Article
citation information:
Zieliński, T., Marud, W. Challenges
for integration of remotely piloted aircraft systems into the European sky. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series
Transport. 2019, 102, 217-229.
ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2019.102.18.
Tadeusz ZIELIŃSKI[1], Wiesław MARUD[2]
CHALLENGES
FOR INTEGRATION OF REMOTELY PILOTED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS INTO THE EUROPEAN SKY
Summary. Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems
(RPAS) are widely used in the civil sphere. They offer capabilities predisposed
them to be employed by state services in ensuring security and public order, as
well as in commercial activities. It should be assumed that the number of RPAS
users will grow in geometric progression. It also applies to the European
Union, where the market of RPAS is considered to be one of the most prospective
in the development of small and medium-sized enterprises. This situation
generates specific problems that should be solved in order to develop the RPAS’
market without limitations as a part of the European aviation system. The final
state should be full integration of RPAS into the European aviation system, to
conduct flight operations in non-segregated airspace without additional
administrative constraints. Some efforts have been made to achieve this
ambitious goal in the European Union. The paper summarises the current status
of the legal framework and projects connected with the integration of RPAS into
the European airspace. It is mainly based on qualitative analysis of source
materials. The purpose of the paper is to identify key problem areas, the
solution of which will contribute to the integration of RPAS into the European
civil aviation system. An analysis of normative documents functioning in the European
Union (EU) relating to RPAS has been carried out. In particular, the European
Commission (EC) documents and regulations related to RPAS proposed by the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) have been taken into account. Three
crucial areas have been identified as challenges for the integration of RPAS
into the European civil aviation system. Firstly, general concepts of
integration of Remotely Piloted Aircraft into the European airspace including
the development of the U-space concept. Secondly, the field of legal
regulations, without which the functioning of RPAS as a part of the European
aviation system is impossible. In this context, it is justified to continue the
implementation of the Roadmap for the integration of civil Remotely-Piloted
Aircraft Systems into the European Aviation System proposed by the EC in 2013.
Also relevant are the EASA proposals for categorising RPAS and conducting
flight operations based on the risk approach which is a new solution. The
discussion may be triggered due to by-pass of all regulatory competencies to
EASA, without taking into account the specificity of the national systems.
Thirdly, the societal field. Full integration of RPAS into the European civil
aviation system requires social acceptance for air operations involving RPAS.
Despite the undeniable social benefits of RPAS utilisation, in particular in
ensuring security and public order, it will be necessary to address issues
related to the perception of RPAS by the public, including privacy and data
protection, law enforcement associated with the application of RPAS,
third-party liability and insurance requirements of RPAS.
Keywords: Remotely Piloted
Aircraft Systems (RPAS), U-space concept, categories of UA operations, EASA,
ICAO
1. INTRODUCTION
Issues associated with the
integration of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS) with manned aviation in
the European airspace include many significant matters. Firstly, the legal
regulations enabling the formal functioning of RPAS, intended for various
purposes, in the European airspace. Secondly, the general concepts and ideas
regarding the integration of unmanned aviation with manned aviation. Thirdly,
the social dimension connected with the future use of RPAS. Equally important
are modern technologies, which enable and facilitate the future integration of
unmanned aviation with manned aviation. The separated areas are complementary
in regard to each other and they should be considered as a system, which will
ensure the safe functioning of RPAS in the European airspace.
The foundation for discussion
regarding the integration of RPAS with the manned aviation system in European
airspace should be a terminology base. Many expressions occur in the media
space, which described an aircraft without a pilot on board: unmanned aircraft
(UA), unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), pilotless
aircraft or drone. In a broader sense, the phrase “system” is added
to these terms indicating that an unmanned aircraft constitutes one of many
elements enabling the performance of RPAS flight. In a terminological context,
it is reasonable to adopt terms developed by the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) [12].
According to ICAO, the most general
term is unmanned aircraft (Figure 1), which is understood as “an aircraft
which is intended to operate with no pilot on board” [14]. The UA
sub-category is RPA defined as “an unmanned aircraft which is piloted
from a remote pilot station” [14]. In a broader sense, the UA as well as
the RPA are an element of the system allowing them to perform their flight,
defined as unmanned aircraft system (UAS) – “an aircraft and its
associated elements which are operated with no pilot on board”[15], and
RPAS – “a remotely piloted aircraft, its associated remote pilot
station(s), the required command and control links and any other components as
specified in the type design” [15], respectively.
