Explanatory Statement
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998
CASA EX88/25 — Indoor Operation of RPA Near People and BVLOS (Training and Use) Exemption 2025
Purpose
The purpose of CASA EX88/25 — Indoor Operation of RPA Near People and BVLOS (Training and Use) Exemption 2025 (the instrument) is to renew CASA EX64/24 – Indoor Operation of RPA Near People and BVLOS – Training and Use – Renewal Exemption Instrument 2024 (CASA EX64/24) and extend its scope. CASA EX64/24 applied to police, whereas the instrument applies not only to police, but also to other organisations, named in the instrument, that carry out law enforcement, rescue or life-saving operations. The instrument would enable licensed remote pilots who work for the specified organisations to conduct such operations using specified types of smaller remotely-piloted aircraft (RPA), including in circumstances where the RPA may be flown inside a building, or other enclosed space, possibly with people inside.
Legislation
Exemptions
Section 98 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (the Act) empowers the Governor-General to make regulations for the Act and in the interests of the safety of air navigation. Relevantly, the Governor-General has made the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR).
Subpart 11.F of CASR provides for the granting of exemptions from particular provisions of the regulations. Subregulation 11.160(1) of CASR provides that, for subsection 98(5A) of the Act, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) may grant an exemption from compliance with a provision of the regulations.
Under subregulation 11.160(2) of CASR, an exemption may be granted to a person or a class of persons, and may specify the class by reference to membership of a specified body or any other characteristic.
Under subregulation 11.160(3) of CASR, an exemption may be granted on application by a person or on CASA’s own initiative.
Under subregulation 11.175(4) of CASR, in deciding whether to reissue an exemption, CASA must regard as paramount the preservation of at least an acceptable level of aviation safety. CASA has regard to the same test when deciding whether to grant an exemption on its own initiative.
Regulation 11.205 of CASR provides that CASA may impose conditions on an exemption if necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation. Under regulation 11.210, it is a strict liability offence (with a maximum penalty of 50 penalty units) not to comply with the obligations imposed by a condition.
Regulation 11.225 of CASR requires an exemption to be published on the internet. Under subregulation 11.230(1), the maximum duration of an exemption is 3 years.
CASR Part 101
Under regulation 101.073 of CASR, without a CASA approval, it is an offence to operate an unmanned aircraft that is not within the operator’s visual line of sight (beyond visual line of sight or BVLOS).
An unmanned aircraft is being operated within the visual line of sight if the person operating it can continually see, orient and navigate the aircraft to meet the person’s separation and collision avoidance responsibilities, with or without corrective lenses, but without the use of binoculars, a telescope or other similar device.
Under regulation 101.095 of CASR, without a relevant permission or approval, a person must not operate an unmanned aircraft in or into cloud, or at night, or in other than visual meteorological conditions.
Under regulation 101.245 of CASR, without a CASA approval, a person must not operate an RPA within 30 m of another person who is not directly associated with the actual operation of the RPA. For a very small, a small, or a medium RPA, the RPA may be operated within 15 m of the other person if they have consented.
In addition, under section 7 of CASA 20/25 – Operation of Certain Unmanned Aircraft and Rockets – Directions Instrument 2025, without an applicable approval or authorisation, a person controlling an RPA (or a model aircraft) must ensure that the aircraft is not operated in or over another person’s safety zone unless the other person has duties essential to the control or navigation of the aircraft. The safety zone is measured as a cylindrical volume of airspace around a person that rises from the ground or water surface (as applicable) that the person is on or above, which has a constant horizontal radius of 30 m from the person’s position.
Under regulation 101.280 of CASR, a person must not operate an RPA that does not have a certificate of airworthiness over a populous area at a height less than the height from which, if any of its components fails, it would be able to clear the area (the critical height).
Further, without a CASA approval, a person must not operate a certificated RPA over a populous area at less than the critical height.
Under subregulations 101.300(4) and (6) of CASR, it is a condition (among others) of a remote pilot licence that an RPA must be operated within the visual line of sight of the pilot unless the pilot is a certificated RPA operator approved to so operate, or a member of such an operator’s personnel. Contravention of the condition would be an offence.
