CASA EX88/25 — Indoor Operation of RPA Near People and BVLOS (Training and Use) Exemption 2025

The instrument introduces several definitions that are central to its operation. A relevant RPA is limited to a micro RPA or a very small RPA whose gross weight does not exceed 1 050 g. The definition does not further subdivide these categories; the operator must ensure the actual gross weight of the RPA (including payload such as cameras or sensors) is within this limit. An internal operation means operation of an RPA within a building, structure, naturally occurring space, or another space created by human effort (the internal place) and within 30 m of a person. Importantly, the definition does not require that the RPA be physically incapable of escaping; it includes operations where escape is possible. A transit operation is a separate concept: the operation of a relevant RPA in the open air solely for approaching and entering an internal place or departing from it to a predetermined point. Transit operations have their own height limit in clause 5 of Schedule 1 , the RPA must not be flown higher than the tallest structure within 150 m horizontally.

An emergency service RPA operation (ESRO) means an operation by an emergency service RPA operator for law enforcement purposes or for saving or protecting persons or property. The list of eligible operators in the definition of emergency service RPA operator is exhaustive and includes police forces, the Australian Defence Force, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, the Australian Border Force, state and territory fire and emergency services, parks and wildlife services, and lifeguard services. Each must hold a remotely piloted aircraft operator certificate under Part 101 of CASR. The instrument also defines a remote pilot as a police officer (for police operators) or an employee or member of the other emergency service organisations who holds a remote pilot licence or is deemed to hold one under subregulation 202.461(3) of CASR, and has other qualifications and experience relevant to internal operations as specified in the operator’s documented practices and procedures.

Two important concepts distinguish the level of protection afforded to persons near the operation. A shield is defined as a solid physical barrier (other than a moving vehicle) that lies between a person and the RPA in flight, is not moving or flexing, and is of such dimensions, strength and substance as to prevent the RPA from impacting any person and prevent any debris from an impact from impacting any person. A shielded operation is one in which no unshielded persons are involved. Operations involving an unshielded person are subject to stricter speed and height limits under Table 4.4. The note to the definition of documented practices and procedures states that they must be approved by CASA, and if a change is required after approval, they must be reapproved. This creates a clear regulatory gate: no operation can lawfully proceed under the exemption without CASA having approved the operator’s documented procedures.

Beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) is simply defined as operation not within the visual line of sight of the person operating the RPA. This is a binary test: if the remote pilot cannot see the RPA with their own eyes (aided only by normal vision enhancement such as glasses), the operation is BVLOS irrespective of whether cameras or observers are used. The instrument exempts from regulation 101.073 which would otherwise prohibit BVLOS, but the conditions impose alternative safeguards such as the requirement that the RPA only move in a direction where the remote pilot has visibility of the area in the direction of travel, obtained either directly, through an observer, or through live electronic images (clause 4.1(c)). This is not a definition of BVLOS itself but a condition on how BVLOS flights must be conducted.

The instrument directly affects two categories of persons. First, RPA operators listed in the definition of emergency service RPA operator. These are state and federal government bodies: police forces, the Australian Defence Force, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, the Australian Border Force, state and territory fire services, emergency services, parks and wildlife services, and lifeguard services. Each must already hold a remotely piloted aircraft operator certificate under Part 101 of CASR to be eligible. Second, remote pilots who are either sworn police officers (for police operators) or employees or members of the other emergency service organisations. Remote pilots must hold a remote pilot licence (or be deemed to hold one under subregulation 202.461(3)), must be acting at the direction of their RPA operator in a relevant operation, and must have such other qualifications and experience relevant to internal operations as the operator’s CASA-approved documented practices and procedures specify. The instrument does not allow private or commercial drone operators to use the exemption, nor does it cover volunteers who are not employees or members of the listed organisations unless they fall within the "member" category for fire or emergency services.

The instrument also affects CASA as the regulator. CASA must review and approve documented practices and procedures for each operator (condition 6.3). CASA may also request to observe a relevant operation at its own expense (condition 8), and the operator must arrange for that observation. This gives CASA oversight of actual operations, which may lead to further enforcement if non-compliance is observed. Training is within scope: subsection 4(2) provides that training for an ESRO is treated as an ESRO for the purposes of the instrument, meaning that all conditions apply equally to training flights. This brings instructors and trainees under the same regime.