Fig. 1. Unmanned Aircraft according to ICAO rules
Source: [15]
In the context of legal provisions,
within the meaning of ICAO, UA (or RPA) – it is an aircraft regardless of
the fact whether it is piloted remotely, automatically or autonomously.
Therefore, the provisions of article 8 of the Chicago Convention apply to it
– “no aircraft capable of being flown without a pilot shall be
flown without a pilot over the territory of a contracting State without special
authorisation by that State and in accordance with the terms of such
authorisation. Each contracting State undertakes to ensure that the flight of
such aircraft without a pilot in regions open to civil aircraft shall be so
controlled as to obviate danger to civil aircraft” [16]. The key phrases
in the provisions of article 8 refer to “assuring control” and
“obviating danger”. Hence, it should be assumed that the
functioning of UA (RPA) in non-segregated airspace, along with the manned
aviation, will be possible by meeting certain requirements resulting from the
Annexes to the Chicago Convention. Moreover, only the remotely piloted aircraft
will be able to be integrated into the scope of the international airspace in
the near future. According to ICAO, the RPA is an aircraft piloted by a
licensed “remote pilot” located in a “remote pilot
station”, which is placed outside the aircraft itself (for example, on
the land, ship, another aircraft, in space) that continuously monitors the
aircraft in every moment of its actions. On the other hand, the remote pilot
has the ability to respond to instructions issued by the Air Traffic Control
(ATC) services and communicates by voice or via data link, in accordance with
the given class of airspace or given actions, and it is directly responsible
for the safe functioning of the aircraft during its flight. To generalise, the
RPA may have different types of autopilot technology, but the remote pilot must
be able to react at every moment of the flight.
The documents prepared by aviation
organisations in the European Union (EU), that is,the European Aviation Safety
Agency (EASA), the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
(Eurocontrol), as well as documents of the European Commission, include both
terms: UA (UAS) and RPA (RPAS), which are often used interchangeably, although
it must be clearly emphasised that the UA (UAS) remains the dominant term.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable, in the context of integration of unmanned
aviation with manned aviation in the European airspace, to use the term
RPAS, which clearly indicates the need for constant control of remote control
over the unmanned aircraft, which is supposed to ensure an appropriate safety
level of air operations.
2. GENERAL CONCEPTS OF INTEGRATING
REMOTELY PILOTED AIRCRAFT INTO THE EUROPEAN AIRSPACE
The purpose of
integration of unmanned aviation (civil and military) into the European
airspace is the possibility of a problem-free performance of air operations in
all classes of airspace along with the manned aviation. Achieving the target
state of integration, according to the assumptions included in the European ATM
Master Plan: Roadmap for safe integration of drones into all classes of
airspace [25], of the unmanned aviation with manned aviation will be possible
through the implementation of two mutually complementary approaches (Figure 2).
Firstly, the evolutionary approach associated with the adaptation and
integration of large certified RPA with manned aviation. This RPA will operate
in the airspace and on the airports in the same way as manned aircraft,
considering the limitations resulting from the lack of a pilot on the board. It
should be assumed that large RPA will perform air operations in the airspace
between 500 and 60,000 ft. Therefore, they will have to be integrated with
conventional air traffic with the use of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), as well
as based on the instructions included in the Standards and Recommended Practices
(SARPs). It is expected that large RPA will be remotely piloted by a licensed
remote pilot in accordance with the IFR’s regulations and procedures in a
manner similar to the Visual Flight Rules (VFR), just like the manned aviation
[13].