Background
Generally, under Part 101 of CASR, an RPA must be operated within the visual line of sight of the operator, and not closer than 30 m from any third party. These rules impose serious constraints on organisations using RPA for the purposes of law enforcement, rescue or life‑saving. CASA EX64/24, and its predecessor instrument, CASA EX19/24, relaxed these rules for those kinds of operations when carried out by police, including operations where the RPA may be flown inside a building, or other enclosed space, possibly with people inside. The relaxation was subject to a range of safety conditions designed to address hazards and reduce or eliminate risks of injury, including detailed operating documents (documented practices and procedures) and risk assessments before operations.
CASA EX19/24 and CASA EX64/24 were made to allow the operations mentioned above on a trial basis. The Explanatory Statement for CASA EX64/24 sated that the intention of CASA EX19/24 was that it “would generate experiential flight data to inform a CASA decision on whether to prolong the duration of CASA EX19/24, and whether to extend its scope to other emergency service operations.”. CASA EX64/24 effectively renewed CASA EX19/24 in order to extend the trial period and gather more data.
The exemptions and conditions in CASA EX19/24 and CASA EX64/24 have been in operation for a combined duration of 18 months. During this period, CASA considers that it has accumulated sufficient experiential flight data and other operational information to safely prolong the operation of the exemptions and conditions, and to extend their scope to organisations, other than police, that conduct similar emergency services operations directly involved in rescuing or saving lives.
The conditions are described in detail in the “Content of instrument” section below, which also summarises the structure and other provisions of the instrument.
The instrument will be in force for a period of 3 years.
Overview of instrument
The instrument provides exemptions from the CASR provisions that require that an RPA must be operated within the visual line of sight of the operator, and not closer than 30 m from any third party, in relation to emergency services operations carried out by police and other specified organisations, which include firefighters, lifeguards and the Australian Defence Force.
The exemptions are subject to a range of safety conditions designed to address hazards and reduce or eliminate risks of injury, including detailed operating documents (documented practices and procedures) and risk assessments before operations.
For example, only a micro RPA (gross weight does not exceed 250 g) or a very small RPA (gross weight does not exceed 1 050 g) may be used at restricted speeds and heights. (The prescribed maximum gross weight of a very small RPA is otherwise not more than 2 kg.)
Different RPA operating speed restrictions apply depending on whether any person, who may be within 30 m or 5 m of a relevant RPA, is shielded by obstacles or unshielded. In the latter case, for example, the RPA must have no exposed rotating parts that could lacerate human skin upon impact.
The RPA may not come closer to a person than 1 m and must be operated at the slowest practicable speed, including use of the hover, that is consistent with achieving a successful outcome to the operation.
The RPA must never be used intentionally, incidentally, or accidently as a means of force. This condition is supported by the requirement that a relevant operation must not commence unless the risk of serious injury to a person is assessed as being so low that there is minimal probability of it occurring.
The RPA may only move in a direction where the remote pilot has visibility of the area in the direction of travel, whether that visibility is obtained through the remote pilot’s own eyes, the use of an observer, or the use of live electronic images available to the remote pilot.
An emergency services operator must not conduct an operation under the instrument until CASA has approved its documented practices and procedures in relation the operation.
An emergency services operator that has used, or that intends to use, the instrument must make arrangements, on written request by an Executive Manager of CASA, for a CASA officer to observe a relevant operation at CASA’s expense. Additionally, an operator must report to CASA the details of any operation under the instrument in which an RPA impacts a person or damages any property during the operation.
Content of instrument
Section 1 names the instrument.
Section 2 sets out the duration of the instrument as follows: it commences on 1 October 2025 and is repealed at the end of 30 September 2028.
