tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca-fr/topics/aviation-law-21721/articlesAviation law – La Conversation2023-11-03T03:37:28Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2169832023-11-03T03:37:28Z2023-11-03T03:37:28ZThe fury on show at the Qantas AGM couldn’t have come at a worse time for the airline<p>Fielding tough questions from a furious audience is no one’s idea of fun. But as Richard Goyder and Vanessa Hudson – Qantas chairman and chief executive, respectively – dealt with angry question after angry question at the airline’s annual general meeting today, the pair knew their main audience was not those in the room. It was, in fact, the decision-makers in Canberra. </p>
<p>The AGM comes at a critical time for the national carrier. The federal government is considering a suite of aviation policy reforms, many of which Qantas would rather stay unreformed.</p>
<p>Qantas can ill afford further damage to its public image now.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/even-if-qantas-is-fined-hundreds-of-millions-it-is-likely-to-continue-to-take-us-for-granted-213754">Even if Qantas is fined hundreds of millions it is likely to continue to take us for granted</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Shareholder and community anger</h2>
<p>Qantas had a good year financially, as demonstrated by its <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/aug/24/qantas-delivers-record-247bn-profit">A$2.47 billion</a> full-year profits. But consumers are less happy.</p>
<p>These profits have been delivered in part by <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-passengers-to-pay-more-for-flights-as-fuel-costs-bite-20231020-p5edvo.html">rapidly rising air fares</a>.</p>
<p>The Qantas board has also had to deal with anger on executive remuneration, especially around former chief executive Alan Joyce’s <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-09-20/qantas-alan-joyce-21-4-million-final-payout/102880572">multimillion-dollar payout</a>. </p>
<p>This rage over executive pay was on full display at today’s AGM, when <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-agm-2023-live-updates-20231102-p5eh5z.html">83%</a> of shareholders voted against Qantas’ remuneration report for the 2023 financial year. <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/qantas-agm-2023-live-updates-20231102-p5eh5z.html">Reported</a> as “one of the biggest strikes ever recorded in corporate history”, it is a clear rejection Joyce’s payout.</p>
<p>Qantas has also had to manage allegations it <a href="https://news.yahoo.com/qantas-apologizes-over-tickets-phantom-075506638.html#:%7E:text=STORY%3A%20Qantas%20issued%20an%20apology,a%20hit%20over%20recent%20times.">sold tickets for flights it knew had been cancelled</a>, on top of a suite of PR disasters around <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/subscribe/news/1/?sourceCode=TAWEB_WRE170_a_GGL&dest=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theaustralian.com.au%2Fbusiness%2Faviation%2Fqantas-reveals-plan-to-tackle-flight-delays-and-lost-bags%2Fnews-story%2Fbd03a7806ef237daa78b541708b92349&memtype=anonymous&mode=premium&v21=HIGH-Segment-1-SCORE&V21spcbehaviour=append">flight delays and lost luggage issues</a>. </p>
<h2>The aviation white paper and Qantas’s optics problem</h2>
<p>The federal government released a new green paper on aviation policy in September and is consulting stakeholders, ahead of publishing a <a href="https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/infrastructure-transport-vehicles/aviation/aviation-white-paper">new white paper</a> on aviation policy next year.</p>
<p>There are several contentious areas of policy Qantas would prefer to remain unchanged. </p>
<p>The white paper panel will no doubt also take into account public sentiment. Optics matter in politics, and so Federal Transport Minister Catherine King and her department would have been taking the pulse of today’s AGM. </p>
<p>The anger on show from shareholders – with Goyder facing jeers, boos and cries of “<a href="https://www.9news.com.au/national/qantas-annual-general-meeting-shareholders-chairman-richard-goyder/945180fd-8ac8-4a4f-982f-edd01b841fcd">shame on you!</a>” – can’t have helped Qantas’s optics.</p>
<p>Any political advisor watching would likely caution the government that now is not a good time to be seen cosying up to the airline.</p>
<p>The 2024 aviation white paper (itself a sequel to Anthony Albanese’s <a href="https://australianaviation.com.au/2009/12/albanese-releases-aviation-white-paper/">2009 aviation white paper</a> while he was transport minister) aims to set a new aviation policy framework out to 2050. </p>
<p>Unlike its predecessor, it will take into account consumer and worker rights – so the angry scenes at today’s meeting will not help Qantas in its efforts to stave off the kind of regulation being discussed in the aviation white paper. </p>
<h2>Mandatory compensation</h2>
<p>One policy under consideration is the idea of mandatory compensation for flight cancellations and delays. </p>
<p>For almost 20 years, air travellers flying from European Union airports have been able to access a guaranteed compensation scheme that is tiered according to length of delay and inconvenience.</p>
<p>Airlines in Europe fought the introduction of the mechanism in 2004. It’s unlikely Qantas would welcome such policies in Australia either.</p>
<h2>Bilateral air service agreements</h2>
<p>Another issue on the table is the negotiation of bilateral air service agreements. These agreements between nation states govern the number of flights between countries, but are seen as archaic in many other OECD countries.</p>
<p>In their place, “<a href="https://theconversation.com/under-open-skies-the-market-not-the-minister-would-decide-how-often-airlines-could-fly-into-australia-213214">open skies</a>” agreements allow unfettered access to foreign carriers and often deliver lower fares to consumers.</p>
<p>Qantas and Virgin Australia both rely on a bilateral air service agreement with the United Arab Emirates for the bulk of their international connections. This agreement still has ample expansion room, but the agreement with neighbouring Qatar is already at capacity. </p>
<p>The seemingly opaque way in which the application by Qatar to enlarge this quota was denied by the federal government angered many in the industry. It led to a senate committee inquiry.</p>
<p>Indeed, a freedom-of-information request was required to discover the decision was, in part, linked to the treatment of <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/australia-says-qatar-strip-searches-women-2020-factor-blocking-extra-flights-2023-09-07/#:%7E:text=SYDNEY%2C%20Sept%207%20(Reuters),pressure%20from%20rival%20Qantas%20Airways.">women strip-searched at Doha airport in 2020</a>. </p>
<p>It’s likely the government will reform the way these bilateral service agreements are negotiated (at least to add greater transparency). </p>
<p>Goyder and Hudson wanted the focus at today’s AGM to be partly on their plan to boost non-stop international flights, all of which hinge on bilateral service agreements with European countries. So Qantas may be nervous about any proposed changes to the negotiation process that make it easier for their would-be rivals to also expand services. </p>
<h2>Greater competition monitoring</h2>
<p>The white paper panel is also considering greater monitoring of competition in air transport. </p>
<p>Airports operate as monopolies in their cities and are regulated as such. Airlines, on the other hand, operate in a competitive landscape. </p>
<p>But the playing field is not level for all airlines and potential entrants, not least because capacity restraints such as takeoff and landing slots can be engineered to favour incumbents. As such, Qantas would no doubt prefer no reform in these areas. </p>
<p>So the terrible optics of today’s Qantas AGM come at a moment when it is very keen to mould the legislative landscape of aviation in its favour. In other words, it couldn’t have come at a worse time.</p>
<p>As Goyder and Hudson fronted shareholders today, their promise to work harder to address customer concerns was aimed as much at Canberra as it was to the Melbourne audience. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/qantas-wont-like-it-but-australian-travellers-could-be-about-to-get-a-better-deal-on-flights-214718">Qantas won't like it, but Australian travellers could be about to get a better deal on flights</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/216983/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Justin Wastnage was previously director of two industry groups, Aviation/Aerospace Australia and the Tourism & Transport Forum, which are both funded in part by Australian and international airlines and airports.</span></em></p>The terrible optics of today’s Qantas AGM come at a moment when it is very keen to mould the legislative landscape of aviation in its favour.Justin Wastnage, Adjunct Industry Fellow, Griffith Institute for Tourism, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1615112021-05-25T15:16:14Z2021-05-25T15:16:14ZBelarus kidnapping: what international law says about capture of dissident journalist Roman Protasevich<p>Here’s what we know: the Ryanair aircraft carrying dissident Belarusian journalist Roman Protasevich was scheduled to fly from Athens in Greece to Vilnius in Lithuania on May 23. While in Belarusian airspace, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/23/belarus-diverts-ryanair-plane-to-arrest-blogger-says-opposition">the pilot was ordered</a> to divert from its course and to land in Minsk. On the ground, the airport authorities <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/european-airline-wizz-air-redirects-flight-to-avoid-belarus-airspace-11621847226">searched the baggage of the passengers</a>, checked their identities and detained at least two of them: Protasevich – a prominent opponent of Belarusian dictator Alexander Lukashenko – and his girlfriend, law student Sofia Sapega. </p>
<p>But the full details of what happened remain a matter of dispute. The Belarusian authorities claim that they received an <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/belarus-points-hamas-bomb-threat-plane-diversion-hamas-rejects-claim-2021-05-24/">anonymous letter</a> claiming that Hamas had planted a bomb on board and so they had duly ordered the pilot to land the aircraft so they could find and destroy the bomb if the report was true.</p>
<p>This claim appears doubtful. It is unclear why someone would decide to notify the authorities of Belarus about the bomb, rather than, for example, the authorities in Greece or Lithuania. When the aircraft was diverted, it <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/ryanair-diversion-hijack-minsk-belarus-b1852406.html">was closer to Vilnius</a> than to Minsk. If the safety of the passengers was the primary concern of Belarusian authorities, they would have probably allowed it to quickly land in Vilnius. Finally, a military aircraft was <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/belarus-forces-vilnius-bound-ryanair-plane-land-detain-blogger-2021-05-23/">sent to accompany the Ryanair flight</a> to land at Minsk airport. In the event, no bomb was found on board.</p>
<h2>Legal problems</h2>
<p>There are two main legal questions with the actions of Belarus. The first is whether Belarus had the power to divert the aircraft from its flight path to land in Minsk. Although the facts remain murky, the apparent justification for the interception of the plane by a fighter jet was its safety due to a suspected bomb on board. </p>
<p>The method by which Belarus seemingly ordered the pilot to make an emergency landing at Minsk may be legally significant. While the <a href="https://www.icao.int/publications/pages/doc7300.aspx">Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944</a> authorised Belarus to order a civil aircraft flying above its territory to land, Belarus must have had “reasonable grounds” to do so. Also, it was required to issue the order in compliance with its published national regulations regarding the interception of civil aircraft. </p>
<p>It is for Belarus to prove that it has complied with both requirements: the president of the Council of the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/belarus-politics-airlines-icao/un-aviation-agency-icao-calls-council-meeting-over-belarus-on-may-27-idUSL2N2NB1PP">International Civil Aviation Organization</a> (ICAO) is seeking official explanations and has called an urgent meeting of the 36 members of the Council for May 27 to discuss the incident.</p>
<p>Even if Belarus can show that its diversion of the plane was lawful, the detention of Protasevich and Sapega is another question entirely. Under the ICAO treaties, Flight FR4978 was under the jurisdiction of Poland as the country of registration of the aircraft. The aircraft was still “in flight”, even when diverted to Minsk. No country has the right to detain suspects on a civil aircraft for crimes that were not committed on board that aircraft.</p>
<h2>International claims</h2>
<p>From what is known at present, it seems that the Belarusian authorities detained Protasevich and Sapega for alleged crimes that had no connection to the flight. To seek custody of them, Belarus should have applied to Poland or to Lithuania (as Vilnius was the port of destination) for their extradition for alleged crimes in Belarus. On both issues, Poland could bring legal claims against Belarus for violating its rights under the ICAO treaties as the flag state of the aircraft. </p>
<p>It is also possible that other countries could seek standing to sue Belarus before the International Court of Justice (the UN court) on the basis that the global system of civil aviation is threatened by such actions. There have been cases similar to this one in the past, such as when <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/20081776?seq=1">France detained a Moroccan charter plane in 1956</a> to arrest Algerian rebel leaders who were travelling to a diplomatic conference.</p>
<p>If Protasevich and Sapega were technically detained by the Belarusian authorities on the territory of Poland, as the flag state of the aircraft, then he was potentially protected by the <a href="https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf">European Convention on Human Rights</a>. Belarus is not a participant in that treaty but Poland is. The detention of Protasevich and Sapega could have violated their right to liberty. Although Poland is not responsible for arresting Protasevich and Sapega, it could be in violation of the Convention if failing to exercise due diligence to secure their release. </p>
<p>In a number of cases, the European Court of Human Rights has found the Convention to apply to aircraft and ships registered in or flying the flag of a Contracting Party. While Poland has issued a strongly worded public condemnation of the actions of Belarus, calling it “<a href="https://www.gov.pl/web/diplomacy/mfa-statement-on-forced-landing-of-ryanair-plane-in-minsk">state terrorism</a>”, it is required to take practical steps within its power, such as diplomatic representations, to secure the release of the detainees on the basis that their detention was unlawful.</p>
