EU Releases Its Regulatory Approach For Drones; US Puts Out 'Request For Comments' On Commercial And Private Use
from the don't-get-left-behind dept
As Techdirt has reported, the FAA is being strangely unhelpful when it comes to authorizing commercial drone use. In that article, Mike warned that this might lead to other countries moving ahead in this fast-developing area, and he was right: the EU body for air safety, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), has now presented its regulatory approach for drones. It is based on three categories of operations and their associated regulatory regime: open, specific and certified (pdf):
The Open operation category of drones, should not require an authorisation by an Aviation Authority for the flight but stay within defined boundaries for the operation (e.g. distance from aerodromes, from people, etc). The "specific" operation category will require a risk assessment that will lead to an Operations Authorisation with specific limitations adapted to the operation. The "certified" operations will be required for operations with a higher associated risk or might be requested on a voluntary basis by organisations providing services such as remote piloting or equipment such as "detect and avoid".
As the EASA paper quoted above points out, in addition to safety, privacy and data protection are other important areas that need to be addressed. The new EU framework envisages this being dealt with by legislation at a national, rather than European, level. The paper has some suggestions for how this might be done:
The risk regarding privacy (data protection) could be mitigated through the operators self-registration in a web based application maintained by the local authorities. Another solution would be to install chips/Sim cards in drones. Such a web based application or chip/Sim cards could also contribute mitigating the security risk.
The paper also has some interesting thoughts on imminent challenges:
While today flying a single drone in non-segregated airspace with cooperative aircraft can be done with appropriate coordination and special procedures, operation of several of them possibly with non-cooperative aircraft will be much more complicated and will require additional measures. The concept of operations will need to be further developed to address the issues related to operations of fleet of drones in the non-segregated airspace. These operations of fleet of drones will pose new challenges not yet explored with manned aircraft operations.
Meanwhile, in the US, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration has put out a "Request for Comments on Privacy, Transparency, and Accountability Regarding Commercial and Private Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems," with a closing date of April 20, 2015. Let's hope it doesn't take too long to move from words to action.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: drones, eu, faa, regulations, us
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Translation, please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Translation, please
IF you drill down into the regulations that already exist at national level you will find that there are two key points. One is the weight, the other is whether the aircraft is always operated within direct line of sight of a pilot. For example in the UK regulation is very light touch for aircraft below 20kg operated in direct view. From 20kg-150kg regulation is done via approved hobbyist organisations to ensure that the airframe is sound.
The top end of this scale is represented bythis model. Still perfectly safe when operated as you see in the video, away from buildings, (uninvolved) people and man carrying aviation. (Bear in mind that there are man carrying aircraft that are smaller!).
Once you break the visual link between the aircraft and the operator, or operate over crowds etc then you are in a different category and new regulations are needed.
Even a "toy" quadcopter will hurt if it falls on your head from 200ft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Military-grade attack hardware
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Military-grade attack hardware
Military drones of the kind that carry weapons are operated under the same rule set as other military aircraft or guided missiles. You may or may not regard the level of oversight as adequate - but it is far from "no rules" and it is not new.
The military have operated drones since the 1950s at least.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Military-grade attack hardware
No they don't. If they did, there might be less of a problem getting rules adopted. The DoD expressly doesn't want them treated like manned aircraft. In particular, they don't want their "operators" to be required to meet the instrument rating qualifications everyone else has to for flying in controlled airspace. They don't want their guys considered pilots (probably because they'd have to pay them way more).
Having spent several years in labs working on this problem, in my experience the DoD angle is the big reason the FAA is dragging its feet on this. They are really chomping at the bit to fill the sky with military UASes, and there's just honestly no safe way to do it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Military-grade attack hardware
I was replying to a claim that there were "no rules" - which is clearly not true.
The fact that the FAA is able to restrain the DoD, as you imply, suggests that the DoD is restrained at the moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We cannot afford a minesh^H^H^H^H^H^H commercial drone gap!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Privacy
If there is no expectation of privacy in such areas, then there is no privacy to be protected.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is sure as hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]