Section 3 sets out definitions for the instrument, including: beyond visual line of sight or BVLOS, remote pilot, shield, transit operation and unshielded person.
emergency service RPA operation or ESRO is defined as an operation by an emergency service RPA operator involving an RPA that is for:
(a) law enforcement purposes using the RPA; or
(b) the purpose of saving or protecting persons or property using the RPA.
emergency service RPA operator is defined as one of the following organisations, that is an RPA operator that may lawfully conduct an ESRO:
(a) a police force or service;
(b) the Australian Defence Force;
(c) the Australian Maritime Safety Authority;
(d) the Australian Border Force;
(e) a State or Territory fire service;
(f) a State or Territory emergency service;
(g) a State or Territory parks, wildlife, or forestry service;
(h) a State, Territory or Commonwealth lifeguard service.
internal operation is defined, broadly, as the operation of an RPA within a building, structure or natural space (for example, a cave) near people and includes the operation of the RPA through open air to and from the building.
relevant operation is defined as the use of an RPA in an internal operation for the purpose of an ESRO.
relevant RPA, or RPA, means a micro RPA, or a very small RPA whose gross weight does not exceed 1 050 g.
RPA operator is defined as an emergency services RPA operator who holds a remotely piloted aircraft operator’s certificate issued by CASA.
shielded operation is defined, broadly, as an operation where there is a solid physical barrier (other than a moving vehicle) between the RPA and any nearby people. Under the instrument, for operations that are not shielded, stricter conditions apply to the speed and height limitations for the RPA.
Section 4 provides that the instrument applies only to RPA operators and remote pilots who are sworn police officers, or employees or members of the other kinds of emergency services RPA operators. The instrument also applies to training for the relevant operations.
Subsection 5(1) sets out the exemptions in the instrument from the relevant provisions of CASR, set out above, as follows:
(a) regulation 101.073 (for BVLOS);
(b) regulation 101.095 (for weather, and day only, limitations);
(c) regulation 101.245 (for operations near people);
(d) regulation 101.280 (for operations over a populous area);
(e) paragraph 101.300(4)(b) (for certain remote pilot licence conditions);
(f) subregulation 101.300(6), but only in respect of paragraph 101.300(4)(b) (concerning offences).
Subsection 5(2) imposes the safety conditions that are set out in Schedule 1.
Schedule 1 sets out the conditions on the exemptions in section 5.
Clause 1 sets out a general condition that all the relevant conditions must be complied with.
Clause 2 provides that, before a relevant operation is conducted, a risk assessment must be carried out in accordance with the RPA operator’s documented practices and procedures. It must take into account all factors that may cause the relevant RPA to impact on a person or property, including:
(a) the causes and consequences of possible RPA mode interruption, malfunction or failure; and
(b) the possibility that an RPA speed increase may be required in accordance with paragraph 4.5(b).
A relevant operation must not commence unless:
(a) the risk of serious injury to a person is assessed as being so low that there is minimal probability of it occurring; and
(b) the risk of damage to any property is assessed as being as low as reasonably practicable in the circumstances.
Clause 3 provides that the relevant RPA must not be used by a remote pilot as a use of force.
Under subclause 4.1, the RPA may be operated within 30 m of a person provided that the RPA:
(a) comes no closer than 1 m from the person; and
(b) is operated at the slowest practicable speed, consistent with a successful outcome to the operation; and
(c) only moves in a direction where the remote pilot has visibility of the area in the direction of travel, whether that visibility is obtained through the remote pilot’s own eyes, the use of an observer, or the use of live electronic images available to the remote pilot; and
(d) does not exceed the prescribed speed limitations or height restrictions; and
(e) for an operation involving an unshielded person — has no exposed rotating parts that could lacerate human skin upon impact.
A Note explains that for a relevant operation that is a shielded operation there are no requirements that the RPA have no exposed rotating parts that could lacerate human skin upon impact. However, CASA strongly recommends that, as far as practicable, for all relevant operations, the RPA should have no exposed rotating parts that could lacerate human skin upon impact.
Subclause 4.2 provides that, before a relevant operation commences, the RPA flight controller must be set:
(a) to limit the maximum speed of the RPA to 5 m/sec; and
(b) in such a manner that only an intentional and deliberate overriding action by the remote pilot could cause that maximum speed to be exceeded.
Under subclause 4.3, for a relevant operation that is a shielded operation, the speed limitation of the RPA is 5 m/sec, with a height restriction of 3 m. A Note explains that paragraphs 4.1(a), (b) and (c) still apply to a shielded operation.
Subclause 4.4 provides that, for a relevant operation involving any unshielded person, the speed limitations and the height restrictions are tabulated in Table 4.4, which is reproduced below.