Secondly, the innovative
approach requiring the development of new services and procedures associated
with the implementation of the U-space concept, ensuring access of smaller RPAs
to the airspace in a large quantity, especially in urban areas. This concept
will be based on a high level of automation of activities and communication
systems. “U-space is a set of new services relying on a high level of
digitalisation and automation of functions and specific procedures designed to
support safe, efficient and secure access to the airspace for large numbers of
drones. As such, U-space is an enabling framework designed to facilitate any
kind of routine mission, in all classes of airspace and all types of
environment, even the most congested, while addressing an appropriate interface
with manned aviation and air traffic control (ATC)” [24]. The U-space
framework encompasses a wide and scalable range of services relying on agreed
EU standards and disseminated by service providers. Increasingly wider scope of
application of the unmanned aircraft requires their access to non-segregated
airspace, particularly within the Very Low Level (VLL) operations. In this
context, in a special way, the U-space concept will be addressed to urbanised
areas and VLL operations, that is, below 500 ft [6]. Taking into account the
need to develop new framework allowing for safe and efficient use of RPA, it
will be reasonable to use the latest developments in the scope of such
technology areas as artificial intelligence, Internet of Things or 5G networks,
bearing in mind the requirements relating to cybersecurity, as well as security
and protection of privacy of the citizens and environmental protection. The
gradual distribution of U-space is linked to the growing accessibility of
blocks of services and enabling technologies. It should be the evolution of
automation of the RPA increases, and cutting-edge methods of interaction with
the operating environment (including manned and unmanned aircraft) mainly
through digital information and data exchange [18].
Fig. 2. Integration of
unmanned and manned aviation
Source: based on [25]
The first block of
services (U1) provides foundation services (e-registration,
e-identification and pre-tactical geo-fencing). The main purposes of these
services are to identify RPA and operators and to inform operators about known
restricted areas. With the deployment of the U1 foundation services, more RPA
operations are enabled, especially in areas where the density of manned traffic
is very low. The administrative procedures for approval to fly and the
permissions for some specific missions will be simplified. The range of Visual
Line Of Sight (VLOS) routine operations will be extended and will support
extended VLOS flights, including VLOS operations in an urban environment.
Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations will still be constrained, but
they will become more and more possible [25].
The second block of
services (U2) refers to an initial set of services that support the safe
management of RPA operations and the first level of interface and connection
with ATM/ATC and manned aviation. Where appropriate, U2 will make use of
existing infrastructure from ATM, but new opportunities for RPA operations will
be enabled through the exploitation of technologies from other sectors. The
range of operations at low levels will be increased, including some operations
in controlled airspace. RPA flights will no longer be necessarily considered on
a case-by-case basis, and some examples of BVLOS operations will become routine
(albeit with some constraints) [25].
The third block of
services (U3) will build on the experience gained in U2 and will unlock new and
enhanced applications and mission types in high density and high complexity
areas. New technologies, Automated Detect and Avoid (DAA) functionalities and
more reliable means of communication will enable a significant increase of
operations in all environments and will reinforce interfaces with ATM/ATC and
manned aviation. This is where the most significant growth of RPA operations is
expected to occur, especially in urban areas, with the initiation of new types
of operations, such as air urban mobility [25].
The fourth block of
services (U4) focuses on services offering integrated interfaces with ATM/ATC
and manned aviation and supports the full operational capability of U-space
based on a very high level of automation. It is expected that the need for new
services will arise during the roll-out of U3 [25].
Integration of unmanned
aviation with manned aviation is a continuous process. Along with the
implementation of more and more services and operations, the RPA will be
gradually integrated into all airspace classes until the achievement of full
integration [1]. Through the entire duration of this process, the unmanned and
manned aviation will develop by using new technologies that facilitate the
integration process. In the technological context, two technologies will have
crucial meaning for the development and integration of unmanned aviation into
the European airspace: DAA and C2 Link and Communications [22].
3. OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED EUROPEAN
LEGAL REGULATIONS IN RELATION TO REMOTELY PILOTED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS
The European Union
perceives the use of RPAS as an important element of economic development of
the Member States, particularly in the sector of small and medium-sized
enterprises [23]. The legal regulations existing so far required the
certification of RPAS with Maximum Take-off Mass (MTOM) from 150 kg (with the
exception of state aviation aircraft), which at the European level is
implemented by the EASA. Legal provisions regarding smaller RPAS are designed
and implemented by the national aviation authorities. Increasing access to the
UA and the potential threats associated with their use prompted the need to
design legal regulations at the global level (ICAO) and regional level
(European Commission, EASA, Eurocontrol). As a result of the work of expert
teams, the following resolution was developed at the European level: European
Parliament legislative resolution of 12 June 2018 on the proposal for a
regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules in the
field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union Aviation Safety
Agency, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European Parliament
and of the Council (COM(2015)0613 – C8-0389/2015 – 2015/0277(COD)),
which regulates the essential requirements for the UA. The proposed solutions
apply to all UA regardless of the MTOM size. At the same time, the basic factor
taken into account in the scope of the safety of the air operations performance
is considered to be the risk, therefore the provisions should be proportional
to the risk associated with a specific operation or type of operation [2].
