The reporter expressed a safety concern relating to the operation of a RPA by an operator in very dangerous situations. The reporter provided links to footage on the operator’s website.
The reporter advised that this type of operation is extremely risky and is putting innocent people at risk particularly the footage of the wedding where the RPA is shown flying up the side of the [location].
Operator's response (Operator 1)
Please note that not all footage on our website or Youtube channel is footage taken by us. We often find footage on the web and repost footage where other people and public have recorded videos from their RPAs.
The footage which is on the Youtube channel showing [location 2] is not our footage, it does not credit us in any way. It was footage obtained from the web and reposted onto our Youtube channel.
[Location 1] footage seen on the wedding video was also obtained by looking on the internet, however the aerial footage of the wedding ceremony etc was filmed by us but this was completed under strict supervision and constant line of sight control.
We have removed both videos in the event that is has portrayed as us as recoding these videos with our RPA's
Please note, we obeyed by strict CASA rules and would never risk the safety of the general public.
Regulator's response (Regulator 1)
CASA has reviewed the matters raised in the REPCON and is unable to comment on the footage highlighted in the REPCON, as it has been removed from the internet.
This footage relates to video footage that was taken by an unidentified third party. CASA cannot investigate an unidentified third party operator unless further details are provided.