<p>Although, the episode has already triggered significant international reaction, it should not be treated as an isolated instance. The Belarusian authorities have consistently undermined their own country’s rule of law, and the international community’s reaction has been limited and slow. For instance, it wasn’t until May 2021 that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=27105&LangID=E">appointed experts</a> to document episodes of human rights violations, principally torture, that happened mostly in August 2020. The reaction of international community should clearly demonstrate that violations of international law bear consequences.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/161511/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Can Belarus claim to have been within its rights to divert a Ryanair flight and detain passengers?Kanstantsin Dzehtsiarou, Professor in Human Rights Law, University of LiverpoolArman Sarvarian, Lecturer in Law, University of SurreyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1299482020-01-23T14:53:39Z2020-01-23T14:53:39ZDrones: forget flying taxis, here’s how to win public support and make them benefit cities<p>It’s easy to assume, perhaps thanks to all the <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9818573/heathrow-airport-drone-ground-flight-latest/">lurid tabloid headlines</a>, that people don’t like drones. At best, they’re a nuisance – the buzzing playthings of inconsiderate hobbyists or photographers taking pictures from above. At worst, they’re a tool for idiots to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/18/gatwick-drone-disruption-cost-airport-just-14m">close airports</a>, ruin holidays and cost the country millions. </p>
<p>But the <a href="https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/flying-high-challenge-future-of-drone-technology-in-uk-cities/">research</a> Nesta Challenges has carried out over the past two years reveals a far more nuanced picture. </p>
<p>The public, and public services, are actually quite open to drones being used more widely – including in cities, potentially the most challenging and controversial environment for them. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/gatwick-drone-drama-shows-how-even-unarmed-uavs-can-cause-economic-chaos-and-risk-to-life-109187">Gatwick drone drama shows how even unarmed UAVs can cause economic chaos and risk to life</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But if this is to ever happen, there are challenges along the path to public acceptance. And these are not just the obvious ones around making sure operations are safe and reliable: <a href="https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/public-perception-of-drones/">people also care about what drones do, who is operating them – and where</a>.</p>
<p>That’s a big departure from how traditional aviation is perceived. Nobody really cares what’s in any given plane or what altitude it’s at, what route it’s on or what airline it’s owned by – as long as it’s far enough overhead. And that’s reflected in the laws and regulations that govern existing air traffic. Providing the pilots and equipment are certified, and they’re operating safely, there are no serious restrictions on who and what gets access to the sky.</p>
<h2>Buzz needs</h2>
<p>But it turns out that an unpiloted aircraft flying just 40 feet from our heads is quite different from an airliner 40,000 feet above. And the difference in altitude isn’t just a number. Low altitude airspace means interacting with people and things on the ground, in a way that flying above the clouds doesn’t.</p>
<p>So one thing is clear: simply replicating the rules and regulations around civil aviation won’t work. The future of drone traffic will be different to present day air traffic.</p>
<p>In the research we carried out as part of the Flying High project, we aimed to think about this future. We wanted to better understand <a href="https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/flying-high-challenge-future-of-drone-technology-in-uk-cities/what-drones-can-do-in-ukcities/#content">how people thought drones might be used in our cities</a>, to investigate how <a href="https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/flying-high-challenge-future-of-drone-technology-in-uk-cities/five-use-cases-drones-uk-cities/#content">feasible</a> some of the more far-fetched services people are proposing are, and to <a href="https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/flying-high-challenge-future-of-drone-technology-in-uk-cities/exploring-urban-drone-integration/#content">paint a picture</a> of what the urban drone system of the future would look like.</p>
<p>We worked with local councils, academics and businesses in five English cities, chosen in part to reflect the diversity of economics, politics and scale of the places most of us live: <a href="https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/flying-high-challenge-future-of-drone-technology-in-uk-cities/shaping-drone-use-bradford/#content">Bradford</a>, <a href="https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/flying-high-challenge-future-of-drone-technology-in-uk-cities/shaping-drone-use-london/#content">London</a>, <a href="https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/flying-high-challenge-future-of-drone-technology-in-uk-cities/shaping-drone-use-preston/#content">Preston</a>, <a href="https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/flying-high-challenge-future-of-drone-technology-in-uk-cities/shaping-drone-use-southampton/#content">Southampton</a> and the <a href="https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/flying-high-challenge-future-of-drone-technology-in-uk-cities/shaping-drone-use-west-midlands/#content">West Midlands</a> Combined Authority. </p>
<p>Interestingly, while there were some minor local variations in how people thought drones could be used (and some rather larger variations in how much or how deeply they had thought about these possible futures), there were several consistent principles. Generally, there was interest in the public sector uses of drones (for police, fire, transport infrastructure, medical transport), support for uses that promote social and economic equity, and some degree of support for cities having a say over, or even control of, drone traffic within their borders.</p>
<p>But this support from cities, like support from the public, is tentative and conditional. Some of the wilder commercial applications of drones we have heard – from flying taxis to pizza delivery – found little favour. </p>
<p>We believe that a continued push for potentially disruptive uses like these, that bring little or no public benefit, risks turning the public against drones. We could make the same mistakes that were made with genetically modified crops in the 1990s or nuclear power in the 1960s and 70s. In these cases, legitimate concerns about how the technologies were used were ignored – and public opposition hardened, even against applications with a clear and positive story to tell.</p>
<h2>The positive case</h2>
<p>In our research, we were keen to find out more about some of the positive uses that could bring public benefit. These are the kinds of uses that, given the current state of public and civic opinion, are most likely to be received with an open mind.</p>
<p>We developed five <a href="https://www.nesta.org.uk/report/flying-high-challenge-future-of-drone-technology-in-uk-cities/five-use-cases-drones-uk-cities/#content">near-future scenarios</a>, around long- and short-haul medical transport, fire and traffic incident response, and infrastructure development, and engaged with industry experts and potential users of the technology to gauge how technically and economically feasible they would be. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/iran-attack-how-reaper-drones-really-carry-out-airstrikes-129411">Iran attack: how Reaper drones really carry out airstrikes</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>We found that, aside from some remaining barriers to long-distance flight (flying further than the pilot can see), precision flight and automation, existing drone technology is largely capable of providing these services.</p>
<p>However, regulation remains a barrier. And a large part of the issue is building up a track record of safe operation that could convince the Civil Aviation Authority to permit operations like these over built-up areas. </p>
<p>Business cases – in particular, defining services in a way and at a scale which is both viable for operators and useful for customers – also still need some work, particularly for medical transportation. In short, there has so far been too much focus on technology development and not enough on developing credible services for that technology.</p>
<p>Even if the economics of these uses are hard to project with any certainty, there is growing evidence of the macroeconomic benefits that drones could bring to the UK. In December, with PWC, we <a href="https://challenges.org/impact/reports/report-how-drones-can-save-the-public-sector-1bn/">jointly published economic analysis</a> of the value to the UK economy of urban public service drone use – projecting net savings to the UK taxpayer of over £1 billion, and economic activity generated to the tune of almost £7 billion over the next 15 years.</p>
<p>But the only way to figure this all out for real – and to find out once and for all whether the public will accept this kind of service – is to actually try it out. </p>
<p>We think that some of the public money allocated to the Future Flight stream of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund needs to be spent on quickly getting live demonstrations going of public benefit drone services and testing out what the public think. </p>
<p>Spending time and money on boondoggles such as flying taxis or online deliveries for the rich, or focusing exclusively on technology development without buy-in from the public or a credible business or service model, doesn’t just risk wasting money, it puts at risk the real benefits that we have found drones could bring to our public services.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/129948/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nesta's Flying High project received funding from Innovate UK</span></em></p>Drones are coming to our cities – but what do people really think about them, and how can they have a sustainable future? New research provides some answers.Olivier Usher, Lead, Research and Impact, NestaHolly Jamieson, Head of Future Cities, NestaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1130222019-07-11T11:07:06Z2019-07-11T11:07:06ZCommercial supersonic aircraft could return to the skies<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281640/original/file-20190627-76726-10d7sk5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C356%2C4488%2C2714&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Don't call it a comeback.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:235ac_-_British_Airways_Concorde;_G-BOAD@LHR;15.05.2003_(8056002570).jpg">Aero Icarus/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Flying faster than the speed of sound still sounds futuristic for regular people, more than 15 years after the last commercial supersonic flights ended. The planes that made those journeys, the 14 aircraft collectively known as <a href="https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/concorde-flying-what-was-it-like/index.html">the Concorde</a>, flew <a href="https://www.britannica.com/technology/Concorde">from 1976 to 2003</a>. It traveled <a href="https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/concorde2.htm">three times faster than regular passenger aircraft</a>, but the airlines that flew it <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/24/nyregion/for-concorde-economics-trumped-technology.html">couldn’t make a profit on its trips</a>.</p>
<p>The reason the Concorde was unprofitable was, in fact, a side effect of its speed. When the plane sped up past the speed of sound – about 760 mph – it created shock waves in the air that would hit the ground with a loud and sudden thud: a sonic “boom.” It is so alarming for people on the ground that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1973/03/28/archives/supersonic-civilianflights-over-us-are-outlawed.html">U.S. federal regulations ban</a> all commercial aircraft from flying faster than the speed of sound over land.</p>
<p>Those rules, and the amount of fuel the plane could carry, effectively limited the Concorde to trans-Atlantic flights. Operating the plane was still so expensive that a <a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/19/concorde-216-prepared-exhibition-aerospace-bristol-pictures/concorde-retired-due-cost-flying-aircraft-standard-cost-one/">one-way ticket between London and New York</a> could cost over US$5,000. And the Concorde often flew with half its seats empty.</p>
<p>The main benefit of supersonic travel is the reduction in flight time. A three-hour flight across the Atlantic could make a day trip possible from the U.S. to London or Paris, essentially saving one whole work day. As an <a href="https://aero.engin.umich.edu/people/iain-d-boyd/">aerospace engineer studying high-speed air vehicles</a>, I believe that recent advances in technology and new trends in commercial air travel could make supersonic flight economically viable. But regulations will have to change before civilians can zip through the skies faster than sound.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272038/original/file-20190501-113864-8mbtte.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272038/original/file-20190501-113864-8mbtte.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/272038/original/file-20190501-113864-8mbtte.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272038/original/file-20190501-113864-8mbtte.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272038/original/file-20190501-113864-8mbtte.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=359&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272038/original/file-20190501-113864-8mbtte.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272038/original/file-20190501-113864-8mbtte.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/272038/original/file-20190501-113864-8mbtte.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=452&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">As a plane accelerates, it builds up a front of air pressure by pushing air in front of it. When it passes the speed of sound, the pressure trails behind like a boat’s wake, forming a sonic shockwave.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Transonico-en.svg">Chabacano/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Beating the boom</h2>
<p>As an aircraft flies through the air, it creates pressure disturbance waves that travel at the speed of sound. When the aircraft itself is flying faster than sound, the disturbances are compressed together into a stronger disturbance called a shock wave. Shock wave patterns around supersonic aircraft were recently imaged in <a href="https://www.livescience.com/64941-merging-supersonic-shockwaves-photo.html">NASA experiments</a>. When a supersonic aircraft flies overhead, some of the shock waves may reach the ground. This is the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-016-DFRC.html">sonic boom</a>, which is experienced as a startling thud.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6B4IVcCuIZE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Sonic booms can be quite loud.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Commercial flights are regulated in the U.S. by the Federal Aviation Administration. To protect the public from sonic booms, the current FAA regulations ban the flight over land of any commercial aircraft at supersonic speed.</p>
