There has always been a ‘grey area’ when it comes to deciding to operate under the Excluded Category (Ex-Cat) rules or in the Included Category (ReOC) or both.
The rationale for using Ex-Cat has typically been “less compliance, means less paperwork, which means more efficient operations”.
But is this actually true?
Well, this doesn't usually consider the regulatory and civil liability risk associated with operating in Ex-Cat. These risks are typically not well understood (by all levels within organisations).
To help with this, we are lucky to be joined by Tom Pils (Macmillan’s Drone Lawyer) who unpacks what it actually means to operate in Ex-Cat from a regulatory and civil liability perspective.
In this interview we dive into the risks you are actually exposed to, common pitfalls, industry examples, and as well as his recommendations and insights into how to avoid these so you can keep your drones in the sky, and out of the courtroom.
Excluded RPA operations are separate from ReOC operations and cannot be conducted under a ReOC, with CASA presuming ReOC operations unless evidence of excluded operation is provided.
The Damage by Aircraft Act imposes strict liability for injuries caused by aircraft, making recovery easier for those injured, with employers typically liable for aircraft-related damages.
Vicarious liability makes employers responsible for employee damage during employment, subject to scope of work and negligence, highlighting the importance of clear job descriptions and company policies.
Excluded RPA operations must adhere to specific conditions, including operating within visual line of sight, below 400ft AGL, during daylight hours, and maintaining a 30m cylinder rule from people.
Excluded RPA operators must maintain operational logs, remote pilot logs, and technical logs, with additional requirements for medium excluded operations.
Personal liability for fines and penalties applies to pilots, even when employed by an organization, with CASA potentially using previous infringements to increase penalties.
Strict liability offenses in drone regulations, such as flying above 400 feet, are presumed breached regardless of intent, with the only defence being an honest and reasonable mistake of fact.
Consequential loss insurance covers damages beyond direct loss but is often excluded in contracts to limit liability, as it can significantly expand the scope of potential claims.