Persons who are unshielded members of the public , for example, hostages, injured persons in a building, or bystanders , are indirectly affected because the instrument permits the RPA to operate within 1 m of them, albeit with speed and height restrictions. Building owners, occupiers, and property owners may also be affected if their property is used during an ESRO, though the instrument does not override trespass or other property laws. The instrument imposes a duty on the operator to report to CASA within 72 hours if the RPA impacts a person or damages property during a relevant operation (condition 7). This creates a reporting chain that may affect insurance, internal investigations, and potential civil liability.

The rights conferred by the instrument are conditional exemptions from compliance with specified CASR provisions. The operator and the remote pilot are each exempted from regulations 101.073 (BVLOS), 101.095 (weather and day limitations), 101.245 (operations near people), 101.280 (operations over populous areas), and the licence conditions in paragraph 101.300(4)(b) and subregulation 101.300(6). These exemptions allow operations that would otherwise be unlawful. The right to rely on the exemption is not absolute; it is forfeited if any condition in Schedule 1 is not met for the relevant operation (subsection 5(2)).

The duties are extensive. Before any operation, a risk assessment must be conducted in accordance with the operator’s documented practices and procedures (condition 2.1). The risk assessment must account for all factors that may cause the RPA to impact a person or property, including possible mode interruption, malfunction, failure, and the possibility of a speed increase under condition 4.5(b). The operation must not commence unless the risk of serious injury is assessed as so low that there is minimal probability of it occurring, and the risk of damage to property is as low as reasonably practicable (condition 2.3). This is a high threshold; "minimal probability" of serious injury is not defined, but it imposes a heavy evidentiary burden on the operator, particularly in unpredictable emergency environments.

The RPA must not be used as a use of force (condition 3). This prohibits the use of the RPA as a weapon or for physical coercion, even in law enforcement contexts. The instrument does not define "use of force", but it would presumably refer to actions that involve physical contact or threat of contact to compel compliance.

Flight near persons is subject to precise limits. The RPA must stay at least 1 m from any person; it must be operated at the slowest practicable speed, including the hover, that is consistent with a successful outcome; it must only move in a direction where the remote pilot has visibility of the area (either directly, through an observer, or through live electronic images); it must not exceed the speed and height limits; and for an operation involving an unshielded person, it must have no exposed rotating parts that could lacerate human skin upon impact (condition 4.1). Speed and height limits are set out in clauses 4.2 to 4.6. For shielded operations, the speed limit is 5 m/sec and the height limit is 3 m. For unshielded persons, Table 4.4 imposes lower limits: when the RPA is between 5 m and 30 m from a person, the speed must not exceed 3 m/sec (with a possible increase to 5 m/sec if the risk assessment covers it) and the height must not exceed 5 m; when between 1 m and 5 m, the speed must not exceed 1.5 m/sec (no increase permitted) and the height must not exceed 3 m. There must be no continuous overflight of any person or moving vehicle (condition 4.6).

The operator must maintain documented practices and procedures that include a schedule of RPAs, instructions for speed and height compliance, shield assessment details, control link monitoring and loss-of-link procedures, training and testing procedures, record-keeping procedures, risk assessment procedures, abnormal operating procedures, and a copy of the exemption instrument (condition 6.1). A relevant operation must be conducted in accordance with those documented practices and procedures. The operator must not conduct an ESRO under this exemption unless CASA has approved those documented practices and procedures (condition 6.3). If there is a conflict between the instrument and the documented practices and procedures, the instrument prevails (condition 6.4).

Data collection and reporting duties are imposed by condition 7: if the RPA impacts a person or damages property during a relevant operation, the operator must give details to CASA within 72 hours of completion of the operation. This is a short reporting window. Additionally, the operator must make arrangements for a CASA officer to observe a relevant operation on written request by an Executive Manager of CASA, at CASA’s expense (condition 8). This gives CASA the right to conduct onsite audits without compensating the operator for the cost of accommodating the observer.

