A Study on the Australian Law Regarding RPAS (Remotely Piloted Aircraft System): Need for an International Approach

  • Wheeler, Joseph (International Aerospace Law & Policy Group (IALPG), Maurice Blackburn) ;
  • Lee, Jae-Woon (Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, IALPG)
  • Received : 2015.12.06
  • Accepted : 2015.12.26
  • Published : 2015.12.30

Abstract

This article surveys the current international law with respect to RPAS from both the public air law and private air law perspectives. It then reviews current and proposed Australian domestic RPAS regulation while emphasizing the peculiar risks in operation of RPAS; and how they affect concepts of liability, safety and privacy. While RPAS operations still constitute only a small portion of total operations within commercial aviation, international pilotless flight for commercial air transport remains a future reality. As the industry is developing so quickly the earlier the pursuit of the right policy solutions begins, the better the law will be able to cope with the technological realities when the inevitable risks manifest in accidents. The paper acknowledges that a domestic or regional approach to RPAS, typified by the legislative success of the Australian experience, is and continues to be the principal measure to deal with RPAS issues globally. Furthermore, safety remains the foremost factor in present and revised Australian RPAS regulation. This has an analogue to the international situation. Creating safety-related rules is imperative and must precede the creation or adoption of liability rules because the former mitigates the risk of accidents which trigger the application of the latter. The flipside of a lack of binding airworthiness standards for RPAS operators is potentially a strong argument that the liability regime (and particularly strict liability of operators) is unfair and unsuited to pilotless flight. The potential solutions the authors raise include the need for revised ICAO guidance and, in particular, SARPs with respect to RPAS air safety, airworthiness, and potentially liability issues for participants/passengers, and those on the ground. Such guidance could then be adapted swiftly for appropriate incorporation into domestic laws bypassing the need for or administrative burden and time it would take to activate the treaty process to deal with an arm of aviation that states know all too well is in need of safety regulation and monitoring.

본 논문은 무인항공기 관련 현행 국제법을 국제항공공법과 국제항공사법의 관점에서 조사하고, 무인항공기관련 현행 호주 국내법과 입법 예고된 호주 국내법을 무인항공기 운항에 따른 위험요소 (민사책임, 안전, 사생활보호)에 중점을 두면서 검토한다. 현재 전체 상업용 비행에서 무인항공기 운항이 차지하는 비율은 미미한 수준이지만, 상업용 목적의 국제무인항공비행은 현실이 될 것이다. 무인기 관련산업이 빠르게 발전하고 있으므로, 빠른 시일 내에 정책적인 해결방안이 연구되어야만, 무인항공기관련 위험요소들이 실제로 일어났을 때 적절하게 대응할 수 있는 법규범이 만들어 질 수 있을 것이다. 호주의 무인항공기관련 성공적인 국내입법에서 보듯이, 국내법적 또는 지역단위의 접근이 무인항공기 관련 문제를 주도하고 있고, 계속해서 주도할 것이다. 안전문제는 호주의 현행 입법 예고된 무인항공기관련 법규에 가장 중요한 요소이고, 국제적으로도 마찬가지이다. 안전관련 법규를 만드는 것은 매우 중요하고, 민사책임 관련법규를 만드는 것보다 선행되어야 한다. 그 이유는 안전관련 법규를 만드는 것이 민사책임 법규가 적용되는 사고의 발생위험 자체를 줄일 수 있기 때문이다. 무인항공기 운항자에 대한 구속력 있는 감항기준이 구비되어 있지 않다는 점은, 운항자의 엄격책임이 적용되는 민사책임 체계가 무인항공기 분야에는 적절하지 않다는 주장을 가능하게 할 수 있다. 이에 대한 해결책으로 ICAO 지침개정과 무인기 안전 및 감항관련 SARPs 개정, 또한 잠재적으로는 민사책임 (참가자, 승객, 지상손해 대상)관련 문제들을 포함하는 SARPs 개정의 필요성을 제안한다. 이러한 ICAO지침은 적절한 절차를 거쳐서 각국의 국내법으로 차용될 수 있을 것이고, 이럴 경우 국제협약을 제정하고 발효까지 필요한 행정적 부담과 시간을 피할 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. Australian Parliament Senate Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, "Eyes in the sky: Inquiry into drones and the regulation of air safety and privacy", July 2014, Canberra
  2. Butler, D, "The dawn of the age of the drones: an Australian privacy law perspective", 37 (2) UNSW Law Journal (2005)
  3. Cho, G "Unmanned Aerial Vehicles: Emerging Policy and Regulatory Issues"10, (2013) 22(2) Journal of Law, Information and Science
  4. Jong-Bok, Kim, "A Study on the Legislation for the Commercial and Civil Unmanned Aircraft System Operation", Journal of Korea Air & Space Law and Policy, Vol.28(1), Korea Society of Air & Space Law and Policy (2013)
  5. Sun-Ihee, Kim, "A Study on the infringement of privacy of unmanned aircraft: Focusing on the analysis of legislation and US policy", Journal of Korea Air & Space Law and Policy, Vol.29(2), Korea Society of Air & Space Law and Policy (2014)
  6. Sun-lhee, Kim, "A Study on the infringement of privacy of unmanned aircraft: Focusing on the analysis of legislation and US policy", Journal of Korea Air & Space Law and Policy , Vol.30(1), Korea Society of Air & Space Law and Policy (2015)
  7. Dempsey, P, "All along the watchtower: Forum non conveniens in international aviation", at https://www.mcgill.ca/iasl/files/iasl/ForumNonConveniensInInternationalAviation.pdf
  8. Research Group of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, "Drones in Canada, "Will the proliferation of domestic drone use in Canada raise new concerns for privacy?", March 2013
  9. ICAO Working Paper for 36th Legal Committee Session, LC/36-WP/2-4, 26/10/15, "Study of Legal Issues Relating to Remotely Piloted Aircraft",
  10. ICAO Doc 10019; Manual on Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems
  11. ICAO Doc 8984, Manual on Civil Aviation Medicine
  12. ACQ Pty Limited v Cook; Aircair Moree Pty Limited v Cook [2009] HCA 28 (2009).
  13. Brandi Wallace v. Korean Air, 214 F. 3d 293. (2nd Cir. 2000).
  14. Day v Trans World Airlines Inc 13 CCH 18,144, (CA, 2, 1975).
  15. In re Air Crash Over the Mid-Atlantic on June 1, 2009, F.Supp.2d, 2010 WL 3910354 (N.D. Ca). Oct. 4, 2010).
  16. Malaysian Airline Systems Berhad v Krum [2005] VSCA 232.
  17. Olympic Airways v Rubina Husain, Individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Abid M. Hanson, Deceased, et al. 540 US 644 (2004).
  18. Smith Kline & French Lab. Ltd. v. Bloch, 1 W.L.R. 730 (1983).
  19. Weintraub v. Capitol Int'l Airways, 16 Av. Cas. (CCH) 18,058 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981).