Building a Shared Drone Program Between Police and Fire
Public safety agencies across Australia are under growing pressure to do more with stretched budgets and increasingly severe emergencies. From the grass fires that threaten the Adelaide Hills each summer to multi-agency responses around Sydney Harbour and major flood events in the Northern Rivers, the demand for rapid aerial intelligence has never been higher. A cross-agency drone share agreement lets police and fire services pool aircraft, pilots and data without doubling their capital outlay.
For a long time, each agency has bought its own small unmanned aircraft, trained its own pilots and stored its own footage. That approach is starting to look inefficient, especially as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority tightens remote pilot licensing and state privacy regulators ask harder questions about how aerial imagery is kept, used and shared. A formal written arrangement between police and fire creates a single, accountable way to operate together.
The case for shared airspace over shared equipment
Australia's emergency footprint is unusually broad. A single incident can pull in the Australian Federal Police, a state police force, a rural fire service, an ambulance service and a volunteer Marine Rescue unit. In a major bushfire event in the Grampians or a flood response in the Northern Rivers, the same small area might be flown by three different agencies within 24 hours, often without coordination.
A shared drone program reduces duplication, lowers the per-hour cost of ownership, and gives smaller stations in places like Whyalla, Burnie or Mount Isa access to aircraft they could never justify on their own. It also creates a common operating picture. When police, fire and SES teams see the same live map, they can brief the same control agency with the same ground truth, which materially shortens the decision cycle.
CASA rules and Australian privacy law to plan around
Every agreement must begin with the regulatory floor. Under the Civil Aviation Safety Authority framework, any agency flying drones for hire or reward needs a remotely piloted aircraft operator's certificate and the pilot must hold a remote pilot licence, with the right subcategory for the operation. Many Australian public safety agencies now hold an organisational operator certificate, but cross-agency flying complicates liability, maintenance release and operational control.
Privacy is the second pillar. Footage captured by police and fire is often personal information under the Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles. A share agreement has to specify who is the APP entity, who holds the footage, how long it is kept, and who can access it. State surveillance devices legislation, such as the Surveillance Devices Act in NSW, adds another layer when operations are covert. A simple clause that the partner agency will comply with the recording agency's legal regime is usually the cleanest way through.
Mapping missions before drafting a single clause
Before legal text is written, the agencies need a clear list of shared missions. Typical entries in a joint register include pre-fire reconnaissance over the Otways, search and grid sweeps for missing persons in the Blue Mountains, post-incident mapping in a flood zone, and aerial support for high-risk traffic operations in built-up areas like Parramatta or inner Brisbane.
Each use case should record the primary objective, the expected altitude and time on task, who owns the data and who can release it. Use cases outside the agreed list, particularly anything involving persistent surveillance or a person of interest, should require written sign-off from both chiefs or equivalent. That step prevents the agreement drifting into scope creep the moment operational pressure builds.
Structuring the memorandum of understanding
Most Australian public safety partnerships are governed by a memorandum of understanding rather than a contract, because either party can withdraw, and the document is easier to revise as CASA rules evolve. A useful structure sets out the lead agency model, the insurance position, the maintenance schedule, the cost-sharing formula, and the dispute resolution path.
| Feature | Lead Agency Model | Joint Steering Model |
|---|---|---|
| Aircraft ownership | Held by one agency, seconded to the other | Held jointly or by a shared entity |
| Decision speed | Faster, single point of authority | Slower, requires consensus |
| Cost allocation | Pro-rata hours flown | Equal annual contribution |
| Best suited to | Small pairs (one police, one fire) | Multi-agency regions (police, fire, SES) |
| Risk profile | Concentrated in lead agency | Spread across partners |
Either model works. The choice usually comes down to which organisation is more comfortable holding the maintenance release, the public liability cover and the audit log.
Data management, audit and accountability
Once aircraft are shared, data becomes the hardest part. A modern remotely piloted aircraft system can produce gigabytes of high-resolution video and still imagery in a single shift, and that material is likely to end up as evidence, as a training resource, or as a subject of a freedom of information request. A share agreement should therefore name the system of record, the storage jurisdiction, and the retention period for each data class.
Reporting lines matter too. A joint drone program should publish key metrics each year, including flight hours, incident responses, training completions and complaint outcomes. Agencies that want a tested template can review a practical example of UAS program reporting and evaluation and adapt the format to their own jurisdiction.
Pilot currency and joint training
Aircraft are only as useful as the pilots flying them. CASA requires recent operational experience and a flight review for ongoing remote pilot licence currency, and most agencies have stricter internal rules. A shared program should fix a common minimum, then run at least one joint exercise each year so that pilots know how the partner agency briefs, communicates and deconflicts airspace.
Cross-training is cheap and pays off quickly. A police pilot who has spent a shift with a fire behaviour analyst in the field will produce more useful footage next time. Likewise, a fire pilot who has flown with a forensic collision investigator will think differently about evidence preservation. A small budget for reciprocal ride-alongs and table-top exercises delivers more value than a new accessory.
Keeping the partnership healthy
A drone share agreement is not a document that lives in a drawer. It needs a named governance group, a quarterly review meeting and a clear escalation path when something goes wrong. Annual reviews should test whether the use case list is still relevant, whether cost allocations still feel fair, and whether new CASA rules, such as changes to beyond visual line of sight or airspace authorisations, need to be folded in.
The strongest Australian programs also invest in community transparency. Publishing a short annual summary, holding a public question time at a council meeting, or hosting a community day at a local station in places like Geelong, Penrith or Townsville helps residents understand that the aircraft flying overhead are there to keep people safe, not to watch them. That trust is the real asset any cross-agency drone program is trying to build.
If your agency is ready to formalise a partnership, the Center for Unmanned Aircraft Systems in Public Safety offers guidance, sample templates and peer support. Reach out through the contact page to start the conversation and tap into a network of agencies that have already done the work.