Table 4.4 — For unshielded persons
Item |
| Less than 30 m but not less than 5 m | Less than 5 m but not less than 1 m |
1 | Speed | Up to 3 m/sec | Up to 1.5 m/sec |
2 | Increased speed | Up to 5 m/sec | The speed may not be increased |
3 | Height | Up to 5 m | Up to 3 m |
Under subclause 4.5, when operating an RPA within the distance from a person mentioned in the Table:
(a) the speed of the RPA must not exceed the mentioned speed; and
(b) the speed may be increased but only if the risk assessment has covered the safety implications of the increased speed; and
(c) the height of the RPA above the ground or floor of the internal place must not exceed the applicable height mentioned in item 3 of the column.
Subclause 4.6 provides that there must be no continuous overflight of any person or moving vehicle.
Under clause 5, for a transit operation to approach to or depart from an internal place, the RPA must not be flown at a height greater than the height of the tallest structure within 150 m horizontally of the RPA.
Under subclause 6.1, the RPA operator’s documented practices and procedures must include a range of details, including the following:
(a) relevant prescribed details of the actual RPA to be used, and the failsafe method to ensure that, when required, there are no exposed rotating parts of the RPA that could lacerate human skin upon impact;
(b) if RPA speed and height restrictions are used to meet the requirements under clause 4 — instructions for the remote pilot and any other operating crew to ensure compliance with the requirements;
(c) details of how a shield is assessed as fit for purpose in a proposed relevant operation;
(d) both:
(i) details of how the remote pilot will monitor the control link integrity for the RPA; and
(ii) the procedures for loss of link;
(e) procedures for the training and testing of relevant individuals in relation to conducting a relevant operation;
(f) procedures for making and retaining records of the matters mentioned in paragraph (e);
(g) how, for all for relevant operations, risk assessments are to be conducted, documented, made available to relevant individuals, and retained;
(h) abnormal operating procedures related to internal operations;
(i) a copy of the instrument.
Under subclause 6.2, a relevant operation must be conducted in accordance with the RPA operator’s documented practices and procedures.
Subclause 6.3 provides that, an RPA operator must not conduct an ESRO unless CASA has approved the RPA operator’s documented practices and procedures in respect of the ESRO.
Subclause 6.4 provides that, in the event of conflict or inconsistency between anything in the instrument and the documented practices and procedures, the instrument is to prevail.
Under clause 7, if an RPA impacts a person or damages any property during a relevant operation, the details of the operation must be provided by the RPA operator to CASA within 72 hours of completion of the operation.
Clause 8 provides that an RPA operator that has used, or that intends to use, this instrument must make arrangements, on written request by an Executive Manager of CASA, for a CASA officer to observe a relevant operation at CASA’s expense.
Legislation Act 2003 (the LA)
Paragraph 98(5A)(a) of the Act provides that the regulations may empower CASA to issue instruments in relation to matters affecting the safe navigation and operation, or the maintenance, of aircraft. Additionally, paragraph 98(5AA)(a) of the Act provides that an instrument issued under paragraph 98(5A)(a) is a legislative instrument if the instrument is expressed to apply in relation to a class of persons. The instrument exempts a class of persons from complying with various provisions of CASR, namely the State, Territory and Commonwealth organisations listed in the definition of emergency service RPA operators and remote pilots who are members or employees of those organisations. The instrument is, therefore, a legislative instrument, and is subject to tabling and disallowance in the Parliament under sections 38 and 42 of the LA.
Sunsetting
Part 4 of Chapter 3 of the LA (the sunsetting provisions) does not apply to the instrument, because the instrument relates to aviation safety and is made under CASR (item 15 of the table in section 12 of the Legislation (Exemptions and Other Matters) Regulation 2015).
However, this instrument will be repealed at the end of 30 September 2028, which will occur before the sunsetting provisions would have repealed the instrument if they had applied. Any renewal of the instrument will be subject to tabling and disallowance in the Parliament under sections 38 and 42 of the LA. Therefore, the exemption from sunsetting does not affect parliamentary oversight of this instrument.