Contents of the subject Resolution also drew attention to the need of including
in the legislation, the specific conditions in a given country, associated
with, for example, population density, which should be taken into account in
order to ensure the flexibility of the designed regulations.
The presented Resolution
establishes the essential requirements concerning: a) design, production,
technical service and exploitation of the UA, b) environmental protection, c)
registration of the UA, their operators and designation of the UA. In relation
to section (a), the most important arrangements require the operator and the UA
pilot to be familiar with the national regulations and EU regulations regarding
the planning of operations, especially in relation to the security, privacy,
data protection, responsibility, insurance, protection and environmental
protection. This is associated with the knowledge of the manufacturer’s
operating instructions, as well as safe and environmentally-friendly use of UA
in the airspace, in accordance with the rules and procedures of air traffic.
Moreover, the airworthiness requirements must be met and organisations
participating in the design, production, technical service, operations of the
UA, related services and training must meet the conditions specified in the
Resolutions. On the other hand, the UA’s operator is responsible for its
exploitation and the flight performed by such operator must be conducted in
accordance with the procedures for carrying out the duties of operators,
defined for the given area, airspace, airports or places, which are planned to
be used, and in relevant cases the appropriate air traffic management systems.
Operations with the use of UA must be carried out in a manner ensuring the
safety of third parties on the ground and other airspace users, as well as minimising
the risks resulting from unfavourable external and internal conditions. The
UA’s operator is responsible for its necessary equipment for navigation,
communication, surveillance, detection and avoidance of obstacles, as well as
other equipment considered to be necessary for the safety of the intended
flight, taking into account the nature of given operation, as well as
regulations and rules of air traffic applicable in each phase of the flight
[8].
With regard to the
section (b), the emphasis is put on the need to minimise noise, various
emissions and the release of liquids by the UA. Therefore, their systems and
equipment required for the reasons of environmental protection must be
designed, manufactured and maintained to function in accordance with their
intended use in all foreseeable conditions of exploitation [10].
With reference to the
section (c), the Regulations introduced a requirement for the establishment of
digital harmonised and interoperable national registration systems, in which
information regarding the UA and their registered operators should be stored.
The national registration systems should be consistent with the EU legislation,
considering the matters of security, privacy, personal data protection and
environmental protection [10, 21].
In the context of legal
regulations, it is reasonable to focus on EASA’s proposals due to the
fact that it is the main organisation presenting solutions for the integration
of RPA with manned aviation in the European airspace. It is necessary to note
that the EASA’s proposals are the result of previous activities
undertaken in the EU in relation to the use of the potential of the unmanned
aircraft. A good example is a report developed in 2013 by the European RPAS
Steering Group – Roadmap for the integration of civil Remotely-Piloted
Aircraft Systems into the European Aviation System, which is an outcome of
several years of consultations ordered by the European Commission. The Roadmap
identifies all the issues to be addressed and establishes a step-by-step
approach to address them. The complete document includes 3 annexes, entitled: A
Regulatory Approach, A Strategic Research Plan, A Study on the Societal Impact
[9]. However, EASA is the main actor creating new rules for the future
utilisation of UAS in the European sky. The idea is to cover the regulation of
all civil unmanned aircraft systems, regardless of their MTOM. Three categories
of UA operations have been established as follows [3]:
- open (low risk) is a UAS operation
category that, considering the risks involved, does not require prior
authorisation by the competent authority before the operation takes place.
- specific (medium risk) is a UAS operation
category that, considering the risks involved, requires authorisation by the
competent authority before the operation takes place and takes into account the
mitigation measures identified in an operational risk assessment, except for
certain standard scenarios where a declaration by the operator is sufficient.
- certified (high risk) is a UAS operation category
that, considering the risks involved, requires the certification of the UAS, a
licensed remote pilot and an operator approved by the competent authority, in
order to ensure an appropriate level of safety.