The instrument itself does not create penalties. Instead, it operates by way of conditional exemption from existing penal provisions. If any condition in Schedule 1 is not complied with, the exemption for that operation is lost (subsection 5(2) and condition 1). The consequence is that the underlying CASR provisions from which exemption was claimed apply with full force, and the operator or remote pilot is exposed to the penalties attached to those provisions. Regulation 101.073 (BVLOS) carries a penalty of 50 penalty units (currently $9 125 as at 2025 under the Crimes Act 1914, subject to indexation). Regulation 101.095 (weather and day limitations) also carries 50 penalty units. Regulation 101.245 (operations near people) and regulation 101.280 (operations over populous areas) each carry 50 penalty units. Paragraph 101.300(4)(b) and subregulation 101.300(6) concerning remote pilot licence conditions attract penalties of 50 penalty units each. In aggregate, non-compliance with a condition could expose the operator and the remote pilot to multiple penalties for each breach. Because the exemptions are triggered per operation, each separate operation that fails to meet the conditions may constitute a separate offence.

The risk assessment duty in condition 2 is particularly high-stakes. If an operation goes ahead without a compliant risk assessment, or if the assessment is flawed, the exemption collapses and the operator is deemed to have operated in breach of the exempted regulations without the defence of authorisation. The note to condition 6.3 makes clear that the documented practices and procedures must be approved by CASA before any ESRO is conducted. Operating without such approval is a breach of the conditions, and the exemption does not apply. CASA could also take enforcement action beyond the criminal penalties, such as suspension or cancellation of the operator’s certificate under Part 101, or issuing a direction to cease operations. The instrument does not contain its own internal enforcement machinery; it relies on the broader compliance and enforcement powers in the Civil Aviation Act 1988 and CASR, including infringement notices, enforceable undertakings, and injunctions.

Compliance with condition 7 (reporting within 72 hours) is mandatory. Failure to report an impact or property damage would itself be a breach of the conditions, removing the exemption for that operation and potentially attracting penalties for the underlying regulatory breaches that occurred during the operation. The condition does not require reporting of near misses or incidents where no impact occurred, but the operator’s documented practices and procedures may include their own reporting obligations.

The instrument is an exemption instrument made under regulations 11.160 and 11.205 of CASR. It sits within the hierarchy of aviation safety regulation and does not modify any other Commonwealth, state, or territory legislation. The exemptions granted are limited to the six specified provisions of Part 101. All other CASR provisions continue to apply, including those relating to registration of the RPA (Part 101, Division 5), licensing of the remote pilot (Part 101, Division 6, except as specifically exempted), and the requirement for the operator to hold a remotely piloted aircraft operator certificate (Part 101, Division 4). The instrument does not exempt from airspace requirements under Part 101 or from any provisions of the Air Navigation Regulations or the Airspace Regulations. Operations conducted under the exemption must still comply with air traffic control instructions if in controlled airspace, though the instrument’s focus on internal operations and transit in the open air near structures may often avoid such airspace.

State and territory laws are unaffected. The instrument does not grant immunity from trespass to land or buildings, privacy laws, workplace health and safety requirements, or any criminal laws. For example, an RPA operated inside a building that is not owned or occupied by the emergency service operator may still require consent from the owner or occupier, or a warrant or emergency powers under state legislation. The instrument does not override those requirements. Similarly, the use of an RPA to capture imagery may engage privacy and surveillance legislation at the state level, which the instrument does not address.

The interaction with the Civil Aviation Act 1988 is indirect. The exemptions are from regulations, not from the Act. The Act’s provisions on safety offences and CASA’s enforcement powers remain applicable. The instrument explicitly states in the definition of documented practices and procedures that the term has the meaning given by the Part 101 Manual of Standards. That Manual may itself contain standards and requirements that are incorporated by reference; any inconsistency between this instrument and the Manual is not addressed, but condition 6.4 provides that in the event of conflict between the instrument and the operator’s documented practices and procedures, the instrument prevails.

The instrument also interacts with the CASR definitions of micro RPA and very small RPA. The instrument limits relevant RPAs to those whose gross weight does not exceed 1 050 g, which is below the 2 kg threshold for a very small RPA under the CASR definition. Operators must ensure that the gross weight includes any payload added for the ESRO (e.g., cameras, thermal imaging, loudspeakers). The reference to "very small RPA whose gross weight does not exceed 1 050 g" is a subset of the broader category and must be verified for each aircraft.

