Remember this 2021 blaze in Cape Town, South Africa, where the local drone body had to issue a warning for people to stop flying drones around the affected area because they were hampering fire-fighting efforts?
Apparently, that warning fell on deaf ears, because the problem of people flying unregistered drones into places they may or may be not supposed to fly in actually seems to be growing.
It is not only in the US, where the unauthorised drones are downing planes during deadly wildfire disasters, or in the UK, where the drones are being abused as mules to smuggle contraband into correctional facilities: in South Africa, private individuals are purchasing huge enterprise drones and using them for commercial purposes without the local civil aviation authorities being aware of it.
Investigations by a local drone-based security services provider have revealed a trend where private property owners, trusts, community organisations, and other individuals are purchasing drone docks and other drones in the belief that they are permitted to operate drones freely on their property or for communal purposes.
Well; news flash, but this would be wrong; in South Africa all drones purchased have to be registered with the South African Civil Aviation Authority, regardless of their size or their intended application.
That is according to the drone laws in the country, but Hussar Illegal Drone Operations Investigations, a subsidiary of Johannesburg drone security services provider Hussar Security and Defence Solutions, explains it better in its warning to people abusing drone technology and putting the rest of the industry in danger of losing the hard-earned trust gained with the regulator thus far.
“This assumption (that people can fly unregistered drone freely within the vicinity of their properties) is entirely incorrect and constitutes a violation of the regulations set out in Part 101 of the South African Civil Aviation Act,” said TS Kruger, the director at Hussar.
“Under the Act, a drone operator is classified as either ‘private’ or ‘commercial/corporate’. Even private operators, when flying on their own property, remain subject to strict limitations, including visual line-of-sight requirements or a maximum operating distance of 500 meters, stringent altitude restrictions, and several additional regulatory constraints.
“No exceptions to these rules exist.
“For accurate guidance and compliance information, it is strongly recommended that individuals seek professional advice, which may prevent significant financial loss and potential legal consequences.”
One can understand the anxiety for properly registered drone services providers in the country, most of whom have head to jump through stringent checks and balances to obtain their Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operating Certificate (UASOC). It has been a multi-year love-hate affair with the regulator for some; and for them to see somebody just purchasing a drone and take it straight to work without proper registration… it must really grate.
“It is a huge problem now, and it is growing still,” Kruger said.
“Private drone users just simply ignore drone regulations because there is a notion that the flights are done on private property. For example, farmers using crop spraying drones in their own properties – those drones must be registered; and they cannot do beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) flights as there are no provision for BVLOS in the private category.”
In Kruger’s opinion illegal drone operations have been exacerbated by the arrival of drone docking systems, which several organisations see as a short cut to cheap security, especially around premises.
For, it has long been the experience of private security providers that many prospective clients have viewed drone technology as a panacea to premises security… but only as long as they come without the cost of human pilots.
Hence; now that they can purchase their own drone docks, they think they can circumvent the law, as long as they are operating within the confines of their premises.
Which is a wrong assumption, according to Kruger.
“Similarly, drone docking systems are inherently not meant for private use, unless the pilot flies within the VLOS or R (Restricted) VLOS set of constraints.
“But a docking system is absolutely a BVLOS operation. So, many vendors are selling crop spayers and docking systems to individuals/private users knowing full well what the law stipulates.
“This is a big problem.”
It is a huge problem for insurance companies too, who have to insure these operations and will need to know that they are legal before underwriting them.
“This gets to the heart of how insurance interacts with regulatory compliance,” said Kopano Tholo, the head of drones at specialist insurance provider, iTOO Special Risks.
“A Third-Party Liability policy for drones is designed to cover the insured’s legal liability for bodily injury or property damage caused to others by the drone, however cover is always conditional on lawful operations.
“Therefore, a third-party liability drone policy will not respond to accidents or claims if the operations violates Part 101 regulations. The insured would face financial and legal consequences personally.
“For cover to respond, the operator must be compliant, per the regulations, as a commercial or business use operator under a registered and rated UASOC per the operations to be conducted.”
Drone services providers in South Africa therefore feel that this uncontrolled chaos in private drone use is one of the reasons why the industry is struggling to scale up.
As explained by Kruger; “The regulator goes out of their way to create a safe environment for commercial use, but the same effort is not made for users who are technically regulated, but are not being monitored.
“What we need is a national drone register, a FICA type process (Financial Intelligence Centre Act, a South African law whose primary purpose is to combat financial crimes like money laundering, fraud, tax evasion, and terrorist financing) when any drone is sold or changed in ownership.”