Proposals regarding the
open and specific categories have been included to Opinion No 01/2018
Introduction of a regulatory framework for the operation of unmanned aircraft
systems in the “open” and “specific” categories.
This Opinion addresses
UAS operations in the open and specific categories only, and it introduces: an
operation-centric approach (the consequences of an accident or incident with a
UAS that does not carry people on board are highly dependent on the environment
where the accident or incident takes place), a risk-based approach (in the open
category, this is illustrated by introducing subcategories, and in the specific
category, by laying down the general principle for a risk assessment to be
conducted by the operator before starting an operation), and a
performance-based approach (the main requirements in the draft regulation
identify the requested performance, and related standards describe acceptable
ways to comply with the rules).
The open category will
cater for most leisure operations but also relatively simple commercial
applications. As a general rule, the open category has been defined as
operations conducted with a UAS with an MTOM of less than 25 kg, below a height
of 120 m, and in VLOS. The conditions above already provide some initial
mitigation, especially for air risks, complemented by the competency of the
remote pilot. It was decided to further subdivide operations in the open
category into three subcategories to allow different types of operations
without the need for authorisation. The subcategories were defined according to
the risks posed to people and objects on the ground, keeping in mind that the
operations would all be below 120 m in height and far from aerodromes. These
subcategories are: A1 – flights over people but not over open-air
assemblies of people, A2 – flights close to people, while keeping a safe
distance from them, A3 – flights far from people. UAS will be divided
into five classes in the context of technical requirements with MTOM as a main
criterion of division: from C0 to C4 [5].
The specific category is
applicable to all operations that do not comply with the restrictions of the
open category. The specific category is a very promising category to cater for
the expected high growth of commercial UA applications due to the fact that
BVLOS is certainly an important enabler and BVLOS operations will not be
allowed in the open category [5]. The category is centred on the concept of
operational authorisation based on a risk assessment process. In order to
obtain the authorisation, the operator shall give evidence of risk mitigation
factors that have been put in place to mitigate the risk of the specific
operation. In order to identify the necessary mitigation factors, the operation
is analysed by means of a risk assessment model that will be adopted by the EASA
and developed by the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems
(JARUS) as the JARUS SORA (Specific Operation Risk Assessment). The SORA
identifies the necessary risk mitigation factors in terms of harm barriers and
threat barriers necessary to reduce both the air risk class and ground risk
class to a level deemed acceptable. There will be a concept of standard
scenarios adapted to facilitate the task of operators and promote operations in
the specific category. If the operator elects to carry out an operation already
covered by one of the adopted standard scenarios, he/she will find the
mitigation means to be put in place (harm barriers and threat barriers) already
identified in the documentation published with that standard scenario, as well
as the precise concept of operations within which the operation is permitted.
There will be “low risk” and “high risk” standard
scenarios addressed. The operator of the UAS is responsible for staying within
the operational and technical limits defined by the standard scenario [17, 26].
For the UAS operations
in the certified category, EASA will develop amendments to the existing
regulations applicable to manned aviation. Peculiar elements of high-risk UAS
operations are: the certification and continuing airworthiness of UAS and
related products, parts and appliances, the approval of the design, production
and maintenance organisations, air operator certificates, operation of UA, and
licences of personnel [19]. The certified category will host operations with higher
risk, such as, large or complex UAS operating on congested populated areas,
large or complex UAS operating BVLOS in high -density airspace, UAS used for
transport of people, UAS used for the carriage of dangerous goods that create
high risks for third parties [4].
4. SOCIETAL ISSUES OF INTEGRATION
OF REMOTELY PILOTED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS INTO THE EUROPEAN AIRSPACE
There is no doubt that
the full integration of unmanned and manned aviation in the European airspace
will also require taking into account the social aspects for activities
undertaken by the users of RPA. In a report of 2013, entitled Roadmap for the
integration of civil Remotely-Piloted Aircraft Systems into the European
Aviation System, the authors place emphasis on three important issues. The
first relates to the legal responsibility of users of the RPA for causing an
accident (in the air, on the ground), enforcing responsibility and using
insurance. The second issue focuses on the protection against abuses associated
with the use of RPA: maintaining privacy, personal data protection and security
of third parties. The third issue raises the social acceptance of the use of
RPA in everyday activities, for example, benefits for the citizens or the
acceptable risk of performing operations with the use of RPA [11].