<p>However, NASA is working to significantly reduce the sonic boom in its <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/aero/x-59-quesst-overview/">X-59 program</a>. By careful shaping of the aircraft, the goal is to weaken the shock waves or to prevent them from reaching the ground.</p>
<p>With flight demonstrations scheduled to begin in 2021, success in NASA’s project could remove one important barrier to supersonic flight.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DPd0OHrmCBc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A promotional NASA video shows early views of a supersonic aircraft that makes a much quieter sonic boom than the Concorde did.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Noisy on the ground, too</h2>
<p>My father took me to see the Concorde take off in the early 1970s, and what I remember after all these years is the noise. Nowadays, I recognize that landing and takeoff noise at airports is a second barrier to supersonic aircraft. Airport noise is also regulated in the U.S. by the FAA, and the current rules require that supersonic aircraft meet the same airport noise standards as subsonic aircraft. The Concorde was so loud, however, that it had to be given an exception from those rules.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281807/original/file-20190628-94728-1ykledx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281807/original/file-20190628-94728-1ykledx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281807/original/file-20190628-94728-1ykledx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281807/original/file-20190628-94728-1ykledx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281807/original/file-20190628-94728-1ykledx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=240&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281807/original/file-20190628-94728-1ykledx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281807/original/file-20190628-94728-1ykledx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281807/original/file-20190628-94728-1ykledx.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=302&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A diagram of air flow through a jet engine.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jet_engine.svg">Jeff Dahl/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The latest subsonic aircraft use very large jet engines that deliver high fuel efficiency. These engines also greatly reduce airport noise by accelerating a larger volume of air to a lower velocity than smaller engines. The new engines are so quiet that regulators have twice been able to <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/10/04/2017-21092/stage-5-airplane-noise-standards">decrease the amount of noise airplanes</a> are allowed to make since Concorde stopped flying. </p>
<p>Those standards are now much harder for supersonic aircraft to meet. That’s because supersonic aircraft can’t use the big new engines, which greatly increase the drag at high speed. That, in turn, requires more fuel to be carried aboard the plane and burned in flight, which is both heavy and expensive. Essentially, in the design of supersonic planes, a compromise has to be found between noise and efficiency.</p>
<h2>Positive developments</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281641/original/file-20190627-76722-1ahfplc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281641/original/file-20190627-76722-1ahfplc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/281641/original/file-20190627-76722-1ahfplc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281641/original/file-20190627-76722-1ahfplc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281641/original/file-20190627-76722-1ahfplc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=556&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281641/original/file-20190627-76722-1ahfplc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=699&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281641/original/file-20190627-76722-1ahfplc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=699&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/281641/original/file-20190627-76722-1ahfplc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=699&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The chevron shapes around the engine’s exhaust nozzles helps reduce aircraft noise.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:General_Electric_GEnx-1B_(14233497776).jpg">John Crowley/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, some recent innovations for airport noise reduction on subsonic aircraft will also yield reductions for supersonic vehicles in comparison to the Concorde’s <a href="https://www.cnn.com/style/article/tupolev-tu-144-concordski/index.html">1960s design</a>. These advances include the use of <a href="https://www.aircraftnerds.com/2017/03/why-do-boeing-747-and-boeing-787-engine-have-Chevron-Nozzle.html">chevrons on jet engine nozzles</a> to reduce jet noise by more effectively mixing the gas from the engine with the external airflow.</p>
<p>Also, with the improved speed and accuracy of computer simulations, it’s now easier to explore new noise-reducing airframe designs. </p>
<p>In addition to technology advances since the Concorde retired, there have also been important changes in commercial air travel patterns. Specifically, there has been a significant increase in the use of commercial business jets and their ownership by wealthy individuals. So, one promising approach to the reintroduction of supersonic commercial aircraft is to develop small business jets. This is the approach being taken by Aerion.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ARgC3-bxmtk?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Aerion is developing a supersonic business jet in collaboration with Boeing and Lockheed Martin.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Updating the rules</h2>
<p>Technology and market forces are making supersonic aircraft more acceptable and more affordable – but the relevant aviation rules haven’t changed since the Concorde era. In its <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4/text">Reauthorization Act of 2018</a>, the FAA is required to review the regulations for supersonic aircraft on sonic boom and airport noise.</p>
<p>Recently, the current <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-us-should-lead-the-way-back-to-supersonic-flight/2019/06/24/f1b884e2-96b7-11e9-916d-9c61607d8190_story.html">U.S. administration</a> signaled that it wants to amend the rules to facilitate supersonic commercial flight. An important <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-17/faa-will-propose-streamlining-supersonic-flight-test-approvals">first step</a> involves the FAA simplifying the process for testing supersonic aircraft.</p>
<p>In my view, the current total ban on any flight over land at supersonic speed is far too restrictive. Aircraft flying at low supersonic speeds do not generate a significant boom. And, the NASA X-59 project may result in supersonic aircraft with much weaker booms. Rather than banning booms entirely, it would be better to set maximum boom levels, to balance the benefits of supersonic flight with the noisy detriments.</p>
<p>In addition, I believe the current airport-noise rules, requiring supersonic aircraft be no louder than subsonic airplanes, impose an unreasonable burden on supersonic aircraft developers. First, as mentioned earlier, the Concorde provides a precedent for making a special case for supersonic aircraft. Second, for many years after their initial reintroduction, the total number of supersonic aircraft departing any airport will be a small fraction of all traffic. For example, <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20150119012827/http://www.aerionsupersonic.com/pdf/41.pdf">a study conducted for Aerion</a> indicated potential sales of 30 supersonic aircraft a year for 20 years in the small business market. Regulations should accommodate both what supersonic aircraft technology can reasonably deliver and what airport communities will tolerate.</p>
<p>Momentum is building through changes in technology and market that may bring back supersonic commercial flight, if regulations keep up. While at first it may be affordable to only a select few, the experience gained in developing and operating these aircraft will inevitably lead to new innovations that drive down ticket prices and open the opportunity to fly faster than the speed of sound to a broader section of society.</p>
<p>[ <em>Like what you’ve read? Want more?</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=likethis">Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/113022/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Iain Boyd is a Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the Royal Aeronautical Society. He is a paid consultant for several organizations, both non-profit and for-profit.</span></em></p>Recent advances in technology and new trends in commercial air travel could make supersonic flight economically viable. But regulations will have to change first.Iain Boyd, Professor of Aerospace Engineering, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1196102019-07-10T15:09:04Z2019-07-10T15:09:04ZGhana aims for safer skies with new aviation laws<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/282665/original/file-20190704-51262-6k0sa2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">With the right legislation, Ghana hopes to improve aviation compliance and safety.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Ghana recently spent $275 million expanding and<a href="https://www.africanaerospace.aero/kotoka-terminal-lightens-the-load.html"> modernising Kotoka International Airport</a> located in the capital city, Accra. This is part of its <a href="http://www.ghana.gov.gh/index.php/news/1882-ghana-to-open-up-its-tourism-sector-to-turkey">plan to attract eight million tourists</a> annually by 2027. A significant increase from the 1.2 million people who visited the country in <a href="https://www.mofep.gov.gh/sites/default/files/pbb-estimates/2017/2017-PBB-MOTAC.pdf">2015</a>. Given that most of these tourists will arrive in the country by air, attracting them partly depends on Ghana’s ability to create and maintain a safe air transport sector.</p>
<p>Ghana is a state party to the Chicago Convention. This multilateral treaty established the fundamental <a href="https://www.icao.int/publications/Documents/7300_orig.pdf">principles governing international air travel</a>. It also created the <a href="https://www.icao.int/Pages/default.aspx">International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO)</a> - a United Nations agency which manages the international air transport system. As a member of ICAO, Ghana is expected to comply with its standards and recommended practices. </p>
<p>But it has had some compliance problems. In 2006, Ghana ranked below average in five out of eight criteria set by the organisation’s Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme. Although it met the requisite standard level for licensing, accident investigations and aerodromes, Ghana’s aviation industry was found to be unsatisfactory when it came to legislation, organisation, operations, air worthiness and air navigation services.</p>
<p>In 2010, two Ghanaian airlines appeared on the European Union Air Safety List for failing to meet certain international safety standards. The list is a directory of airlines which have been banned or otherwise restricted from flying in the European Union. Currently, Ghana is a Category 2 country on the American Federal Aviation Authority’s <a href="https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/iasa/">International Aviation Assessment Program</a>. This means they were found to have not met the requisite safety standards. </p>
<p>Ghana’s been working hard to address its aviation deficiencies. This has yielded some important successes. In 2015, the two Ghanaian airlines were <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/news/2015-06-25-air-ban_en">removed</a> from the EU Air Safety List. In June 2019 Ghana was <a href="https://www.icao.int/safety/Pages/USOAP-Results.aspx">awarded</a> a provisional Effective Implementation grade of 89.89% in aviation safety oversight under ICAO’s Coordinated Validation Mission. </p>
<p>This is a remarkable achievement: it surpasses the organisation’s minimum target of 60% and significantly outshines the global average of 66.5%. It is also the highest score for an African country. The Effective Implementation average rate for the continent is just over 50%.</p>
<p>So how has Ghana achieved this milestone? Through inter-agency cooperation and efforts to amend existing legislation and pass new ones. These legislative efforts kicked off after the country’s poor performance in the 2006 audit. Legislators and aviation authorities realised they needed to strengthen the country’s laws to improve the situation. This work culminated in two particularly crucial pieces of legislation – the Ghana Civil Aviation (Amendment) Act, 2019 and Aircraft Accident and Serious Incident Regulations, 2019. Both were passed by Parliament in March this year.</p>
<p>There is still a need to address the other areas identified by the audit, air worthiness and organisational efficiency, for example. These require effective and efficient business administration. One solution may be to involve a commercially-focused private company to rectify the outstanding operational issues. Indeed there have been rumours of privatisation. The financial investment and strategic management necessary to maintain the safety improvements made, and take Ghana’s aviation industry to the next level – one to rival counterparts in Nairobi – just might require the private sector. </p>
<h2>New laws</h2>
<p>The first of the two crucial laws aimed at improving aviation safety is the <a href="http://www.gcaa.com.gh/web/?p=639">Ghana Civil Aviation (Amendment) Act 2019 (Act 985)</a>, which modified a number of pre-existing laws. </p>
<p>Under it, the Ghana Civil Aviation Authority will retain its regulatory function. But it will no longer be responsible for operational functions such as navigation services. These will be coordinated by a new body. This separation of roles should improve economic efficiency and minimise conflicts of interests. </p>
<p>The Act has also strengthened some important roles within the aviation sector. For instance, powers of the Minister of Aviation and Chief Investigator have been enhanced. The Civil Aviation Authority’s Director General has also been given extra powers. This person can now compel an individual to produce documents – or testify – before any person or panel whose work falls under the authority’s mandate. These changes should assist the effective investigation of aviation incidents and accidents. </p>
<p>The other new legislation is the <a href="http://moa.gov.gh/index.php/notification-of-aircraft-accidents-and-incidents/">Aircraft Accident and Serious Incident Regulations</a>, 2019. This requires airline operators to immediately notify authorities of an accident or serious incident. The law created the Accident Incident Bureau to manage investigations of civil aircraft accidents and serious incidents in Ghana. Its remit also covers any state-registered aircraft that are involved in incidents or accidents outside the country. </p>
<p>The new regulations also provide for the establishment of a database of facts and figures relating to accidents and serious incidents for the first time. This will enable officials to do useful analysis on actual or potential safety concerns. It will also help identify any necessary corrective measures. </p>
<p>These legislative changes are meant to improve aviation safety oversight, enhance the powers of aviation officials and address inefficiencies. It should also facilitate the transition to Category 1 status on the FAA’s list.</p>
<p>It’s hoped that the new legal framework will help Ghana improve its reputation and performance in all sorts of safety and compliance measures. And make the country’s aircraft even safer for passengers.</p>
<h2>What still needs to be done</h2>
<p>Whether these new laws have their intended effect depends largely on the degree to which they are implemented. Additional resources are likely to be required. This could include a cash injection to sustain the progress made and increase the number of professionals with technical training and expertise in aviation. Any optimism about successful and long-lasting compliance requires senior officials with a sound understanding of the importance and will to enforce violations. </p>
<p>The tragic <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/10/ethiopian-flight-302-second-new-boeing-737-max-8-to-crash-in-four-months">Ethiopian Airlines crash</a> in March 2019 was a sobering reminder that major problems arise when safety and security are concentrated in one stakeholder, like airline manufacturers.</p>
<p>The more stakeholders, including states, involved in evaluating, implementing and maintaining safety standards, the better. This is why stronger legislation is so important. Now it’s incumbent on Ghana to ensure consistent compliance with its new laws.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/119610/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Julia Selman Ayetey does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It’s hoped that this new aviation legal framework will help Ghana to improve its reputation and performance in all sorts of safety and compliance measures.Julia Selman Ayetey, Doctoral Candidate, Institute of Air & Space Law, McGill UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1011922018-08-21T02:13:28Z2018-08-21T02:13:28ZOne sky: we must develop a unified approach to the national airspace with drones in mind<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232619/original/file-20180820-30593-sc85i4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/two-drone-quad-copters-high-resolution-636131741?src=qa2VyakXtpOp10o5q59REg-1-14">Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Drones were used in an alleged <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/10/world/americas/venezuela-video-analysis.html">assassination attempt</a> on Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro earlier this month. This event reminds us of the dangers posed by remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS). It’s an extreme example of what can go wrong. But while drone technology is transforming industry for the better, it’s important to recognise the technology as a new kind of threat.</p>
<p>Australia once stood at the forefront of RPAS regulation, having drafted the first rules of use in the world. We now trail other jurisdictions – which have invested in research-led and evidence-based regulation – and we’re alarmingly misaligned with international best practice. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/should-we-fear-the-rise-of-drone-assassins-two-experts-debate-87699">Should we fear the rise of drone assassins? Two experts debate</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee released a <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Rural_and_Regional_Affairs_and_Transport/Drones/Report">report</a> last month about the future of drones in Australia. </p>
<p>Anticipating the proliferation of drones with expanding capabilities, the report assesses the prospects of a viable drone industry which does not compromise aviation safety, security and privacy. It’s not a roadmap to open skies, but sets out the conditions on which any future drone policy must rest.</p>
<h2>Regulation in Australia is inadequate</h2>
<p>As governments across the globe become aware of the enormous potential economic benefit of drone technology, they are advancing regulations to integrate drones into the national airspace. </p>
<p>Drones are revolutionising entire industries: from photography and delivery services to construction, agriculture and infrastructure surveillance. At the same time, their capacity for very low-altitude flight, manoeuvrability, remote piloting and ability to collect vast amounts of data represent an unprecedented threat to privacy.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/kuXkLwnx_ak?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A man who used a drone to pick up a Bunnings sausage faced a A$9,000 fine.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Drones in Australia are regulated by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), which is under-resourced and overworked. The Senate committee observed that in seeking to balance its role as the safety regulator with mindfulness of strangling a nascent industry at birth, CASA has arguably produced rules that flaunt due diligence. </p>
<p>When CASA amended drone regulations in 2016, its decision to exclude drones weighing less than 2kg from regulation was not supported by evidence. In fact, the best available research shows that drones weighing more than 250g pose a significant risk of death and damage. In the US, only drones weighing less than 250g can fly unregistered. The UK and EU has introduced similar rules, which come into effect in 2019.</p>
<h2>Regulating evolving technology is challenging</h2>
<p>To be fair, the regulation of rapidly evolving technology in any field is complex and unforgiving. As sophisticated products become available at lower prices, more players enter the market and the danger of advanced technology in untrained hands is multiplied. Proliferation means the regulator makes rules in an information vacuum. For example, we don’t know how many RPAS there are in Australia, who owns them, or where they are located. </p>
<p>Technical acceleration means that rules are based on assumptions that are rapidly overtaken by new realities. Unregistered machines capable of travelling at great speeds, altitude and distance from their operators, are able to be flown anywhere, by untrained and unlicensed operators, subject only to a set of standard operating conditions (<a href="https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/commercial-unmanned-flight-remotely-piloted-aircraft-under-2kg">SOCs</a>). </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232620/original/file-20180820-30611-s2m17s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/232620/original/file-20180820-30611-s2m17s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232620/original/file-20180820-30611-s2m17s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232620/original/file-20180820-30611-s2m17s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=321&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232620/original/file-20180820-30611-s2m17s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232620/original/file-20180820-30611-s2m17s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/232620/original/file-20180820-30611-s2m17s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=403&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Private drones can interfere with firefighting operations.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/cshmi-civil-protection-firefighter-portuguese-helicopter-478470418?src=yKIizicASF9OjPTAU0iYVA-1-38">Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>However, drones may pose dangers even when operators believe they are strictly adhering to SOCs. This is because, as witnesses to the Committee observed, operators frequently interpret the rules to mean that they may undertake unrestricted flights under 400ft (120mt). This is the same airspace regularly used by emergency helicopters, and where firefighting aircraft actively operate. A sustainable national aviation policy can no longer treat RPAS in isolation.</p>
<h2>Recommendations focus on the present, not the future</h2>
<p>The Committee is clearly of the view that basic safety standards must be in place before determining a pathway to normalise drone operations. </p>
<p>It has produced a set of 10 recommendations that reset RPAS policy by replacing the open availability of drones with a system of mandatory registration. Under such a system, operators would be required to demonstrate knowledge and skill before they could legally pilot RPAS. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/delivering-packages-with-drones-might-be-good-for-the-environment-90997">Delivering packages with drones might be good for the environment</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Some recommendations seek to avert looming catastrophes, such as the repeal of CASA’s deregulation of drones under 2kg. Others demonstrate a sharper awareness of the use of drones for evil, such as what occurred in Venezuela. To deal with this issue, the Committee recommends absolute prohibition over airspace near significant public buildings and critical infrastructure. </p>
<p>But there is no requirement to implement or explore some of the more technically advanced systems discussed during consultations. </p>
<p>Geo-fencing programs drones to make them incapable of being launched from, or flying into, restricted airspace. The technology may not yet be fully reliable, but it’s promising. </p>
<p>New forms of low altitude air traffic management designed specifically for drones, such as <a href="https://utm.arc.nasa.gov/index.shtml">UTM</a> and <a href="https://www.skyguide.ch/en/events-media-board/u-space-live-demonstration/">U Space</a> while not ready for immediate implementation, have been trialled successfully. </p>
<p>And some existing and robust technologies, such as transponders, could provide the necessary aerial detect and avoid capabilities essential to avoid mid-air collisions, but have not been mandated.</p>
<h2>A unified approach to the national airspace is essential</h2>
<p>The report concludes that a disconnected approach to the RPAS industry is unsustainable. It is unrealistic to believe that delivering a safe operating environment as complex as the national airspace to realise the economic potential of a new technology lies with a single agency – CASA. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/your-next-pilot-could-be-drone-software-92330">Your next pilot could be drone software</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Taking a whole of government approach to drone regulation is an opportunity to determine a strategy for the medium- to long-term. Any rule making should also include both civil society and the private sector in the process. The report may not be a comprehensive road map for safely realising the potential of drones, but offers common sense strategic support for that vision.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/101192/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Claudio Bozzi does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Australia was once at the forefront of RPAS regulation, but we now trail other jurisdictions – and we’re alarmingly misaligned with international best practice.Claudio Bozzi, Lecturer in Law, Deakin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/821052017-08-09T11:31:47Z2017-08-09T11:31:47ZA pre-Brexit aviation agreement is needed to avoid travel chaos<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181516/original/file-20170809-26021-1yrcxdr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Ondrej Zabransky / Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Tens of thousands of air passengers around the world were disrupted by a British Airways <a href="https://theconversation.com/ba-meltdown-crisis-researcher-caught-in-the-chaos-reports-on-a-massive-airline-failure-78487">global computer crash</a> earlier this year. One passenger <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/may/29/ba-computer-meltdown-heathrow-was-the-angriest-place-ive-ever-been">described London’s Heathrow airport as</a> “honestly the angriest place I’ve ever seen”. The actual outage lasted just 15 minutes, but it grounded the entire British Airways fleet, inconvenienced more than 75,000 customers, and has so far <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/15/it-meltdown-cost-british-airlines-80m-so-far-willie-walsh-iag">cost £80m in compensation</a>. </p>
<p>Fast forward to August and there is <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/01/tourists-hit-airport-delays-longer-flights-amid-tougher-eu-border/">more disruption</a>. Tens of thousands of holidaymakers face queues of up to four hours – longer than the flight in many cases – across European airports due to stricter border checks. </p>
<p>Although the two events are unrelated, the chaotic scenes witnessed may be a harbinger of things to come at UK airports and beyond if Brexit negotiators do not afford some level of priority to the aviation sector. </p>
<h2>Plane sailing</h2>
<p>The liberalisation policies of the EU over the past two decades have facilitated substantial growth in both air passengers and cargo. Today, approximately <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Air_transport_statistics">one billion passengers</a> support 5.5m jobs <a href="http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52015DC0598&from=EN">and contribute €110 billion to EU GDP</a>. </p>
<p>For the UK – where one in every two departing passengers are travelling to an EU destination – the aviation sector contributes some £52 billion to GDP, supports almost one million jobs, and pays <a href="http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/my-oxford/projects/281929">about £9 billion in tax</a>. Plus, two out of three visitors to the UK arrive by air and 40% of its trade by value is by air.</p>
<p>Currently, EU regulations govern how airlines registered in the UK can operate services between the UK and other EU member states, between non-UK EU states, internal flights within some EU states, and between the UK and non-EU members. Hence, more than 35 pieces of EU legislation (excluding the labyrinth of labour law) govern the workings of UK-registered airlines. Among other things, this includes how they are licensed, where they can fly, how they can market products, how passengers are compensated, and what safety precautions they must observe. </p>
<h2>Turbulence ahead</h2>
<p>At its most dramatic, the consequences of failing to agree an aviation agreement would mean no legal basis for flights to operate at UK airports from April 1, 2019. When the UK leaves the EU, it also leaves key agreements and agencies like the <a href="https://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/international_aviation/external_aviation_policy/neighbourhood_en">European Common Aviation Area</a> and the <a href="https://www.easa.europa.eu/">European Aviation Safety Agency</a>. And, unlike other sectors (such as trade), there is no fallback agreement that the UK can rely on.</p>
<p>If no agreement is reached on trade, WTO provisions could be brought into operation; no similar arrangements exist for aviation. This means there would be no legal framework to fly; “no deal is better than a bad deal” simply cannot apply. Traditionally, air services agreements are negotiated on bilateral or multilateral bases and set out the key terms in respect of access and capacity. Hence, the UK needs to conclude bilateral air services agreements with the EU and with all of the non-EU countries currently covered by EU agreements. </p>
<p>While such agreements normally take considerably less time to negotiate than trade agreements, these are not normal circumstances. Some EU members may see an opportunity to curb the impact of low fare carriers <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-28/lufthansa-warns-brexit-to-hit-u-k-airlines-as-eu-plays-tough">on their domestic markets</a>. Some US airlines may consider it an opening to restrict long-haul, low fare operators such as Norwegian <a href="http://atwonline.com/government-affairs/eu-airlines-urge-hardline-response-brexit-says-ryanair-ceo">from accessing US airports via EU registrations</a>.</p>
<p>Another reason to grant aviation special status in the Brexit negotiations is because airlines sell their product up to 300 days in advance and travel agents sell holidays up to 18 months ahead. Hence, seats on flights scheduled to operate on April 1, 2019 might normally be available for sale on many airlines by the middle of 2018 with the respective date for holidays fast approaching. </p>
<p>Such advanced planning (alongside its revenue-generating appeal) is necessary to ensure that the required infrastructure, such as aircraft, hotels and crew, are available. EasyJet’s application <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40604375">for an Austrian base</a> and Ryanair’s call for a clear legal framework <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/11/ryanair-chief-michael-oleary-discuss-brexit-effect-aviation/">by September 2018</a> reflect the urgency of the matter.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181515/original/file-20170809-26064-1cfrt3t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/181515/original/file-20170809-26064-1cfrt3t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181515/original/file-20170809-26064-1cfrt3t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181515/original/file-20170809-26064-1cfrt3t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181515/original/file-20170809-26064-1cfrt3t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181515/original/file-20170809-26064-1cfrt3t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/181515/original/file-20170809-26064-1cfrt3t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">EasyJet is looking to cut its Brexit losses.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Next steps</h2>
<p>While both the UK and EU negotiators have publicly adopted a “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed” mantra, the unprecedented nature of these negotiations may provide scope to reach agreement in principle on aviation before other areas. They can then ratify it when all else is agreed.</p>
<p>Calls to afford aviation preference have been forthcoming from several sources. Research conducted on behalf of the UK’s Airport Operators Association found that <a href="http://www.aoa.org.uk/2017/03/aviation-deal-as-a-priority-in-the-brexit-negotiations/">80% of MPs supported</a> the prioritisation of air transport (the recently-launched <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/631036/aviation-strategy-call-for-evidence.pdf">consultation on future UK aviation strategy</a> will not be completed in time to impact negotiations). </p>
<p>On the EU side, a recent meeting of the European Parliament’s transport committee heard representatives from EU airlines, airports and travel operators <a href="http://www.brusselstimes.com/eu-affairs/8689/brexit-turbulence-ahead-from-autumn-2018-for-airline-sector">stress the need</a> to avoid travel chaos. In the US, the chief executive of the largest aviation trade group <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/07/23/us-aviation-trade-body-urges-brexit-negotiators-prioritise-airline/">called for</a> aviation to be separated out from Brexit negotiations so that UK-EU and UK-US Open Skies Agreements, which govern flying between them, could be finalised by April of 2018 to avoid disruption.</p>
<p>With the third round of negotiations scheduled to commence on August 28, a positive first step in this direction would be to include aviation on the agenda.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/82105/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Padraic Regan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Failing to agree an aviation agreement could mean no legal basis for flights to operate at UK airports.Padraic Regan, Lecturer in Strategy; Researcher in Aviation, Trinity College DublinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/765802017-04-26T01:59:40Z2017-04-26T01:59:40ZBackyard skinny-dippers lack effective laws to keep peeping drones at bay<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166713/original/file-20170425-13386-rss3v7.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">New technologies make it easier than ever for peeping Toms – and the law isn't much help to stop them.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SFW_Depiction_of_Nude_Bathing.jpg">Gisele Porcaro/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Recent advances in technology mean we can no longer rely on fences or barriers around our homes to protect our privacy. This was certainly the case for Darwin resident Karli Hyatt, who on Tuesday explained to the ABC’s <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lawreport/regulating-eyes-in-the-sky/8466636">Law Report</a> how a drone invaded the security and privacy of her suburban backyard.</p>
<p>Hyatt had returned home last week from an evening gym session, undressed and jumped into her secluded backyard pool. She thought she was “skinny-dipping” in private. Within minutes, though, a small camera-mounted quadcopter drone was hovering close overhead. Hyatt is certain it was watching her, although there was no operator to be seen. </p>
<p>She describes the experience as initially shocking and has ongoing concerns about who might have been flying the drone and why. The result is an erosion of trust and cohesion in her neighbourhood and a feeling of insecurity in her own home. You can listen to the ABC interview <a href="https://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pgW6zemDyG?play=true">here</a>.</p>
<h2>What laws might apply to this case?</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166717/original/file-20170425-13411-1u4p9dz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166717/original/file-20170425-13411-1u4p9dz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/166717/original/file-20170425-13411-1u4p9dz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=716&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166717/original/file-20170425-13411-1u4p9dz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=716&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166717/original/file-20170425-13411-1u4p9dz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=716&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166717/original/file-20170425-13411-1u4p9dz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166717/original/file-20170425-13411-1u4p9dz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/166717/original/file-20170425-13411-1u4p9dz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A camera-mounted drone quadcopter can now be bought and flown without a licence in Australia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Spying_quadcopter.jpg">succo/Wikimedia Commons</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-relaxed-drone-regulations-will-help-the-industry-take-off-57201">relaxed rules on privately operated drones</a> last year, <a href="https://theconversation.com/got-a-drone-for-christmas-know-the-law-before-taking-to-the-skies-70341">although some restrictions remain</a>. However, flying a drone over private property isn’t illegal under CASA rules, nor is filming someone from it. Aircraft are generally permitted overflight of properties; otherwise they could fly only over public land. </p>
<p>In fact, most Australian states have barred home owners from suing aircraft operators for causing “nuisance” by overflight. </p>
<p>Although the Northern Territory is one of the few exceptions, the courts are still resistant to claims of nuisance against aircraft without proof of persistent and continuing interference with the property. One or two overflights (even on the same day) are unlikely to be enough to establish this.</p>
<p>Unlike its common-law cousins, <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-drone-rules-with-more-eyes-in-the-sky-expect-less-privacy-66202">Australia lacks a tort of privacy</a>. This is based on the conventional view that it would effectively prohibit people looking over each other’s fences. If you don’t like that happening – the old reasoning goes – you should build a higher fence. </p>
<p>Although most common-law countries have moved past this view, Australia hasn’t. This means Karli Hyatt couldn’t sue the drone operator (if she could find them) for a breach of privacy. </p>
<p>What all Australian jurisdictions have criminalised is harassment and stalking, however conducted. But these laws generally require a “pattern of behaviour”. </p>
<p>In the NT, for instance, it would have to be proved that the activity involved intentionally watching Hyatt “<a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nt/num_act/dafva200734o2007300/s7.html">on at least two separate occasions</a>” with the “intention of causing harm” to her or causing her to “fear harm”. Given she doesn’t know who was flying the drone or why, this will be hard to prove. </p>
<p>That said, this case does appear to involve a breach of the relaxed CASA flight rules; the drone was being flown at night, within 30 metres of her and out of sight of the operator. But because she doesn’t know who was flying the drone she can’t identify someone to report to CASA.</p>
<p>If it happens again she can’t prove it is the same drone – as would be needed to apply nuisance, harassment and stalking laws – nor the intentions of the operator. </p>
<p>One of the reasons drone rules were relaxed is that CASA simply cannot monitor every privately operated drone. CASA also insists it cannot be responsible for <a href="https://www.casa.gov.au/aircraft/landing-page/flying-drones-australia">policing privacy breaches</a> by drones. But there isn’t another agency that can effectively do this. </p>
<p>With no regulatory agency, no tort of privacy, (nearly) no nuisance and inapplicable harassment and stalking laws, there isn’t much law when it comes to peeping Toms using drones around our homes and private spaces.</p>
<h2>Technology has left law behind</h2>
<p>Critics of increased protections against “privacy-invasive technologies” such as drones argue that we are already subject to surveillance by CCTV and satellites. They also point out that neighbouring properties often overlook modern dwellings.</p>
<p>In those situations, however, the person being observed is put on reasonable notice or can easily identify the observer. We can build a higher fence, plant a hedge, or install a blind. If someone has filmed us from a neighbouring apartment, the footage will likely reveal who was doing it or from where. If we are accidentally recorded on Google Earth, there is a single company to negotiate with or put pressure on. </p>
<p>However, technologies like drones really do seem to change the privacy landscape. The sheer number of them, their mobile nature and the inability to identify who is operating them limit our ability to protect ourselves from prying eyes. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1WqbICyAd60?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Off-the-shelf drones allow users to fly around neighbourhoods filming in high resolution.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>As Karli Hyatt’s case shows, simply expecting home owners to build higher fences is no longer really applicable, so it might be time for the law to step in. </p>
<h2>What can be done to protect privacy?</h2>
<p>In 2014, a Commonwealth parliamentary committee delivered a report, <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Social_Policy_and_Legal_Affairs/Drones/Report">Eyes in the Sky</a>. It recommended reforming laws on harassment and stalking and introducing a tort of privacy for unreasonable interference into private spaces – as did the <a href="http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/serious-invasions-privacy-dp-80">Australian Law Reform Commission</a> the same year. Yet such rules depend on proving who was operating the drone in the first place. </p>
<p>Commercial operators must notify CASA of their intention to fly a drone. Untrained non-commercial operators do not, which means there is no record of who is flying drones and where. </p>
<p>Almost all off-the-shelf drones contain GPS and flight recorders. One technical/legal solution might be to require that they also be fitted with a mobile SIM card (just as your tablet can have a cloned SIM card from your mobile). Flight data would then be automatically uploaded to the cloud-based government database whenever the drone was within reach of a mobile network. </p>
<p>Tampering with the recorder would be illegal. This would allow CASA, the police or private citizens to establish who was flying a drone. </p>
<p>While there might be some technical or logistical obstacles, and some infrastructure costs for government, this proposal would not overwhelm CASA with the burden of directly regulating the increasing number of drones. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OHyjtVvGekM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Drones have many positive uses, such as firefighting. (Note: this video is from before the relaxing of drone rules.)</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most drone owners act in good faith and respect others, but a few rogue ones misusing the technology may turn the public tide. Drones have many socially positive uses, but spying on people in their own homes is not one of them. The law needs to help residents protect themselves against such invasions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76580/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brendan Gogarty does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A surprise intrusion by a drone on a Darwin woman skinny-dipping in her secluded backyard pool highlights the many weaknesses of current privacy and stalking laws.Brendan Gogarty, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of TasmaniaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/703412016-12-25T20:41:48Z2016-12-25T20:41:48ZGot a drone for Christmas? Know the law before taking to the skies<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150700/original/image-20161219-24303-n6pu7v.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's all fun and games until someone cops a fine.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dmitry Kalinovsky/shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Whether a beginner, a serious aviation enthusiast, or just a fan of gadgets, many of you will have received drones as Christmas gifts. Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have surged in popularity and affordability in recent years, and there’s no doubt that recreational drone use is on the rise as a result.</p>
<p>But not all recreational drone users know the law – or if they do, they don’t appear to be following it. There has been a string of <a href="https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/Reports-and-analysis/Airprox-reports-2016/">near misses</a> between drones and other aircraft, and other cases of <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/drones-straying-too-far-raises-risk-for-pilots-firefighters-20151009-gk5l8u.html">irresponsible use</a>. </p>
<p>Only last month, a recreational drone user was <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/man-faces-9000-fine-for-using-a-drone-to-pick-up-a-bunnings-sausage-20161108-gsl3q2.html">investigated</a> by Australia’s <a href="https://www.casa.gov.au">Civil Aviation Safety Authority</a> (CASA) after evidently flying a drone over a crowded Bunnings carpark to pick up a sausage at a sausage sizzle. </p>
<p>In the runup to Christmas, UN aviation officials this month <a href="http://www.icao.int/Newsroom/Pages/icao-launches-unmanned-aircraft-systems-toolkit.aspx">warned</a> anyone getting a drone to make sure they learn how to operate it safely. So if Santa has brought you one, here’s what you need to know.</p>
<h2>Get on board</h2>
<p>In Australia, if you want to fly your drone for fun, you don’t need CASA’s approval – as long as you follow the authority’s simple safety rules. Recreational drone operators must comply with CASA’s rules (known as its <a href="https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2016C00889">standard operating conditions</a>).</p>
<p>You must only fly your drone within visual line of sight – that is, where you are able to see the drone with your own eyes, rather than with the help of binoculars or a telescope, for example. What’s more, you can only fly in visual meteorological conditions, which generally means no night flights. </p>
<p>In most Australian cities, you can only fly your drone up to a maximum altitude of 120 metres – most of this airspace is considered controlled airspace. To fly a recreational drone any higher, you must seek approval from CASA and adhere to any associated conditions.</p>
<p>During flight, you must keep your drone at least 30 metres from anyone who is not directly associated with its operation. The drone must also not be flown over populated areas (that is, areas that are sufficiently crowded that the drone would pose an unreasonable risk to the life, safety or property of someone present). This includes crowded beaches or parks, or sports ovals where a game is in progress.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150699/original/image-20161219-24307-1u61g7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150699/original/image-20161219-24307-1u61g7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/150699/original/image-20161219-24307-1u61g7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150699/original/image-20161219-24307-1u61g7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150699/original/image-20161219-24307-1u61g7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150699/original/image-20161219-24307-1u61g7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150699/original/image-20161219-24307-1u61g7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/150699/original/image-20161219-24307-1u61g7r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=565&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Better check the rules before going for shots like this.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Gustavo Frazao/shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There is a general prohibition on flying a drone in a way that creates a hazard to another aircraft, person or property. A “hazard” may be interpreted fairly broadly. To be safe, CASA recommends keeping your drone at least 5.5km away from any airfield. Operations within 5.5km of an airfield are allowed in some instances, as long as they are not on the approach and departure path, and would not otherwise get in the way of aircraft using the airfield. </p>
<p>Recreational drone users are also advised to respect personal privacy by not recording or taking photos of people without their consent. While privacy concerns are not within CASA’s <a href="https://www.casa.gov.au/aircraft/landing-page/flying-drones-australia">purview</a>, operators may find themselves in breach of state and territory privacy or trespass laws, depending on how and where the drone is flown, and whether audio, video or photographic footage is recorded.</p>
<h2>High flyers</h2>
<p>As a general rule, drones cannot be flown for money or economic reward without a specific licence. There are, however, two <a href="https://www.casa.gov.au/aircraft/standard-page/part-101-amendments-cutting-red-tape-remotely-piloted-aircraft">new</a> instances where such a certificate is not required: for commercial-like operations over your own land, and for commercial flights with very small drones (under 2kg) provided that the pilot notifies CASA at least five business days beforehand, and adheres to all the existing rules for recreational drone use. </p>
<p>Having considered all the rules, the Bunnings sausage sizzle incident starts to look less like a harmless jape and more like a multiple breach of the rules (although the video’s author has claimed that the video was an edited composite rather than all shot during a single flight). </p>
<p>The video appears to show several breaches of the rules, including: flying a drone out of visual line of sight (assuming that it is being piloted from the backyard hot tub depicted in the video); flying within 30m of people; and flying over a populated area. The operator is <a href="http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/man-faces-9000-fine-for-using-a-drone-to-pick-up-a-bunnings-sausage-20161108-gsl3q2.html">potentially facing</a> a fine of up to A$9,000.</p>
<p>If you’re worried your new drone might get you into similar hot water, CASA provides significant <a href="https://www.casa.gov.au/operations/standard-page/rpa-resources-and-links">guidance</a> to help operators avoid infringing the rules. That way, you can make sure your high-flying gift doesn’t end up ruining your Christmas cheer.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/70341/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rebecca Johnston does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>All over the country, novice drone pilots are launching their new Christmas presents skywards. But do they all know the rules? Here’s a primer.Rebecca Johnston, Faculty of Law, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/667682016-10-10T19:00:55Z2016-10-10T19:00:55ZThe new UN deal on aviation emissions leaves much to be desired<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141050/original/image-20161010-2635-1m4k1ke.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's not quite time for international airlines to fly off into the sunset</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Aviation image www.shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p><a href="http://www.icao.int/Meetings/a39/Documents/WP/wp_462_en.pdf">Emissions from international flights</a> - a bugbear of efforts to combat climate change - will finally be regulated under a scheme agreed by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) on Thursday last week. </p>
<p>It’s a problem that had remained largely unaddressed by states – and airlines – since 1997, the year when essentially all nations, through the
<a href="http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf">Kyoto Protocol</a>, determined that ICAO – a United Nations agency – should deal with it.</p>
<p>Governments all took the view that, given jurisdictional and aircraft ownership and control issues, and the nature of the problem, ICAO was the appropriate forum to address the emissions problem. It was also a reflection of how difficult the problem was – and still is – to solve. </p>
<p>At the last ICAO Assembly, in 2013, states <a href="http://www.icao.int/environmental-protection/Pages/market-based-measures.aspx">agreed</a> that a market mechanism for international aviation was best, and that its form would be approved by the assembly this year. This 2013 agreement came just shy of 20 years since ICAO was tasked with addressing the problem. The 2016 meeting was the organisation’s 38th.</p>
<h2>What did the assembly agree?</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.icao.int/about-icao/Council/Pages/council-states-2016-2019.aspx">ICAO member states</a> chose a global carbon offset scheme before the start of the assembly to deal with international aviation emissions. The scheme is called the CORSIA , or the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation. </p>
<p>Other market-based options (more effective ones, according to general consensus) include an emissions trading scheme (ETS) – either a cap-and-trade or a baseline-and-credit scheme – or a carbon tax. </p>
<p>For some time it has been clear that offsetting was ICAO’s preferred mechanism. In part, it was chosen because it is less transparent and less onerous than either a carbon tax or an ETS. A tax would have been more straightforward and easier to implement. </p>
<p>An ETS would have made sense given that the European Union already has one in place for EU carriers. Moreover, an <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/aviation/index_en.htm">attempt</a> to include non-EU carriers in the EU ETS failed a few years ago. ICAO could have used blueprints for the attempt in the lead-up to the 2016 assembly and, arguably, a better, more effective result might have ensued.</p>
<p>Relatively few changes were made between the final draft text and the <a href="http://www.icao.int/Meetings/a39/Documents/WP/wp_462_en.pdf">final version</a> that resulted from the assembly’s deliberations and private discussions between the parties. </p>
<p>As a result, an ICAO press conference to announce the details – unusually for such conferences, held the day before the assembly concluded – was attended by fewer than 15 journalists, and questions lasted less than 15 minutes.</p>
<h2>How does the scheme work?</h2>
<p>As outlined in our <a href="http://theconversation.com/are-we-finally-about-to-get-a-global-agreement-on-aviation-emissions-65110">previous Conversation article</a>, there are three phases to the offset scheme: a pilot phase would operate from 2021 to 2023 for states that volunteer to participate in the scheme. Much about this phase remains unclear. </p>
<p>An initial phase from 2024 to 2026 would then operate for states that (as with the pilot phase) voluntarily participate, and would offset using options in the assembly resolution text. </p>
<p>Finally, a subsequent mandatory phase would operate from 2027 – fully a decade away to 2035 – and would exempt a fair number of states on various bases. And there are further exemptions.</p>
<p>None of this was changed in the final resolution text.</p>
<h2>Many weaknesses</h2>
<p>While an advanced previous draft of the resolution asked the aviation sector to assess its share of the global carbon budget for holding warming to 1.5-2°C, such assessment was deleted from the final draft. </p>
<p>Now the text simply requests that ICAO: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>…continue to explore the feasibility of a long term global aspirational goal for international aviation, through conducting detailed studies.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What’s more, the CORSIA only <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6be5cb930f7b4ecbb24ec79219a74225/un-agreement-reached-aircraft-climate-change-emissions">applies</a> to international flights, which make up about 60% of aviation emissions.</p>
<p>Participation is also an issue. At this stage, for the first, voluntary period of the agreement, just 65 states will join. It appears that Russia and India, two of the world’s largest emitters, will not participate. Brazil’s <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-aviation-idUSKCN1261QR">participation</a> is unclear. </p>
<p>The director general of IATA, the organisation of the world’s airlines,
<a href="http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/2016-10-06-02.aspx">said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This agreement ensures that the aviation industry’s economic and social contributions are matched with cutting-edge efforts on sustainability.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>We’re not sure this is the case. Perhaps more correct is a <a href="http://www.airportwatch.org.uk/2016/10/draft-icao-deal/">statement</a> from Bill Hemmings, a director at campaign group Transport & Environment:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Airline claims that flying will now be green are a myth … This deal won’t reduce demand for jet fuel one drop. Instead offsetting aims to cut emissions in other industries… Today is not mission accomplished for ICAO, Europe or industry. The world needs more than voluntary agreements.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The world also needs more than carbon offsets to address the aviation emissions problem both domestically and internationally.</p>
<p><em>The authors attended the 39th ICAO Assembly held in Montreal from 27 September to 7 October. <a href="https://theconversation.com/are-we-finally-about-to-get-a-global-agreement-on-aviation-emissions-65110">Read their previous article here</a>.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66768/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A global deal on airline emissions leaves a number of loopholes.David Hodgkinson, Associate Professor, The University of Western AustraliaRebecca Johnston, Faculty of Law, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/565982016-04-05T03:07:10Z2016-04-05T03:07:10ZAirline emissions and the case for a carbon tax on flight tickets<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117408/original/image-20160405-27157-1vbab5e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Would you pay an extra couple of dollars for the climate?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Sorbis/shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>After years of delay, the international aviation industry is inching its way towards bringing its greenhouse emissions under some form of regulation. Last month the United Nations’ International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) released a <a href="http://www.icao.int/Meetings/GLADs-2016/Documents/Draft%20Assembly%20Resolution%20text%20on%20GMBM%20for%202016%20GLADs.pdf">draft resolution</a> that would, for the first time ever, regulate aviation emissions on a global basis. </p>
<p>This should be significant news. Aviation is the fastest-growing source of greenhouse emissions in the transport sector, it produces <a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09554.pdf">between 3% and 8% of the world’s total emissions</a> (<a href="http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2013%2009%20Your%20Guide%20to%20ICAO_final.pdf">more than the whole of South Korea</a>), and air travel is <a href="http://web.mit.edu/airlines/analysis/analysis_airline_industry.html">growing at 4-5% per year</a>. Yet these emissions have never been regulated on any meaningful scale.</p>
<p>It’s not hard to see why. Jurisdictional issues have meant that aviation emissions are not dealt with by the UN’s <a href="http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/conveng.pdf">Framework Convention on Climate Change</a>, which asks nations to do their fair share to cut emissions. </p>
<p>Say an aircraft is manufactured in country A, owned by a company in country B, leased to an airline in country C, takes off from country D, flies over country E, and lands at an airport in country F. Who is responsible for that aircraft’s emissions? </p>
<h2>Tricky problem</h2>