Consultation
Consultation under section 17 of the LA has not been undertaken in this case. However, CASA developed CASA EX19/24 and CASA EX64/24 in close consultation with the relevant police forces. Additionally, CASA has undertaken informal consultation with a number of the organisations who are not police regarding the instrument, including but not limited to State fire and rescue services, who have indicated strong support for the instrument. In these circumstances, CASA is satisfied that no further consultation is appropriate or reasonably practicable for this instrument for section 17 of the LA.
Sector risk, economic and cost impact
Economic and cost impact
Subsection 9A(1) of the Act states that, in exercising its powers and performing its functions, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration. Subsection 9A(3) of the Act states that, subject to subsection (1), in developing and promulgating aviation safety standards under paragraph 9(1)(c), CASA must:
(a) consider the economic and cost impact on individuals, businesses and the community of the standards; and
(b) take into account the differing risks associated with different industry sectors.
The cost impact of a standard refers to the direct cost (in the sense of price or expense) which a standard would cause individuals, businesses and the community to incur. The economic impact of a standard refers to the impact a standard would have on the production, distribution and use of wealth across the economy, at the level of the individual, relevant businesses in the aviation sector, and the community more broadly. The economic impact of a standard could also include the general financial impact of that standard on different industry sectors.
In terms of economic and cost impacts for subsection 9A(3) of the Act, the instrument imposes no direct or indirect cost impacts on any relevant parties.
Sector risks
The instrument is operative for 3 years with respect to specific unmanned aircraft used by Australian police forces and the other named organisations involved in law enforcement, rescue or life-saving operations.
Impact on categories of operations
The instrument is likely to have a beneficial effect on law enforcement, rescue or life-saving operations by providing greater flexibility to operators carrying out such operations, in circumstances where it may be more advantageous, safer or more possible to send an RPA into an enclosed area rather than people.
Impact on regional and remote communities
The instrument is likely to have a beneficial effect on regional communities inasmuch as the operations enabled by the instrument take place in those communities.
Office of Impact Analysis (OIA)
An Impact Analysis (IA) is not required in this case, as the exemption is covered by a standing agreement between CASA and OIA under which an IA is not required for exemptions (OIA reference number: OIA23-06252).
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
The Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights at Attachment 1 has been prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
Making and commencement
The instrument has been made by a delegate of CASA relying on the power of delegation under subregulation 11.260(1) of CASR.
The instrument commences on 1 October 2025 and is repealed at the end of 30 September 2028.
Attachment 1
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011
CASA EX88/25 — Indoor Operation of RPA Near People and BVLOS (Training
and Use) Exemption 2025
This legislative instrument is compatible with the human rights and freedoms
recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the
Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
Overview of the legislative instrument
The purpose of CASA EX88/25 — Indoor Operation of RPA Near People and BVLOS (Training and Use) Exemption 2025 (the instrument) is to enable licensed remote pilots who work for specified organisations involved in law enforcement, rescue or life-saving operations, to conduct such operations using specified types of smaller remotely-piloted aircraft (RPA), including in circumstances where the RPA may be flown inside a building, or other enclosed space, possibly with people inside.
The instrument provides exemptions from the CASR provisions that require that an RPA must be operated within the visual line of sight of the operator, and not closer than 30 m from any third party, in relation to law enforcement, rescue or life-saving operations carried out by police and other specified emergency services operators, which include firefighters, lifeguards and the Australian Defence Force.
The exemptions are subject to a range of safety conditions designed to address hazards and reduce or eliminate risks of injury, including detailed operating documents (documented practices and procedures) and risk assessments before operations.
Human rights implications
The instrument engages with the right to life under Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR) (to the effect that every individual has the right to life, protected by law, and without being arbitrarily deprived of it).
The instrument will have indirect effects on the right to life under the ICCPR, given that it enables the use of RPA in law enforcement, rescue or life-saving operations, which usually feature circumstances that involve a risk to personal safety. Its detailed safety conditions are designed to ensure the safe conduct of the organisations operating under the instrument, and of law enforcement, rescue and life-saving operations that use or are supported by RPA. The conditions are also designed to protect bystanders who are not operating the RPA.
Conclusion
The instrument is compatible with human rights and to the extent that it may engage certain rights it does so in a way that promotes the right to life. The measures in the instrument are considered to be reasonable, necessary and proportionate in the interests of aviation safety.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority