CASA EX45/24 — Operation of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Over Populous Area Exemption 2024

The instrument introduces a small set of defined legal concepts and repurposes or references existing CASR and CASA 20/25 concepts rather than inventing new regulatory categories. Key defined terms are: approved area (defined by reg 101.236 CASR), populous area (defined by reg 101.025 CASR), certificated RPA (a relevant RPA with a certificate of airworthiness), relevant RPA (very small, small, medium or large RPA), relevant approval, and relevant person (see s 3 and s 4). The instrument does not redefine “populous area” or “approved area”; it relies on the CASR definitions and cross-references those provisions (s 3 definitions).

Relevant approval is a central construct. It covers two types of approvals, whether granted before or after the definition’s commencement: (a) an approval under reg 101.029 of CASR, for the purposes of subregulation 101.245(5), to operate a relevant RPA that is not a certificated RPA within 30 metres of a person who is not directly associated with the operation; and (b) an approval under paragraph 7(3)(a) of CASA 20/25 to operate a relevant RPA in, or over, another person’s safety zone (s 3, “relevant approval”). The text also includes a note that “safety zone” is defined in subsection 7(2) of CASA 20/25, signalling that the boundaries and meaning of that term are to be taken from CASA 20/25 rather than from this instrument (s 3 note).

The “relevant person” concept is operationalised in s 4 rather than in the definitions. A “relevant person” for the instrument’s purposes is simply a person who: holds a relevant approval; whose relevant approval is not suspended; and who complies with the approval’s conditions (s 4(a)-(c)). The instrument therefore ties eligibility tightly to the existence and status of approvals and ongoing compliance with them.

The exemptions themselves are specific and limited. For very small, small or medium RPA operations, the instrument exempts the relevant person from compliance with paragraph 101.250(1)(b) of CASR when operating outside an approved area over a populous area (s 5(1)-(2)). It also exempts the relevant person from compliance with subregulation 101.280(2) of CASR when operating over a populous area (s 5(3)). The structure of the instrument makes the exemptions conditional and limited to particular RPA classes and operation types; “large RPA” is included in the definitions of relevant RPA but is excluded from the explicit scope of s 5(1)-(2) on its face.

Administratively, the instrument is temporary: s 2 provides that it is repealed at the end of 31 July 2027. The compilation includes an amendment package (CASA EX92/25) that amends s 3 and replaces s 4 (see the Table of Instruments and Table of Amendments). The Table of Amendments records that para 2(a) was repealed (noting Legislation Act 2003, s 48D) and that s 3 was amended and s 4 repealed and substituted by instrument F2025L01387; the compiled text incorporates those changes (Table of Amendments).

Taken together, the instrument’s main conceptual effect is to shift compliance responsibility away from the two specified CASR provisions to the conditions attached to the listed approvals, but only for the narrow classes of RPA operations and only while the approvals are valid and conditions complied with (s 4-5).

The instrument affects a defined subset of RPA operators, specifically persons who meet the “relevant person” criteria in section 4: holders of a “relevant approval” that is not suspended and who comply with the conditions of that approval (s 4(a)-(c)). “Relevant approval” is itself narrowly defined (s 3): it is either (a) an approval under CASR reg 101.029 for the specific purpose of subregulation 101.245(5) allowing operation of a relevant RPA that is not certificated within 30 metres of a person not directly associated with the operation, or (b) an approval under paragraph 7(3)(a) of CASA 20/25 to operate in or over another person’s safety zone. The instrument therefore targets operators who have obtained one of those approvals from CASA and are operating a very small, small or medium RPA (s 5(1)).

Because the instrument requires the approval not be suspended and that the operator comply with its conditions (s 4(b)-(c)), it affects operators who can and do meet ongoing regulatory conditions. Controllers of operations that rely on approvals of the specified types will be the primary group affected, including commercial operators and potentially private operators who have obtained the stated approvals. The instrument does not create or affect approvals themselves; it only provides exemptions for operators who already possess the named approvals.

The exemptions are limited by RPA size categorisation. Section 5(1) makes the exemption in subsection (2) explicitly applicable if the relevant RPA is a very small RPA, small RPA or medium RPA; the instrument therefore does not, on its face, extend that particular exemption to large RPA. The definitions block in s 3 does include “relevant RPA” as including large RPA, but the operative exemption references only very small, small and medium RPA (s 5(1)-(2)). That means operators of large RPAs are not within the explicit scope of s 5(2) as drafted. The instrument’s compiled text must be read closely on that point (see further “Gotchas”).

Geography matters only to the extent the operation is over a “populous area” or outside or inside an “approved area,” both of which are defined in CASR: the instrument expressly adopts those CASR definitions by cross-reference (s 3). Operators who routinely plan to operate outside approved areas or over populous areas are the operationally affected cohort because the exemptions relate to those geographic circumstances (s 5(2)-(3)).

Finally, the instrument’s lifespan matters for affected parties. It is time limited and is repealed at the end of 31 July 2027 (s 2(b)), so holders of relevant approvals will need to consider changes to legal exposure and permitted operating envelopes when the instrument lapses unless it is replaced or operators rely on alternative approvals or regulatory arrangements.

The instrument itself does not impose affirmative duties in the form of new operational requirements; rather, it conditions eligibility to enjoy two statutory exemptions on existing duties associated with holding and maintaining approvals. The principal rights created are the two exemptions from specified CASR provisions for eligible operations (s 5(2)-(3)). Those rights are conditional and contingent.

Primary duty conditions to retain the exemptions:

• Hold a relevant approval as defined in s 3. That is, the person must have either the reg 101.029 approval used for the purpose of subregulation 101.245(5) to operate a not-certificated RPA within 30 metres of an uninvolved person, or an approval under paragraph 7(3)(a) of CASA 20/25 to operate in or over another person’s safety zone (s 3, “relevant approval”).

• Ensure the relevant approval is not suspended. The instrument applies only if the relevant approval is not suspended (s 4(b)).

• Comply with the conditions of the relevant approval. Section 4(c) explicitly conditions the instrument’s application on compliance with those conditions. The instrument therefore relies on the content and enforceability of approval conditions, which remain binding and operative (s 4(c)).

The exemptions granted are specific:

• Exemption from paragraph 101.250(1)(b) of CASR when operating the relevant RPA outside an approved area over a populous area, provided the RPA is very small, small or medium (s 5(1)-(2)). The instrument does not repeal paragraph 101.250(1)(b); it exempts the relevant person from the obligation to comply with it in the stated circumstance.

• Exemption from subregulation 101.280(2) of CASR when operating the relevant RPA over a populous area (s 5(3)). On its face, subsection (3) provides a separate narrow exemption for operations over a populous area.

The instrument does not itself amend the CASR provisions it references, nor does it modify the content of approval conditions. Where the instrument grants an exemption, the operator remains subject to all other CASR obligations that are not expressly exempted, and must remain compliant with those other requirements and with the approval conditions (s 4(c), s 5). The instrument further does not create new enforcement mechanisms or criminalise conduct; it functions purely to exclude the named CASR obligations for eligible operations (s 5).

Operationally, this means an eligible operator’s duty is to maintain the approval in good standing and to comply with the approval conditions; in exchange the operator has the limited right to conduct specified operations without complying with the two named CASR requirements. The instrument’s rights are thus tightly coupled to approval maintenance and compliance obligations (s 4-5).

The exemption instrument does not itself prescribe penalties or an enforcement regime. It is expressed as an exemption from compliance with specified CASR provisions (s 5), made under regulation 11.160 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998. As such, the instrument alters which regulatory provisions an eligible operator must follow in the narrow circumstances stated; it does not create offences or administrative penalties in its own text.

Because the instrument removes the need to comply with particular CASR obligations where the conditions are met, enforcement of those particular obligations (paragraph 101.250(1)(b) and subregulation 101.280(2)) would not attach in respect of exempted conduct. The instrument does not suspend or otherwise remove CASA’s power to enforce other CASR obligations or to take action where conditions of the relevant approval are breached. Section 4 requires a relevant approval to be not suspended and that its conditions be complied with as a precondition to the exemption (s 4(b)-(c)); enforcement relating to the approval itself, including suspension or other administrative action, would continue to be available under the underlying statutory and regulatory framework that governs approvals (see s 3 definition of relevant approval and s 4).

The Table of Amendments shows that para 2(a) was repealed and that s 3 and s 4 were amended and substituted by subsequent instruments (Table of Amendments). Administrative enforcement and oversight of approvals therefore remains an important compliance pathway: if an approval is suspended, the exemption no longer applies (s 4(b)). The instrument therefore creates an indirect enforcement lever: CASA may preserve the effect of the CASR safety regime by enforcing approval conditions or suspending approvals, which directly removes the exemption for an operator who is no longer “relevant” under s 4.