<p>Previous attempts by states (or groups of states, such as the European Union) to regulate these international emissions have ended in tears. As a result of the EU’s attempt to include non-EU airlines in its <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/index_en.htm">Emissions Trading Scheme</a>, the United States passed legislation – the pointedly titled <a href="https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s1956/text">European Union Emissions Trading Scheme Prohibition Act of 2011</a> – prohibiting its airlines from complying.</p>
<p>There are also reasons to believe that the ICAO’s latest effort is problematic too. It proposes <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/carbon-offsets">carbon offsetting</a> as the main mechanism through which aviation emissions should be regulated – a proposal that sits uneasily with the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-paris-climate-agreement-at-a-glance-50465">Paris climate agreement</a> struck late last year, which makes no mention of carbon offsetting. </p>
<p>There is, of course, another way to price carbon and thereby discourage emissions: a carbon tax. Adding such a tax to airline tickets might sound like a non-starter in terms of getting the industry to sign up, but it would actually be very similar to one that already exists.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.unitaid.eu/en/how/innovative-financing">UNITAID solidarity levy</a> is a supplementary charge on airline tickets, ranging from US$1 for economy class, up to a maximum of US$40 for business and first class. It is implemented by eight countries (with 15 states gearing up to implement it), the proceeds of which fund health initiatives in the developing world, including providing access to drugs for HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis.</p>
<p>This levy model would address the aviation emissions problem far more effectively than the proposed draft ICAO offsetting resolution. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117409/original/image-20160405-27150-1yudni0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/117409/original/image-20160405-27150-1yudni0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117409/original/image-20160405-27150-1yudni0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117409/original/image-20160405-27150-1yudni0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117409/original/image-20160405-27150-1yudni0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117409/original/image-20160405-27150-1yudni0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/117409/original/image-20160405-27150-1yudni0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A few dollars extra on a ticket could help curb emissions.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Africa Studio/shutterstock.com</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>The tax route</h2>
<p>Taxes have several advantages over emissions trading schemes in addressing the emissions problem. Taxation is a proven instrument. Tax systems are mature and universally applied policy measures. Taxation is also more direct and more transparent than emissions trading, and captures revenue more easily with less regulatory cost.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.who.int/immunization/programmes_systems/financing/analyses/Brief_18_Airline_Ticket_Tax.pdf">UNITAID air ticket levy</a> is not strictly a tax and so avoids many of the problems (imagined and real) but bears all the (positive) characteristics of a tax. </p>
<p>Most passengers who pay the UNITAID levy are typically charged US$1 or US$2, on outbound air tickets using existing airport tax systems. It is applied to all airlines, both domestic and international, and airlines collect and declare the levy. Passengers in transit are exempt and countries themselves can decide what rate to charge and which ticket classes they would like to include. </p>
<p>Because passengers, rather than airlines, are charged, a similar levy could be a useful “bottom-up” model for reducing aviation emissions.</p>
<h2>Aviation nations</h2>
<p>This is a particularly useful idea in the wake of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-paris-climate-agreement-at-a-glance-50465">Paris climate agreement</a>, which is significant for aviation because it largely does away with the previous principle that only developed states should take the lead in addressing the climate change problem. </p>
<p>Now all states, both rich and poor, have put forward “<a href="http://www4.unfccc.int/submissions/indc/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx">intended nationally determined contributions</a>” to address the climate change problem. </p>
<p>Yet another problem with the ICAO draft resolution is that, unlike the Paris deal, it still maintains the distinction between developed and developing states. Draft clause 6 <a href="http://www.icao.int/Meetings/GLADs-2016/Documents/Draft%20Assembly%20Resolution%20text%20on%20GMBM%20for%202016%20GLADs.pdf">acknowledges</a> the:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…special circumstances and respective capabilities of States, in particular developing States, in terms of vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, economic development levels, and contributions to international aviation emissions, while minimizing market distortion.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Applying a point-of-purchase carbon tax on airline tickets would level the playing field because everyone who flies would pay – both those passengers in developing countries, and the far more numerous ones in the developed world – with states setting the tax at a level appropriate to their (developed or developing) circumstances.</p>
<h2>The problem with offsets</h2>
<p>Contrast that with the ICAO’s <a href="http://www.icao.int/Meetings/GLADs-2016/Documents/Draft%20Assembly%20Resolution%20text%20on%20GMBM%20for%202016%20GLADs.pdf">proposed approach</a>, which is to implement a “Global Market-based Measure” (its preferred term for its proposed offsetting scheme), alongside a range of other methods including improvements to aircraft technology and operations, alternative fuels, and other strategies.</p>
<p>The problem is that most countries have now either adopted emissions trading or carbon taxation as their preferred methods to drive down emissions. </p>
<p>In isolation, offsets have little effect. They are a <a href="http://gwagner.com/planetary-socialism/">diversion</a> from legislated mitigation; it is collective action that matters.</p>
<p>What is needed is policy that motivates major industrial sectors to reduce emissions and use resources more efficiently – taxation, in other words.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/56598/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>A carbon tax on airline tickets might sound like a tricky sell, but many airlines already collect a similar levy to raise funds for developing world health initiatives.David Hodgkinson, Associate Professor, The University of Western AustraliaRebecca Johnston, Faculty of Law, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/544752016-02-11T05:09:47Z2016-02-11T05:09:47ZThe planned aviation emissions rules will just delay the heavy lifting until later<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111078/original/image-20160211-29180-enfqvq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Really deep cuts in aircraft emissions are still a distant prospect.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Joakim Lloyd Raboff/Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There appeared to be some rare good news this week for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from aircraft. </p>
<p>At a meeting in Montreal, the environment committee of the United Nations’ <a href="http://www.icao.int/Pages/default.aspx">International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)</a> unanimously recommended that new CO₂ emissions standard be applied to new aircraft designs from 2020, and to new deliveries of current in-production aircraft types from 2023. Aircraft that do not meet the standards would cease production by 2028.</p>
<p>The recommendation still needs to be adopted by ICAO’S 36-member <a href="http://www.icao.int/about-icao/Pages/council-states-2014-2016.aspx">governing council</a>, although it is likely to back them unanimously. But will the new standards make a genuine difference to the previously unregulated emissions from air travel?</p>
<h2>Flight plan</h2>
<p>The committee <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-aviation-options-factbo-idUKKCN0VH252?mod=related&channelName=globalEnergyNews">reportedly considered</a> a set of ten “stringency options”, which would curb emissions from large aircraft by amounts ranging from 20% to just over 40%.</p>
<p>The issue in contention was which option to choose for aircraft that are already in production. In contrast, yet-to-be-designed aircraft were less controversial; most ICAO members were in favour of stringent standards for designs that don’t yet exist (future generations always seem to wear the cost of climate change).</p>
<p>The option <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-aviation-options-factbo-idUKKCN0VH252?mod=related&channelName=globalEnergyNews">chosen</a>, and the recommended time frames for implementation, suggest that the imposition on manufacturers may be minimal. </p>
<p>The proposal will require carbon dioxide emissions from new aircraft <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-aviation-idUKKCN0VH1XA">to be cut</a> by just 4% over 12 years, when market forces alone are <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-aviation-idUKKCN0VH1XA">predicted</a> to deliver more than a 10% efficiency gain in the same time frame. </p>
<h2>Welcome news?</h2>
<p>Airlines, industry groups and governments have all welcomed the recommendations. A senior White House official <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-aviation-idUKKCN0VH1XA">said</a> that the United States had “pushed hard for a strong standard” and that the government is “very pleased with the result”. A <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/08/fact-sheet-us-leadership-securing-first-ever-global-carbon-emissions">fact sheet</a> issued by the White House said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When fully implemented, the standards are expected to reduce carbon emissions more than 650 million tons between 2020 and 2040, equivalent to removing over 140 million cars from the road for a year.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The US government added that the ICAO announcement:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>…follows closely on the heels of the Paris Climate Agreement reached last December and demonstrates the international [aviation] community’s continued commitment to take action on climate change…</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The only problem is that it doesn’t. In reviewing how the Paris climate negotiations affected international aviation, Geneva-based industry lobby group the Air Transport Action Group (ATAG) <a href="http://aviationbenefits.org/blog/2015/12/cop21-and-aviation/">noted</a> that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There ended up being no direct reference to international aviation in the final [Paris climate agreement] text, we expect partially because there were much ‘bigger’ issues to concentrate on and also because ICAO and the industry remain fully focused on the aviation climate challenge and are working hard to deliver solutions under the ICAO mandate.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is a curious claim to make – especially given that legally binding national emissions targets were not on the table in Paris, and that countries’ <a href="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/191/2f9207c6269c49724f77368618b19a7107ced0f3/site/index.html?&lat=-25&lng=-25&zoom=3">climate pledges</a> were announced before the climate summit began and were not up for renegotiation. </p>
<p>It’s mostly curious, though, because the White House <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/08/fact-sheet-us-leadership-securing-first-ever-global-carbon-emissions">estimates</a> that commercial aircraft account for 11% of global transportation emissions and that, without more action, these emissions may grow by almost half.</p>
<p>That’s a conservative estimate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change calculates that aviation accounts for <a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09554.pdf">up to 8% of total global emissions</a> (if air travel were a country it would be ranked 7th for emissions, between Germany and South Korea), and air travel is <a href="http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/2013%2009%20Your%20Guide%20to%20ICAO_final.pdf">growing by 4-5% a year</a>. </p>
<p>The United Nations <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/clima/events/docs/0053/presentation_artur_runge_en.pdf">estimates</a> that without switching to alternative fuels, total aviation emissions will be anywhere between 290% and 667% above 2006 levels by 2050.</p>
<h2>Easy to effect, but ineffective</h2>
<p>What’s more, estimates vary widely for the emissions reductions that will be delivered by the new standards. The White House <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/08/fact-sheet-us-leadership-securing-first-ever-global-carbon-emissions">calculates</a> that the new rules would cut CO₂ emissions by 650 million tonnes between 2020 and 2040.</p>
<p>But the European think tank <a href="http://www.transportenvironment.org/">Transport and Environment</a> claims that the true emissions reduction over that period would be <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-aviation-idUKKCN0VH1XA">closer to 300 million tonnes</a>, while another research group, the <a href="http://www.theicct.org/">International Council on Clean Transportation</a>, puts the figure <a href="http://uk.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-aviation-idUKKCN0VH1XA">even lower</a>.</p>
<p>National governments will support the new aviation standard, just as they will support the development of a <a href="http://www.icao.int/Meetings/a38/Documents/10018_en.pdf">market-based mechanism</a>, almost certainly in the form of an emissions trading scheme. </p>
<p>Both are options are easier and more palatable than a straightforward <a href="https://theconversation.com/its-time-for-a-global-tax-on-aviation-emissions-36020">carbon tax</a> on airline tickets. But both are likely to be less effective in cutting the carbon footprint of air travel.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/54475/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Governments and the aviation industry have welcomed new proposed aircraft emissions standards - which rather suggests that the new rules don’t go far enough.David Hodgkinson, Associate Professor, The University of Western AustraliaRebecca Johnston, Faculty of Law, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/529712016-01-13T19:10:40Z2016-01-13T19:10:40ZAirly’s private plane service adds new layer of elitism to Australian skies<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107961/original/image-20160113-8411-dqhj0m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Air travel has always been stratified.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Image sourced from Shutterstock.com</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>For a small but (presumably) well-off number of Australians, air travel between Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra could be about to change.