CASA EX88/25 is a single instrument with no amendment history. It was made on 29 September 2025 by Steven Campbell, Executive Manager, National Operations & Standards, as a delegate of CASA. It commences on 1 October 2025 and will be repealed automatically at the end of 30 September 2028 under section 2(b). Because the instrument has not yet commenced as at the date of this analysis, no amendments have been published. The instrument does not reference any predecessor exemptions, but it is likely that it was preceded by a series of time-limited exemptions for individual emergency service organisations or specific operations. The move to a single instrument covering all eligible operators suggests a consolidation and standardisation of the conditions. The three-year duration indicates that CASA intends to review the regime before expiration in 2028, and the instrument may be replaced or extended at that point. Any amendment during its life would need to be made by a further instrument under regulations 11.160 and 11.205 of CASR.

As at the date of commencement (1 October 2025), the instrument has not been the subject of any litigation. No enforcement actions, prosecutions, or judicial review proceedings have been reported in relation to it. The instrument is new, and any litigation would likely arise only after it has been in operation for some time, typically prompted by an incident involving injury or property damage, or by a dispute over whether the conditions were met. There is no case law interpreting the conditions, such as what constitutes "minimal probability" of serious injury or what "use of force" means in this context. Courts would likely apply the ordinary meaning of these terms, but uncertainty remains until a case is litigated. Potential grounds for judicial review could include a challenge to CASA’s approval of an operator’s documented practices and procedures on the basis that they are inadequate, or a challenge to CASA’s decision to refuse approval. Because the instrument is subordinate legislation made by a CASA delegate, it could also be challenged on procedural grounds, such as whether the statutory preconditions for making the exemption under regulations 11.160 and 11.205 were satisfied. However, without a concrete dispute, all of this remains speculative. The instrument’s short three-year life may reduce the likelihood of litigation reaching final determination before it is repealed.

Several less obvious features of the instrument can trap the unwary operator or remote pilot. First, the definition of internal operation does not require that it be physically impossible for the RPA to escape from the internal place. The parenthetical phrase "whether or not it is physically impossible for the RPA to escape and fly away" means that an RPA operating in a large open indoor space such as a factory or warehouse, where it could theoretically fly out through a door, still qualifies as an internal operation. This means the conditions (speed, height, risk assessment) apply even in such spaces. Conversely, if the RPA is actually outside but flying near the building, it may be a transit operation, which has its own height limit of the tallest structure within 150 m horizontally; that limit could be very high in urban areas.

Second, the requirement in condition 4.1(e) that for an operation involving an unshielded person the RPA must have "no exposed rotating parts that could lacerate human skin upon impact" is a hard requirement. The note for shielded operations says that CASA strongly recommends the same but it is not a condition. If an operator mistakenly treats the unshielded person condition as merely recommended, the exemption is lost. The operator must ensure that the RPA either has no exposed propellers or has propeller guards that meet the "could not lacerate" standard. The failsafe method mentioned in condition 6.1(a)(iv) (which must be detailed in the documented practices and procedures) must achieve this.

Third, the speed limit override in condition 4.2(b) requires that the flight controller be set to limit maximum speed to 5 m/sec, and that only an "intentional and deliberate overriding action" by the remote pilot can exceed that limit. For unshielded operations, the base speed limits are lower (3 m/sec or 1.5 m/sec), and the override is only permitted for the 5 m to 30 m zone (up to 5 m/sec) and only if covered by the risk assessment (condition 4.5(b)). For the 1 m to 5 m zone, no speed increase is allowed. The note to clause 4.2 says the limit applies even in the event of failure of the RPA’s GNSS positioning system, so the operator cannot rely on GPS-based speed limiting.

Fourth, the height restriction in clause 4.3 for shielded operations is only 3 m. This is a surprisingly low limit for some emergency operations, such as searching a multi-storey building. The operator cannot simply rely on a shield to allow higher flight; the 3 m cap is absolute unless the operation involves unshielded persons (which then triggers Table 4.4 with higher heights up to 5 m for certain distances). The transit operation height limit (clause 5) is independent: "the height of the tallest structure within 150 m horizontally of the RPA". That could be very tall in city centres, potentially exceeding 100 m. But the transit operation is only for approaching or departing the internal place, not for the internal operation itself.