The instrument does not specify which agency conducts enforcement; that is determined by the underlying CASR framework and the administrative powers attached to approvals under CASR and CASA instruments. Because the instrument is silent on civil or criminal penalties, any sanctions for non-compliance with remaining CASR obligations, or for breach of approval conditions, will be those provided elsewhere in CASR or other applicable law, not in this exemption instrument.

This instrument is a targeted exemption within the architecture of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (CASR) and related CASA instruments. It expressly cross-references several CASR provisions and a CASA directions instrument, thereby functioning as an overlay to existing regulatory obligations.

Primary cross-references:

• “Approved area” and “populous area” are adopted from CASR: s 3 says “approved area has the meaning given by regulation 101.236 of CASR” and “populous area has the meaning given by regulation 101.025 of CASR.” Therefore the instrument relies on CASR definitions to delimit geography and population-based constraints (s 3).

• The exemption in s 5(2) removes the need to comply with paragraph 101.250(1)(b) of CASR when the stated conditions are met. The instrument therefore directly interacts with reg 101.250 CASR by creating an exception to one of its paragraphs in limited circumstances (s 5(2)).

• The exemption in s 5(3) removes the need to comply with subregulation 101.280(2) of CASR when the stated conditions are met. That is another direct interaction with CASR.

• The instrument’s definition of “relevant approval” brings in two approval paths: one under CASR reg 101.029 used for subregulation 101.245(5) and the other under paragraph 7(3)(a) of CASA 20/25 , Operation of Certain Unmanned Aircraft and Rockets , Directions Instrument 2025 (CASA 20/25). The instrument therefore sits in a network of approvals and directions: it does not displace or modify those approvals but conditions the exemption on having them and complying with their conditions (s 3, s 4).

• The instrument includes a note that the term “safety zone” is defined in subsection 7(2) of CASA 20/25, so the spatial concept used in the relevant approval under CASA 20/25 is imported by reference (s 3 note).

Beyond these express cross-references, the instrument does not purport to displace other CASR obligations or broader aviation safety law. Its effect is to excuse compliance with only two specified CASR provisions in very particular circumstances; all other applicable CASR requirements, and any other Commonwealth, state or territory laws that affect operations (for example, trespass, local planning, privacy, or emergency management rules), are not addressed by the instrument and continue to apply unless separately modified elsewhere. The instrument itself does not make any such broader modifications.

The Table of Amendments records legislative housekeeping changes and that the instrument has been amended by CASA EX92/25 (Table of Instruments and Table of Amendments), which demonstrates that this exemption operates in a dynamic regulatory environment and must be read together with the current state of CASR and of CASA directions instruments (s 2 and Table of Instruments). The instrument’s temporary nature, with repeal on 31 July 2027 (s 2(b)), means interactions with other regimes will change when the instrument lapses, requiring operators to rely on the default CASR rules or to obtain new approvals for continued operations.

This compilation records the instrument as made on 6 August 2024 and commencing on 7 August 2024 (Table of Instruments). It also records a subsequent amending instrument, CASA EX92/25 , Amendment of CASA EX45/24 , which was registered on 15 November 2025 and commenced on 16 November 2025 (Table of Instruments). The compilation states it takes into account amendments up to CASA EX92/25 and is in force as compiled on 16 November 2025.

The Table of Amendments itemises specific textual alterations effected by the amendment(s). It records that:

• Paragraph 2(a) was repealed with a notation referencing Legislation Act 2003, s 48D (Table of Amendments, para. 2(a) row). The compiled instrument shows s 2 provides the duration and includes a repeal date (s 2(b)), so the earlier paragraph 2(a) that the Table notes as repealed was likely a previous form of the duration or commencement provision.

• Section 3 (definitions) was amended, noted as “am. F2025L01387” in the Table of Amendments. The compiled text includes a revised definitions block consistent with that amendment (s 3).

• Section 4 was repealed and substituted, recorded as “rs. F2025L01387” in the Table of Amendments; the compiled text shows a section 4 that implements the application conditions (s 4).