It seems reasonable that
issues associated with legal responsibility for causing an accident with the
use of RPA should be regulated at the national level, taking into account the
applicable legal acts of the global and regional (European) level. The
appropriate changes to the provisions of Annex 13 to the Chicago Convention
(Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation), bearing in mind the use of RPA,
have already been introduced. There is no doubt that in matters associated with
the legal responsibility and insurance, with regard to the use of RPA, two
situations must be distinguished, application of RPA for commercial purposes by
operators and application of RPA for sports and recreational purposes. In the
first case, in Europe, the users of RPA flying over the territory of one of the
EU countries for commercial purposes are required to comply with the Regulation
(EC) No 785/2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft
operators. Article 4 of this Regulation provides that “[...] air carriers
and aircraft operators [...] shall be insured in accordance with this
Regulation as regards their aviation-specific liability in respect of [...]
third parties” [8]. The main purpose of this regulation is to guarantee the
people injured in the accident access to adequate compensation by specifying
the minimum level of insurance. Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 also defines a
minimum level of insurance towards third parties for each RPA, depending on its
MTOM. The minimum amount corresponds to 1 million EUR per accident. If the RPA
is used for recreational and sports purposes, the user individually assesses
the risk and purchases the appropriate policy. In many European countries, the
possession of such insurance is obligatory [7].
Privacy and personal
data protection are recognised in Europe as fundamental human rights. European
legislation, as well as national legislation, protect citizens against cases of
privacy violations by considering them illegal, also in the case of using RPA,
regardless of the fact whether it is used for commercial, recreational or
sports purposes. RPAs often carry devices that allow recording and storing of
data, which is often published on social media without the consent of the data
subjects. The performance of RPA flights creates a high probability of
unintentional collection and/or processing of personal data. All types of usage
of RPA that entail the collection of personal data must be lawful [20]. In
Europe, the collection, storage and processing of personal data is legally
regulated. European Directive on the protection of natural persons with regard
to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, as
well as the national regulations, set out rules in the scope of the collection,
storage and processing of personal data [9]. Moreover, the use of RPA with
respect to the right to privacy, including ethical aspects, is guaranteed
within EU in the provisions of Article 7 (Respect for private life) and Article
8 (Data protection) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union,
by the right to respect for private life of Article 8 European Convention on
Human Rights, which obliged the Member States to comply with them.
The third issue is
directly associated with the benefits of using the RPA for citizens, with
simultaneous acceptance of the resulting risks. The capabilities of RPA
technology in civil applications, both commercial and non-commercial,
contribute to the stimulation of, increase in competitiveness, promotion of
entrepreneurship and creation of new jobs, particularly in the sector of small
and medium-sized enterprises. Despite the undisputed advantages and abilities
possessed by RPA, there is a lack of knowledge in the society about their
possible applications. Most often, their use is associated with support for
state authorities (for example, police, fire brigade, border control, etc.) in
the scope of crisis management. Therefore, there is a need to inform the
societies via the media about opportunities, but also threats associated with
the functioning of RPA. It should be emphasised that the full integration of
unmanned and manned aviation will also enable the performance of passenger
communication flights, also in the global dimension. This means that there is a
need to educate the public opinion that flights without pilots on board are
equally safe as in the manned aircraft [21].
Conclusively, the social
dimension of integration of the unmanned and manned aviation requires closer
cooperation between regulating entities and citizens of the EU Member States.
New legal regulations in the scope of use of RPA in non-separated airspace
should take into account the concerns and proposals of the citizens, while the
legislators should be informed about the risks associated with the use of RPA
in a reliable manner.
5. CONCLUSION
In the near future, the
integration of unmanned aviation with manned aviation will become a fact. This
will mean the possibility of performing simultaneous UA and manned aircraft
operations in the common European airspace.
Activities undertaken at
the European level, mainly including those related to legal regulations, seem
to be correct and they are basically aimed at ensuring the safety of all
airspace users, as well as on the ground, including the ensuring of privacy and
personal data protection. Classification of the UAs and operations based on
risk assessment, which was proposed by EASA, will allow for their extensive
application in many areas, both commercial and non-commercial, contributing to
the economic development of the European Union.