Startup company <a href="http://www.flyairly.com">Airly</a> is planning a new passenger membership model, and aims to compete, in part, with the major Australian airlines. </p>
<p>Its model is based on a successful one in the US, and while there are differences in the Australian aviation market, could it also be successful here?</p>
<h2>‘More than a seat on a plane’</h2>
<p>Airly is a <a href="http://www.flyairly.com/faq/">self-styled</a> “unique entry into the world of private aviation, a world that is normally highly exclusive and highly expensive”. </p>
<p>The startup will <a href="http://www.flyairly.com/faq/">operate</a> Beechcraft King Air 350 aircraft. The aircraft is the same as that used by the Royal Flying Doctor Service, the Royal Australian Air Force and numerous international operators, and will have eight leather club seats, each one an aisle <em>and</em> a window – “eliminating the ‘armrest war’ experienced when flying commercial”. Passengers will also <a href="http://www.flyairly.com/faq/">travel</a> with “like-minded” individuals including “movers and shakers”, according to Airly publicity. </p>
<p>Passengers will have their “every need” met – except perhaps lavatory needs; while an Airly aircraft does have a belted lavatory, one’s experience, it <a href="http://www.flyairly.com/faq/">seems</a>, “will be far more comfortable if you use the [airport] lounge toilets instead”.</p>
<p>More prosaically, Airly is marketed as saving one to two hours per round trip through an absence of queues, car parks and, well, people. Airly <a href="http://www.flyairly.com/faq/">says</a> it will provide “all the benefits of having your own private plane at a fraction of the cost”. In terms of cost, memberships have three tiers – “starter”, “business” and “enterprise”. After a A$1000 joining fee, each tier respectively <a href="http://www.flyairly.com/how-it-works/">costs</a> A$2550, A$3150 or A$3750 per month, together with other opportunities to bring a friend free every month.</p>
<p>Airly will initially <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3393036/Start-Airly-membership-based-private-airline-launches-Australia-mission-change-people-fly-Sydney-Melbourne-using-smaller-aircraft-smaller-airport.html#ixzz3x21LhTI2">fly out</a> of private aviation terminals at Bankstown Airport in Sydney, Melbourne’s Essendon Airport and Canberra Airport. Bankstown, further from central Sydney, is less congested than Sydney. Essendon is both less congested than Tullamarine and closer to the city. </p>
<h2>‘We don’t fly passengers, we fly members’</h2>
<p>Most significantly, it should be noted that Airly will not itself be an actual carrier. Rather, it acts – or will act – as an agent for its members, and will not be the operator of the relevant scheduled aircraft. Airly <a href="http://www.flyairly.com">states</a> that Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) accredited Air Operator Certificate holders" </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“which have Regular Public Transport (RPT) approvals flying on behalf of Airly exercise full operational control of the aircraft. Any aircraft owned or leased by Airly are dry leased to the operating air carrier to facilitate operations by that carrier.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A "dry lease” (as opposed to a “wet” one) generally involves only the lease of the physical aircraft ultimately to the operating carrier without crew, maintenance (possibly), or fuel.</p>
<h2>Implications – passenger liability and otherwise – for ‘members’</h2>
<p>Australian carriers’ liability and insurance arrangements are outlined in the <a href="https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00129">Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959</a>. The Act gives the force of law to a number of passenger liability frameworks, including those arising under the various Warsaw liability instruments, and the 1999 <a href="http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/air.carriage.unification.convention.montreal.1999/">Montreal Convention</a> (MC99) which is the most passenger-friendly treaty, and provides a separate system of liability for domestic travel. </p>
<p>For Airly’s purposes, “members,” when flying, would be passengers for the purposes of the Australian passenger liability framework for domestic passenger travel.</p>
<p>In other words, Airly’s passengers would in terms of liability issues (accidents, for example) be treated at law in the same way as, say, domestic passengers on Qantas. Interesting issues may arise, however, when demand for one or more of the eight passenger seats on an Airly flight outstrips supply. While the contract for carriage or membership agreement between the passenger and Airly would no doubt deal with such an eventuality, one can imagine passenger … unhappiness.</p>
<p>And if Airly went bust and passengers (perhaps unsuccessfully) attempted to reclaim all or part of their membership fee… more unhappiness. In this regard payment month by month would seem to make sense for members.</p>
<h2>Will it work?</h2>
<p>And airlines do go bust fairly regularly. In the US, there has been nearly 200 <a href="http://thelawdictionary.org/article/list-of-airlines-that-are-currently-bankrupt/#ixzz3x1yG6Uxa">airline bankruptcy filings</a> since 1990 including those of Pan Am, Trans World Airlines and Continental. In Australia, while examples are fewer, Air Australia and Ansett are <a href="http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/flying-into-failure-airlines-that-no-longer-exist/news-story/c71c826106c228d56e32a631732cac96">well known failures</a>.</p>
<p>IATA (the organisation of the world’s airlines) <a href="http://qz.com/570836/airline-profits-are-soaring-to-a-barely-acceptable-level/">projects</a> that, beyond this year, airline profitability will slow due to the cyclical nature of the industry, increasing interest rates and carrier realisation of the maximum benefits of cheap jet fuel. Its CEO has <a href="http://qz.com/570836/airline-profits-are-soaring-to-a-barely-acceptable-level/">said</a> the industry’s profitability “is better described as ‘fragile’ than ‘sustainable”.</p>
<p>Notwithstanding this less than rosy (international) outlook, could this be the right time for the (domestic) Airly? In an average four weeks, 7.6 million Australians do <a href="http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/6603-qantas-singapore-airlines-set-flight-path-for-customer-satisfaction-success-201512202225">fly</a> on a domestic airline, 4.6 million travel with an international airline and 1.9 million fly domestic business class.</p>
<p>On those figures, absent any other consideration, maybe the times will suit Airly. And given its unique structure and business model, perhaps loss-making factors which apply to other, “traditional” carriers won’t apply so much to it.</p>
<h2>Elitism in the skies</h2>
<p>The Airly model – or variations of it – has operated in other jurisdictions. In Australia, however, on the scale and in the way Airly proposes, it’s new. It offers yet another “class” of air travel, albeit on fairly straightforward, but sparsely populated and nicely kitted-out aircraft. </p>
<p>In passenger terms, air travel has always been stratified (as it were). Airly – and developments like it around the world – is simply another iteration of this stratification.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/52971/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Hodgkinson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The profitability of the airline industry is fragile at best, but that doesn’t mean Australia can’t make room for another airline.David Hodgkinson, Associate Professor, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/492212015-10-20T02:40:36Z2015-10-20T02:40:36ZMH17 ‘justice’ takes several forms, none simple<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/98783/original/image-20151019-26285-mc68c0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Achieving 'justice' for the victims of the MH17 downing is not a straightforward task.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Dutch Safety Board’s <a href="http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl">final report</a> into the July 2014 downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 definitively found that the crash was caused by the detonation of a 9N314M warhead. The warhead was launched by a Russian-made Buk surface-to-air missile system from a 320km² area in eastern Ukraine. </p>
<p>In the wake of the report’s release last week, Australia’s prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, <a href="http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-depth/mh17/malcolm-turnbull-vows-justice-for-mh17-families/story-fno88it0-1227569342504?sv=5f40790f1eb518e6d71558439140a019">said</a> that Australia is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… determined to do everything we can … to identify those responsible and bring them to justice. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, “justice” itself is not straightforward. And in terms of MH17, there are multiple forms of justice to consider.</p>
<h2>Justice?</h2>
<p>The forms of justice might include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>justice for the families of MH17 by identifying, bringing to trial and punishing those who launched the Buk missile that brought down the aircraft (the Turnbull/<a href="http://www.afr.com/news/mh17-australia-determined-to-seek-justice-julie-bishop-says-20151013-gk8fkj">Julie Bishop</a> “justice”); </p></li>
<li><p>justice in the form of monetary compensation (to families) for the death of those onboard;</p></li>
<li><p>holding Malaysia Airlines to account for choosing to fly a route that some airlines chose not to fly due to the conflict on the ground in eastern Ukraine; and </p></li>
<li><p>justice with regard to the conflict between Russian proxies and the Ukrainians on the ground.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>There are also issues with notions of justice. Do we mean fairness in protecting rights and protesting wrongs? Fairness in the way people are dealt with? The process (or outcome) of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminal activity? </p>
<p>And are we confusing justice with compensation, at least in liability terms?</p>
<h2>Launch of the Buk missile</h2>
<p>It is not known definitively who launched the missile that brought down MH17. The Dutch Safety Board’s report made no findings regarding the issue. </p>
<p>Bishop is focused on prosecution of those responsible for the launch and detonation. She <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/mh17-australia-determined-to-seek-justice-julie-bishop-says-20151013-gk8fkj">hasn’t ruled out</a> returning to the UN Security Council and establishing an international tribunal. She has mentioned national prosecutions. </p>
<p>Bishop also <a href="http://www.afr.com/news/mh17-australia-determined-to-seek-justice-julie-bishop-says-20151013-gk8fkj">says</a> that payment of passenger compensation is reliant on criminal investigations:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Any issue of compensation will depend upon holding to account the perpetrators of the crime … I think that being able to identify the perpetrators of the crime would be a precondition to demanding compensation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But this is not the case. Justice in the form of compensation for passenger death (or injury) under relevant aircraft liability and passenger compensation regimes is entirely distinct.</p>
<h2>Compensation for passenger death or injury</h2>
<p>“Justice” in terms of passenger or next-of-kin compensation that applies to MH17 – unrelated to criminal investigation or international tribunals – is determined by finding the same treaty in place at the point of departure and the passenger’s final destination as ticketed. For MH17 passengers that will mostly be the <a href="http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/air.carriage.unification.convention.montreal.1999/">Montreal Convention</a>, but other less favourable regimes may apply to other passengers. </p>
<p><a href="http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/air.carriage.unification.convention.montreal.1999/">Article 17</a> of the Montreal Convention provides that a carrier:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Death or injury must be caused by an “accident”. The most widely and generally accepted <a href="https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/470/392/">definition</a> of an accident is set out by the US Supreme Court: liability under Article 17:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… arises only if a passenger’s injury [or death] is caused by an unexpected or unusual event or happening that is external to the passenger.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Under <a href="http://www.jus.uio.no/lm/air.carriage.unification.convention.montreal.1999/">Article 21</a> of the Montreal Convention, for damages arising under Article 17 not exceeding 113,100 SDRs (or about US$170,000) per passenger, the carrier cannot exclude or limit its liability. </p>
<p>Malaysia Airlines’ liability is potentially unlimited unless it can prove – and the burden of proof is with the carrier – that damage “was not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier or its servants or agents” or that such damage was solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party. That could be a problem.</p>
<h2>Liability for flight path choice</h2>
<p>The issue is whether it was reasonable, given the conflict below, for Malaysia Airlines to choose the flight path it did – and whether it should be held to account for that choice.</p>
<p>The Dutch Safety Board’s report noted that the airspace over eastern Ukraine “was much in use” between July 14 and 17, 2014. Sixty-one airline operators from 32 countries, including Malaysia Airlines, “routed their flights through this airspace”. </p>
<p>On July 17 – the day MH17 was downed – while 160 commercial airliners flew over the area, other airliners had <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/00e273e0-1758-11e4-87c0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz39thLB6Aq">stopped flights</a> over the region. It should be noted, though, that it is rare for countries to close their airspace because of armed conflict.</p>
<p>It appears that current arrangements with regard to flying over conflict areas are inadequate. The Dutch Safety Board’s report noted that operators “assume that unrestricted airspaces are safe”, and that they do not usually take into account the safety of the countries they fly over. When flying over a conflict area, an additional risk assessment, then, is necessary. </p>
<p>The report recommends that operators and countries:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… exchange more information about conflict areas and potential threats to civil aviation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And what does justice look like in terms of resolving the armed conflict in the eastern part of Ukraine? </p>
<h2>Aviation confronts 21st-century problems</h2>
<p>Aviation, which transformed travel and way of life in the 20th century, is being transformed in the 21st century and faces some difficult 21st-century problems. </p>
<p>These problems include the aviation emissions problem (emissions from aircraft remain unregulated), economic viability, the system of bilateral air-services agreements, and terrorism. </p>
<p>All involve difficult issues of sovereignty. MH17 involves additional issues of justice and compensation.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49221/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Hodgkinson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Aviation, which transformed travel and way of life in the 20th century, is being transformed in the 21st century and faces some difficult 21st-century problems.David Hodgkinson, Associate Professor, The University of Western AustraliaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.