The compilation header states it is “as amended” and that Compilation No. 1 takes into account amendments up to CASA EX92/25 (Compilation note). The Table of Instruments provides the dates of registration and commencement for the principal instrument and its amending instrument.

No other historical amendments are recorded in the compiled text beyond those listed in the Table of Instruments and Table of Amendments. The compiled instrument therefore reflects the current text as at 16 November 2025, including the substitution of s 4 and amendments to s 3 effected by CASA EX92/25.

The instrument itself contains no judicial decisions, case law references, or litigation summary. The compilation includes no litigation history entries. The only legal authorities named in the instrument are other regulations and instruments (CASR provisions and CASA 20/25) and the Legislation Act 2003 citation in the Table of Amendments; there are no cases cited, and no dispute record is recorded in the text.

Because the instrument is an administrative exemption rather than a primary rule that creates novel statutory offences or rights, litigation arising directly from the instrument would most commonly relate to: (a) disputes about whether a person holds a “relevant approval” or whether that approval is suspended, (b) challenges to CASA decision-making about approval issuance, suspension or condition-setting, or (c) civil claims arising from operations over populous areas that may implicate tort or statutory duties outside the instrument. None of those possible litigation paths are referenced in the instrument; practitioners must therefore look to CASR, CASA directions (including CASA 20/25), and general administrative law and civil liability law for any litigation arising from operations conducted under this exemption.

In short, the compiled instrument records no past or present litigation in its text. Users seeking case law on disputes involving these exemptions must consult external sources; the instrument’s text contains no such material.

There are a number of drafting and operational features in the instrument that may produce legal or practical uncertainty if not looked at closely.

1. Reliance on approvals and their conditions. The exemptions are contingent on holding a “relevant approval” that is not suspended and complying with its conditions (s 4). The instrument therefore offloads much of the operational detail and safety control to the approval process and its conditions. Practitioners should note that the content, scope and enforceability of those approval conditions are outside the text of the exemption and will determine much of the permitted conduct. The instrument does not list or standardise those conditions (s 4(c)).

2. Scope and interplay of subsections in s 5. The drafting structure places s 5(1) as a conditioning statement that “Subsection (2) applies if the relevant RPA is a very small RPA, small RPA or medium RPA” (s 5(1)). Subsection (2) then creates the exemption from paragraph 101.250(1)(b) for operations outside an approved area over a populous area. Subsection (3) separately provides an exemption from subregulation 101.280(2) “if the relevant person operates the relevant RPA over a populous area” (s 5(3)). The drafting does not explicitly repeat the size limitation for subsection (3). The compiled text suggests subsection (2) is explicitly limited to very small/ small/ medium RPA via subsection (1), whereas subsection (3) is not unambiguously limited in the same way on its face. That raises a potential interpretive uncertainty about whether the exemption in s 5(3) applies to large RPA as well. The instrument’s other provisions and the definitions indicate the drafters’ apparent focus on very small/ small/ medium RPA, but the text leaves room for differing readings. Practitioners should treat this as a potential ambiguity and, where necessary, seek clarification from CASA or consider conservative operational planning.

3. The instrument references approvals under CASR reg 101.029 for the purposes of subregulation 101.245(5) to operate a relevant RPA that is not a certificated RPA within 30 metres of a person who is not directly associated with the operation (s 3). Operators must ensure they understand the distinction between certificated and non-certificated RPA (s 3 definition of certificated RPA), because the approval invoked by the definition is specifically for non-certificated RPA operations within 30 metres. If an operator’s RPA is certificated, the approval category referenced may not apply, and the operator may not be a “relevant person” under s 4 and so may not enjoy the exemptions.

4. Time-limited nature. The instrument expires at the end of 31 July 2027 (s 2(b)). Operators planning medium-term programmes that rely on these exemptions must build contingencies for the instrument lapsing: either seek alternative approvals, ensure compliance with the default CASR provisions after repeal, or predicate operations on forthcoming legislative or regulatory replacements. The Table of Amendments indicates the instrument has already been amended during its life; future amendments or extensions are possible but not guaranteed.

5. Interactions with CASA 20/25. The instrument imports the concept of a safety zone from CASA 20/25 (s 3 note) and refers to approvals under paragraph 7(3)(a) of CASA 20/25. Practitioners must therefore read CASA EX45/24 together with the relevant sections of CASA 20/25 to understand the full operational envelope authorised under a CASA 20/25 approval and how that meshes with the exemptions in this instrument.

