INTEGRATION OF RPAS IN ALL FLIGHT PHASES AND SURFACE PROCESSES Legal and Regulation aspects Integration of RPAS in all flight phases and surface process Capri 25/26 Settembre 2014 Team Grotta Azzurra 1) Francesca Pellegrino 2) Marcello Finocchiaro 3) Carmelo Starrantino
The International Legislative and Regulatory Framework Article 8 of the Chicago Convention Amendments to Annexes to the Chicago Convention: SARPs Circular 328 AN/190 Unmanned Aircraft Systems (March 2011) ICAO Manual on RPAS (first edition, draft, 2 April 2012)
The European (EU) Legislative and Regulatory Framework Toward a European strategy for the development of civil applications of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (SWD(2012) 259 final, 6 September 2012) Roadmap for the integration of civil RPAS into the European Aviation System (20 June 2013) European Commission Communication A new era for aviation Opening the aviation market to the civil use of RPAS in a safe and sustainable manner, European Commission Communication (8 April 2014) Asda Scientific Seminar
The National (Italian) Legislative and Regulatory Framework Article 743 Concept of aircraft of the Italian Navigation Code...Remotely piloted aerial vehicles are also considered aircraft, as defined by special laws, ENAC regulations and, for the military, by decrees of the Ministry of Defence... ENAC Regulation on Remotely Piloted Aerial Vehicles (30 April 2014)
Preliminary considerations The potential of RPAS technology to create new business and support industrial competitiveness is huge. The RPAS technology has also the potential to create an important market of innovative state and commercial application and services. BUT Achieving this requires defining specific regulations, procedures and standards for RPAS. Today, however, the emergence of a civil RPAS market is hampered by the absence of [...] a supporting regulatory framework. The existing set of rules most of them are rules of soft law are not in a position which allows the use of these vehicles in a safe and sustainable manner. Source: Toward a European strategy for the development of civil applications ASDA Scientific of Remotely Seminar Piloted Aircraft Systems (SWD(2012) 259 final, 6 September 2012).
EU Regulatory Responsibility AIRCRAFT MTOM < 150 Kg > 150 Kg Initial Law National Rules EASA (Policy 2009 Part 21) RPAS National Rules EASA (not yet available) Operator Certificate National Rules EASA (not yet available) Remote Pilot Certificate National Rules EASA (not yet available) Nat. Flight Authorisation National Rules National Rules Internat. Flight Author. * Amendment 43 ** Amendment 43 ** State Missions National Rules National Rules Public EC Missions National Rules? EASA? * Transporting an RPAS in a car from one country to another to operate it there, is an international flight NOT HARMONISED ** To Chicago Convention Annex 2, Applicable since 12 Nov 2012, Basis for EASA s NPA 2013-10
RPAS REGULATION IN EU - I Austria < 150 Kg VLOS Yes Belgium <150 Kg VLOS Yes (not in force) Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Rep. < 150 Kg VLOS BLOS Yes Denmark < 150 Kg VLOS Yes Estonia Finland < 150 Kg VLOS Yes (exp. Mid 2014) France < 25 Kg VLOS BLOS VLOS BLOS Yes (Updated reg exp 2014) Germany < 25 Kg VLOS Greece In Place In Preparation Ops Facilitations Hungary < 150 Kg VLOS Yes Ireland < 20 Kg VLOS Yes Yes
RPAS REGULATION IN EU -II Italy < 25 Kg VLOS Yes Latvia Lithuania < 25 Kg VLOS < 150 Kg VLOS Yes Luxembourg Malta < 150 Kg VLOS Yes Netherlands < 25 Kg VLOS < 150 Kg VLOS Yes Poland < 150 Kg VLOS BLOS Yes Portugal Romania Yes Slovakia Slovenia Yes Spain < 25 Kg VLOS Yes Sweden < 150 Kg VLOS Yes UK < 20 Kg VLOS Yes
RPAS REGULATION III (Non-EU) In Place In preparation Rating VLOS BLOS Rating VLOS BLOS Ops Facil. Iceland Norway < 150 Kg VLOS BLOS Yes Switzerland Directive on VLOS operations over people Yes Model aircraft rules apply
RPAS (<150 Kg) REGULATION - EUROPE In Place In Preparation VLOS BLOS VLOS BLOS EU 12 3 8 Non-EU 1 Total Europe 12 3 9 Rest of the World 7 3 7 3 Australia Yes Yes NA NA Brazil No No Yes No Canada Yes No Na No Colombia Yes Yes NA NA Israel Yes Yes NA Na Japan Yes No NA Yes New Zealand No No Yes? South Africa No No Yes No South Korea Yes No?? Russian Fed. No No Yes No Turkey No No Yes Yes Ukraine Yes No Yes No USA No No Yes Yes
SES Reg. considered relevant by RPAS operators - Reg. 2150/2005 Common rules for the flexible use of airspace - Reg.255/2010 Common rules on air traffic flow management - Reg. 677/2011 Detailed rules for the implementation of ATM network functions and amending Reg. (EU) 691/2010 Frequency Spectrum Airspace Reg. (EC 551/2004 and amendments EC 1070/2009) - Reg. 1207/2009 Requirements for the performance and the interoperability of surveillance for the SES - Reg. 1206/2011 Requirements on aircraft identification for surveillance for the SES - Reg. 1079/2012 Requirements for voice channels spacing for the SES - Reg. 29/2009 Requirements on datalink services for the SES - Reg. 1332/2011 Common airspace usage requirements and operating procedures for airborne collision - PNB Interoperability implementing rule on Performance Based Navigation - SWIM System Wide Information Management - EUROCONTROL Specifications for the Use of Military Unmanned Aerial Vehicles as Operational Air Traffic Outside Segregated Airspace - SERA Common rules of the air and operational provisions regarding services and procedures in air navigation and amending Regulation (EC) N. 1035/2011, 1265/2007, 1749/2006, 730/2006, 1033/2006 and 255/2010. Interoperability Reg. (EC 552/2004 and amendments EC 1070/2009) EASA Reg. (EC 216/2008 and amendments EC 1108/2009) Other Regulations / Specifications
