IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v133y2023icp176-185.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Examining unmanned aircraft user compliance with Civil Aviation Rules: The case of New Zealand

Author

Listed:
  • Henderson, Isaac Levi
  • Shelley, Andrew

Abstract

Civil Aviation Rules (CARs) are aviation safety regulations to ensure a safe and efficient aviation system. Many countries have introduced or modified such regulations as the number and complexity of unmanned aircraft operations increases. Despite this, the literature on compliance with these regulations is limited and tends to focus on conceptual issues or only specific regulations (e.g., registration). This study is the first to examine compliance among unmanned aircraft users with a full set of CARs, incorporating all the nuance associated with each CAR to determine compliance. The total number of CARs being broken can then be tallied for each participant to create an overall compliance score. The sample consisted of 879 New Zealand unmanned aircraft users. These users were asked about what sorts of operations they undertook and under what conditions, which was then used to determine compliance with each CAR. Participants were also categorised based upon user type, whether they had undertook training or completed a flight examination, membership to Model Flying New Zealand (MFNZ) or UAVNZ, and whether they had operated for a certificated organisation. The findings reveal that 83.52% of users are fully compliant with the CARs, while 11.64% are non-compliant with a single CAR, 3.52% with two CARs, and 1.33% with three or more CARs. The biggest difference between compliance levels was between MFNZ members who were more compliant than all other users. This highlights that the model flying club environment introduces social norms that regulate compliance. Other users more broadly follow ordinary attitudes towards compliance with speed limits when driving, which tend to be driven by social norms and legitimacy rather than instrumentalist approaches. This study recommends education around the consequences of non-compliance, a re-examination of the rules for legitimacy, and further enforcement action for non-compliance as potential policy initiatives to improve compliance among users.

Suggested Citation

  • Henderson, Isaac Levi & Shelley, Andrew, 2023. "Examining unmanned aircraft user compliance with Civil Aviation Rules: The case of New Zealand," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C), pages 176-185.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:133:y:2023:i:c:p:176-185
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.01.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X23000100
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.01.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roland Bénabou & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Belief in a Just World and Redistributive Politics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(2), pages 699-746.
    2. Mikko Huttunen, 2019. "Civil unmanned aircraft systems and security: The European approach," Journal of Transportation Security, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 83-101, December.
    3. Aydin, Burchan, 2019. "Public acceptance of drones: Knowledge, attitudes, and practice," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    4. Gilad, Benjamin & Kaish, Stanley & Loeb, Peter D., 1987. "Cognitive dissonance and utility maximization : A general framework," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 61-73, March.
    5. Akerlof, George A & Dickens, William T, 1982. "The Economic Consequences of Cognitive Dissonance," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 307-319, June.
    6. Luppicini, Rocci & So, Arthur, 2016. "A technoethical review of commercial drone use in the context of governance, ethics, and privacy," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 109-119.
    7. Huang, Chenyu & Chen, Yu-Che & Harris, Joseph, 2021. "Regulatory compliance and socio-demographic analyses of civil Unmanned Aircraft Systems users," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    8. Henderson, Isaac Levi, 2022. "Aviation safety regulations for unmanned aircraft operations: Perspectives from users," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 192-206.
    9. Reece A. Clothier & Dominique A. Greer & Duncan G. Greer & Amisha M. Mehta, 2015. "Risk Perception and the Public Acceptance of Drones," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(6), pages 1167-1183, June.
    10. Lin Tan, Lynn Kai & Lim, Beng Chong & Park, Guihyun & Low, Kin Huat & Seng Yeo, Victor Chuan, 2021. "Public acceptance of drone applications in a highly urbanized environment," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sabino, Hullysses & Almeida, Rodrigo V.S. & Moraes, Lucas Baptista de & Silva, Walber Paschoal da & Guerra, Raphael & Malcher, Carlos & Passos, Diego & Passos, Fernanda G.O., 2022. "A systematic literature review on the main factors for public acceptance of drones," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    2. Nyaaba, Albert Apotele & Ayamga, Matthew, 2021. "Intricacies of medical drones in healthcare delivery: Implications for Africa," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    3. Koh, Le Yi & Lee, Jia Yi & Wang, Xueqin & Yuen, Kum Fai, 2023. "Urban drone adoption: Addressing technological, privacy and task–technology fit concerns," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    4. Osakwe, Christian Nedu & Hudik, Marek & Říha, David & Stros, Michael & Ramayah, T., 2022. "Critical factors characterizing consumers’ intentions to use drones for last-mile delivery: Does delivery risk matter?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    5. Smith, Angela & Dickinson, Janet E. & Marsden, Greg & Cherrett, Tom & Oakey, Andrew & Grote, Matt, 2022. "Public acceptance of the use of drones for logistics: The state of play and moving towards more informed debate," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    6. Hosseini, Hamid, 2003. "The arrival of behavioral economics: from Michigan, or the Carnegie School in the 1950s and the early 1960s?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 391-409, September.
    7. Nicolò Bellanca, 2007. "OSTACOLI ALLO SVILUPPO? VARIAZIONI SU UN TEMA DI ALBERT HIRSCHMAN (Ostacles to Development?)," Working Papers - Economics wp2007_03.rdf, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Scienze per l'Economia e l'Impresa.
    8. Prüfer, Jens & Xu, Y., 2021. "The Nonprofit's Dilemma," Other publications TiSEM 237785b1-929d-40db-872f-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    9. Gosnell, Greer K., 2018. "Communicating Resourcefully: A Natural Field Experiment on Environmental Framing and Cognitive Dissonance in Going Paperless," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 128-144.
    10. Gilles Le Garrec, 2007. "Moral sentiments, democracy and redistributive politics: between nature and culture," 2007 Meeting Papers 702, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    11. Nir, A., 2004. "A Behavioral Model of Conumption Patterns : The Effects of Cognitive Dissonance and Conformity," Discussion Paper 2004-48, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    12. Rafael Di Tella & Ricardo Pérez-Truglia, 2010. "Conveniently Upset: Avoiding Altruism by Distorting Beliefs About Others," NBER Working Papers 16645, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Gilles Le Garrec, 2007. "Moral sentiments, democracy and redistributive politics : between nature and culture," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-00973047, HAL.
    14. Bruno S. Frey & Reiner Eichenberger, 1989. "Should Social Scientists Care about Choice Anomalies?," Rationality and Society, , vol. 1(1), pages 101-122, July.
    15. Nir, A., 2004. "Cognitive Procedures and Hyperbolic Discounting," Other publications TiSEM e26d6ae0-fc76-4fb2-b845-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    16. Matthew Ayamga & Bedir Tekinerdogan & Ayalew Kassahun, 2021. "Exploring the Challenges Posed by Regulations for the Use of Drones in Agriculture in the African Context," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, February.
    17. Kähler, Svantje T. & Abben, Thomas & Luna-Rodriguez, Aquiles & Tomat, Miriam & Jacobsen, Thomas, 2022. "An assessment of the acceptance and aesthetics of UAVs and helicopters through an experiment and a survey," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    18. Roland Benabou & Jean Tirole, 2009. "Over My Dead Body: Bargaining and the Price of Dignity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 459-465, May.
    19. Romain Espinosa & Jan Stoop, 2021. "Do people really want to be informed? Ex-ante evaluations of information-campaign effectiveness," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(4), pages 1131-1155, December.
    20. Saori Chiba & Kaiwen Leong, 2016. "Behavioral Economics of Crime Rates and Punishment Levels," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 172(4), pages 727-754, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:133:y:2023:i:c:p:176-185. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.