Fifth, the data reporting condition (condition 7) requires details to be given to CASA within 72 hours of completion of the operation if the RPA impacts a person or damages property. This is a very short window, especially after a major incident where the operator may be dealing with the immediate aftermath. The condition does not specify the format or level of detail, but the operator’s documented practices and procedures should include a template. Failure to report is a breach, and the exemption is lost, potentially making the operator liable for the underlying CASR breaches.

Sixth, the instrument does not exempt from the requirement that the RPA operator hold a remotely piloted aircraft operator certificate under Part 101. Only operators who already hold that certificate can use the exemption. New emergency service organisations without a certificate cannot rely on this instrument until they obtain one, which is a separate, potentially lengthy process.

An organisation seeking to rely on CASA EX88/25 must follow a structured process. Step one is to confirm eligibility: the organisation must be one of the bodies listed in the definition of emergency service RPA operator, and must already hold a remotely piloted aircraft operator certificate under Part 101 of CASR. If not, applying for and obtaining that certificate is a prerequisite.

Step two is to develop documented practices and procedures that cover all items listed in condition 6.1. These must include a schedule of each RPA to be used (make, model, configuration, gross weight, and details of the failsafe method for exposed rotating parts); instructions for complying with the speed and height restrictions in clause 4; details on how a shield is assessed as fit for purpose; control link monitoring and loss-of-link procedures; training and testing procedures for personnel; record-keeping procedures; risk assessment procedures; abnormal operating procedures; and a copy of the exemption instrument. The documented practices and procedures must be submitted to CASA for approval before any ESRO is conducted under this instrument (condition 6.3). CASA must review and approve them; the note to the definition of documented practices and procedures warns that any later change requires reapproval.

Step three is to ensure that each RPA used meets the weight limit (gross weight not exceeding 1 050 g) and, for operations involving unshielded persons, has no exposed rotating parts that could lacerate human skin upon impact. For shielded operations, the instrument does not require this, but it is strongly recommended. The operator must also ensure that the flight controller can be set to the speed limits required and that any override requires an intentional and deliberate action.

Step four is to train remote pilots. They must hold or be deemed to hold a remote pilot licence under CASR, and must have such other qualifications and experience as specified in the approved documented practices and procedures. The training itself is treated as an ESRO under the instrument, so it must comply with all conditions, including speed and height limits, risk assessments, and shield requirements where applicable.

Step five is to conduct a risk assessment before each relevant operation in accordance with the documented practices and procedures. The risk assessment must consider all factors that may cause the RPA to impact a person or property, including malfunction and the possibility of speed increases. The assessment must conclude that the risk of serious injury is so low that minimal probability exists, and that property damage risk is as low as reasonably practicable. The operation cannot commence without this conclusion being reached.

Step six is to operate within the speed and height limits specified for the type of operation. For shielded operations: speed up to 5 m/sec, height up to 3 m. For unshielded persons: at distances between 5 m and 30 m, speed up to 3 m/sec (5 m/sec if covered by risk assessment), height up to 5 m; at distances between 1 m and 5 m, speed up to 1.5 m/sec (no increase), height up to 3 m. The RPA must not be operated within 1 m of any person. No continuous overflight of persons or moving vehicles is allowed. For transit operations, height must not exceed the tallest structure within 150 m horizontally.

Step seven is to maintain records and report incidents. If the RPA impacts a person or damages property during a relevant operation, details must be provided to CASA within 72 hours of completion of the operation. The operator should also retain records of risk assessments, training records, and any incident reports as required by their documented practices and procedures.

Step eight is to facilitate CASA observation if requested. An Executive Manager of CASA may ask in writing to observe a relevant operation, and the operator must make arrangements at CASA’s expense. This may involve providing access to the operational site and to personnel.

Given the three-year expiry, the operator should also track the instrument’s repeal date and any replacement instruments that may be published before 30 September 2028. Compliance should be reviewed regularly to ensure that documented practices and procedures remain current and that any changes to RPAs, personnel, or operational environments are reflected and reapproved by CASA.