Main issues to be included in existing SES regulations (complying with certain principles) Sense and avoid requirements Certification requirements Airworthiness requirements Operation requirements Personnel licensing requirements (operational and maintenance) ATM issues Light UAS Minimum altitude for RPAS operations inside controlled and uncontrolled airspace FCL (Flight Crew License) requirements Frequency cross-border interoperability Procedures for communications failure with ATS Weather minima requirements for UAS operations
Organisations involved in the RPAS Regulation implementation European Commission EASA EUROCAE EDA NATO SESAR JU EUROCONTROL NATIONAL CAAs ICAO JARUS
REGULATIONS AND LIABILITY PROFILES Damage to third parties: The 1952 Rome Convention on damage caused by foreign aircraft to third parties on the surface. Applicable or not to RAPSs? Who is liable? - Pilot in command of the aircraft or its operator? - RPA and the ground station as single or two separate entities? - Aircraft operator s strict liability regime. - Debt limitation scheme based on the weight of the acft. To be adapted to RPAS.
Other Convention to be adapted Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation, signed in Montreal on 23 September 1971; Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, Montreal - 28 May 1999; Cape Town Convention of 16 November 2001. ICAO in the aftermath of 11.09.2001, Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties and Convention on Compensation for Damage to Third Parties Resulting from Acts of Unlawful Interference Involving Aircraft, done in Montreal on 2 May 2009 (NOT entered into force).
Space law and RPAS - Absence of a comprehensive regulatory framework within the EU; - Possible competing liability between the satellite controller and the RPAS operator, complicated by the liability of the launching State; - Guidelines to distribute among stakeholders and space and RPAS operators.
Liability of designers/software engineers, manufacturers and operators. - Legal basis not yet defined; - The causal link (legally sufficient condition/connection) under strict liability rules does NOT exclude further kinds of responsibility (e.g., strict product liability, strict malfunctioning liability and cases of vicarious liability, etc.); - Need of specific regulations/guidelines describing new tasks and responsibilities of the technology providers, manufactures, software developers and maintenance and updating companies; - HOW TO CONSIDER THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN AUTOMATION AND LIABILITY.
INSURANCE Major small and very heterogeneous number of risks; Limited structured and categorised flight safety data available; Higher insurance premium rates; Better and more frequent RPAS risks assessments (classified in risk categories depending on complexity of operation) Reg. EC 785/2004: third-party mandatory insurance starts from 500kg. To be adapted for all RPAS operators (every RPAS, e.g. with weights exceeding 20kg, preferably should have a minimum liability insurance cover). Supervised by the civil aviation authorities such minimum insurance requirements Involving aerospace insurance sector into on-going discussions and development. Their assessment will assist reducing the number of known/unknown variables and to provide a qualitative reflection.
PRIVACY AND DATA PROTECTION RPAS may present a threat to privacy - Difficult to protect; Increasing accessibility to small RPAS. Difficulty of tracking and controlling them; Balance between privacy and other rights; protection/limit to the privacy; Existing regulation does NOT provide any provisions regarding RPAS. Application by analogy of the same principles; Broad assessment of privacy threats and analysis of the issue of video surveillance using RPAS in order to produce recommendations; Utilise the national competence of every EU Member State in this matter; Proposal to revise Dir. 95/46 General Data Protection Regulation - applicable to data processing by private or commercial RPAS operators;
Accessibility to the market and Information to the public RPA for recreational activities (low cost/easy to buy) may pose a real threat to aviation; Difficulty in controlling their use through licensing or registration, in tracking and identifying owner/remote pilots; uncertainty for the judicial side; training & requirements; Recent incidents / Consequences of an accident or incident involving small RPA; Proposed solutions: Use of recreational RPA in a controlled environment; Remote pilots aware of the legal framework; Remote pilots must obtain any requisite prior approval from the appropriate authorities; Basic training should be mandatory; A minimum age requirement; Impose requirements on the manufacturer. Informing the public is, therefore, crucial.
Aviation / Judicial investigation ICAO ANNEX 13: An occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, in which ; Annex 13, as it stands, would not provide the appropriate international legal framework for the investigation of accidents similar to the serious incidents discussed before; There is a pressing need to have regulations which will specifically address RPAS accident investigation either by means of an amendment to Annex 13 or the adoption of a new legal instrument.
Legal/Regulation & other disciplines R&D and REG are interdependent: most of the requirements for RPAS integration are regulatory requirements but also about liability and privacy. Ensure closed loop of activities to ensure consistency and feasibility.
Thank you for your kind attention! Any questions?