne camera platforms by the media: potential news gathering applications and the privacy, safety, regulatory and editorial implications of deploying this emerging teJones, T., 2017.Young, T. and Nean, S., 2016.Clarke, R. and Moses, L. B., 2014Yao, Y and et.al., 2017Corcoran, M. A., 2014Koh, C.H., and et.al., 2018Finn, A., 2017Meuleners, L and et.al., 2016Flying Drones . 2018chnology(Doctoral dissertation).
• Finn, A., 2017. Vinyard technology: Real time detection of extreme weather events in vineyards.Wine & Viticulture Journa.32(3). p.31.
• Jones, T., 2017.International Commercial Drone Regulation and Drone Delivery Services.(No. RR-1718/3-RC). RR-1718/3-RC.
• Koh, C.H., and et.al., 2018. Experimental and Simulation Weight Threshold Study for Safe Drone Operations. In2018 AIAA Information Systems-AIAA Infotech@ Aerospace.(p. 1725).
• Meuleners, L and et.al., 2016. The DIAMOND Study: Diverging Diamond Interchanges in Western Australia: PerforMance.Age (years).17(24). p.16.