[LINK] Amazon Prime Air

[Jim Birch]

Is a drone more dangerous than a car?

- Jim


On 3 December 2013 12:29, Roger Clarke <Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au> wrote:

> >>  At 11:07 +1100 3/12/13, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
> >>>  Has anybody seen a discussion on liability and/or insurance for these
> >>>  autonomous things?
>
> >On 3/12/2013 11:31 AM, Roger Clarke wrote:
> >>  That's in the third paper in the series, for the first of which I
> >>  sent an RFC this morning, in case anyone didn't notice  (:-)}
>
> At 11:53 +1100 3/12/13, Bernard Robertson-Dunn wrote:
> >Roger, apart from you?
>
> A quick look in my current draft finds these tidbits:
> >EC Regulation 785/2004 (EC 2004) stipulates requirements relating to
> >accident insurance for aircraft weighing more than 20kg.  This
> >appears to apply to drones.
>
> [If I'd detected anything similar in FAA and CASA provisions, I'd
> have included that in the draft as well.
>
> [Very few of the micro-drones in teenagers' stockings this Christmas
> will be >20kg.  And, at least within a campus area, a 1kg book could
> be delivered with a sub-20kg drone as well.
>
> [Note too that there are various air traffic zones (described in
> paper 3 in the series), around airports, and in inverse cones above
> them, and across flight-paths at various altitudes.  But the 400-foot
> max altitude rule that applies across a lot of territory leaves
> plenty of scope for action - and congestion, and accidents, and the
> many failure-modes that drones exhibit.
>
> [What, me worry??
>
>
> >In the current context, no educational processes appear to be in
> >place to communicate to drone manufacturers, retailers and
> >commercial users that they need to undertake risk assessments,
> >devise and implement appropriate safeguards, and establish
> >appropriate commercial arrangements including public liability
> >insurance. There does not even appear to be any current momentum
> >towards encouraging hobby users to use drones within the context
> >provided by model aircraft clubs.
>
> [I'm hoping to nail down the model aircraft situation more tightly.
>
> [I wouldn't fly a model aircraft without either being a member of a
> club and working within their rules (which would provide me with
> cover), or reading the public liability part of my house and contents
> policy very, very carefully.
>
> [But I'm an old greybeard with an (admittedly dubious) reputation to
> protect, and enough assets to be worth suing.  What proportion of
> drone users will take care to get (and pay for) public liability
> cover of an appropriate kind?  (Has anyone had a chat with AAMI or
> NRMA about this?).
>
>
> Here's another indicator of how loose analogous situations are:
> >Satellite insurance is available for the launch, post-separation and
> >in-orbit operation phases.  The duration of cover is short, and it
> >appears that the impact of space debris on other satellites may not
> >be currently insurable.  It appears that no impact of space debris
> >on earth or in the earth's atmosphere has yet been the subject of
> >litigation - although a couple of near-misses have already occurred,
> >and the USSR compensated Canada for spacecraft-related nuclear
> >contamination in 1978 - and insurance policies for satellites do not
> >(yet) cover such risks.
>
>
> --
> Roger Clarke                                 http://www.rogerclarke.com/
>
> Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
> Tel: +61 2 6288 6916                        http://about.me/roger.clarke
> mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au                http://www.xamax.com.au/
>
> Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law            University of N.S.W.
> Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
>