6. No new recordkeeping, reporting, or insurance rules in the instrument. The exemption relies on the conditions attached to approvals for operationalising safety and compliance, but it does not itself specify any documentation, reporting or insurance obligations. That absence means operators must carefully check approval conditions and other laws for those requirements rather than rely on the exemption instrument to spell them out (s 4).

7. No standalone enforcement terms in the instrument. Because the instrument itself does not create penalty provisions, the main enforcement levers lie in CASR and in CASA’s powers to suspend or revoke approvals. An operator that relies on the exemption but breaches approval conditions or other CASR provisions may therefore face enforcement actions other than prosecution under the particular CASR paragraphs exempted (s 4).

In short, the principal “gotchas” are: the link to approval conditions as the operational control mechanism, the textual ambiguity in s 5 about the scope of subsection (3) vis-à-vis large RPA, the temporariness of the instrument, and the need to consult CASA 20/25 and the named CASR provisions to understand the full legal matrix.

Compliance under the instrument is conditional and primarily procedural: preserve the eligibility conditions in s 4 and operate within the concrete spatial and RPA-size constraints of s 5. The steps to use the exemption safely and lawfully, derived from the instrument text, are:

1. Hold a relevant approval as defined in s 3. That means having either:

   • an approval under CASR reg 101.029 used for the purpose of subregulation 101.245(5) to operate a relevant RPA that is not a certificated RPA within 30 metres of a person not directly associated with the operation; or
   • an approval under paragraph 7(3)(a) of CASA 20/25 to operate a relevant RPA in or over another person’s safety zone (s 3).

   Confirm in writing the exact scope and conditions of that approval before planning operations that rely on the exemption.

2. Ensure the approval is not suspended. The instrument ceases to apply if the relevant approval is suspended (s 4(b)). Maintain ongoing compliance with any renewal, reporting or safety obligations that could affect approval status.

3. Comply with the approval conditions. Section 4(c) makes compliance with approval conditions a precondition of the exemption. Approval conditions will typically specify safety mitigations and operational constraints; incorporate them verbatim into operations and procedures.

4. Restrict the RPA class. For the exemption in s 5(2) (exempting paragraph 101.250(1)(b)), operate only very small, small or medium RPA as those categories are used in the instrument (s 5(1)-(2)). Confirm your RPA’s categorisation under CASR definitions.

5. Observe geographic conditions:

   • For exemption from paragraph 101.250(1)(b): operate outside an approved area and over a populous area as described in s 5(2).
   • For exemption from subregulation 101.280(2): operate over a populous area (s 5(3)).

   Use CASR regulation 101.025 (populous area) and regulation 101.236 (approved area) to determine whether an operation satisfies the instrument’s geographic trigger points (s 3).

6. Note the exemption’s duration. The instrument is repealed at the end of 31 July 2027 (s 2(b)). Plan operations and any contracts or schedules to account for cessation of the exemption on that date unless it is replaced or extended.

7. Integrate CASA 20/25 safety zone definitions and conditions. If relying on CASA 20/25 approvals, ensure the operation’s safety zone treatment aligns with the subsection 7(2) definition in CASA 20/25 (s 3 note). Ensure any third‑party consents or landowner agreements required to operate in a person’s safety zone are in place in accordance with the conditions of the relevant approval.

8. Keep evidence that the conditions of the relevant approval are met. While the instrument does not itself prescribe recordkeeping, section 4(c) makes compliance with approval conditions a central legal gateway to the exemption. Retain documentation that the approval is current, not suspended, and that all approval conditions were complied with for each operation.

9. Monitor amendments. The instrument has been amended (CASA EX92/25) and is compilationally updated (Table of Instruments and Table of Amendments). Practitioners should confirm they are operating under the current instrument text and consider subscribing to CASA legal updates for any further amendments or extensions.

10. Seek clarification where text is ambiguous. Given the potential interpretive ambiguity in s 5 about whether subregulation (3) applies to large RPA, operators intending to use the exemption for less common RPA classes should seek clarification from CASA, or adopt a conservative approach aligning with the more restrictive reading.

Following these steps implements the instrument’s explicit compliance triggers: hold and maintain the relevant approval, comply with its conditions, operate in the spatial and RPA-size circumstances that trigger the exemption, and be mindful of the instrument’s expiry and any amendments (s 3-5, s 2).