Ensuring the joint
performance of operations of the unmanned and manned aviation in single
European airspace will require the implementation of modern technologies,
levelling the lack of a pilot on board of the aircraft, as well as ensuring
safe control of the aircraft. Safety issues associated with the use of UA, both
small and large ones, should be the main factor taken into consideration during
the development of the concept of integration of the unmanned aviation with
manned aviation. At the same time, the regulations should be balanced in a
manner enabling access to the UA to as many interested parties as possible.
To summarise, due to the
activities undertaken in the sphere of the functioning of the unmanned aircraft,
the European Union may become a global leader in the scope of use of unmanned
aviation.
References
2.
Du Haomiao, Michiel A. Heldeweg. 2018.
“An experimental approach to regulating non-military unmanned aircraft
systems”. International Review of
Law, Computers & Technology. EISSN 1364-6885. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1080/13600869.2018.1429721.
3.
EASA. 2015. “Concept
of Operations for Drones A risk based approach to regulation of unmanned
aircraft”. European Aviation
Safety Agency, Cologne, Germany.
4.
EASA. 2017. “Notice of Proposed
Amendment 2017-05 (A). Introduction of a Regulatory Framework for the Operation
of Drones Unmanned Aircraft System Operations in the Open and Specific
Category; RMT.0230”. European Aviation Safety Agency, Cologne, Germany.
5.
EASA. 2018. “Opinion
No 01/2018. Introduction of a regulatory framework for the operation of
unmanned aircraft systems in the ‘open’ and ‘specific’
categories”. Related NPA/CRD: 2017-05–RMT.0230”. European
Safety Agency, Cologne, Germany.
6.
Eurocontrol. “RPAS ATM
CONOPS”, edition 4.0. Available at:
https://eurocontrol.int/sites/default/files/publication/files/Brochure%20RPAS%20CONOPS.pdf.
7.
European Commission. 2015. Study
on the Third-Party Liability and Insurance Requirements of Remotely Piloted
Aircraft Systems (RPAS). Brussels, London: Steer Davies Gleave. ISBN
978-92-79-44125-7.
8.
European Parliament.
“Regulation (EC) No 785/2004 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 21 April 2004 on insurance requirements for air carriers and
aircraft operators”. Available at: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32004R0785&from=EN.
9.
European Parliament.
“Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the
processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and
repealing Directive 95/46/EC”. Available at:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1532348683434&uri=CELEX:02016R0679-20160504.
10.
European Parliament.
“European Parliament legislative resolution of 12 June 2018 on the
proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on
common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Union
Aviation Safety Agency, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 216/2008 of the European
Parliament and of the Council (COM(2015)0613 – C8-0389/2015 –
2015/0277(COD))”. Available at:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2018-0245+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN.
11.
European RPAS Steering Group.
“Roadmap for the integration of civil Remotely-Piloted Aircraft Systems
into the European Aviation System”. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/10484/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/native
12.
Grimaccia Francesco et. al. 2017.
“Risk Analysis of the Future Implementation of a Safety Management System
for Multiple RPAS Based on First Demonstration Flights”. Electronics 6(3): 50. EISSN 2079-9292.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics6030050.
13.
ICAO. 2017. “Remotely
Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) Concept of Operations (CONOPS) for International
IFR Operations”. International Civil Aviation Organization, Montreal,
Canada.
14.
ICAO Cir 328. 2011. “Unmanned
Aircraft Systems (UAS)”. International Civil Aviation Organization,
Montreal, Canada.
15.
ICAO Doc 10019. 2015. “Manual
on Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS)”. International Civil
Aviation Organization, Montreal, Canada.
16.
ICAO Doc 7300/9. 2006. “Convention
on Civil International Aviation”. International Civil Aviation
Organization, Montreal, Canada.
17.
JARUS. “JARUS
guidelines on Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA)”. Available at:
http://jarus-rpas.org/sites/jarus-rpas.org/files/jar_doc_06_jarus_sora_v1.0.pdf.
18.
Jensen Ole B. 2016. “Drone city
– power, design and aerial mobility in the age of ‘smart cities’”.
Geographica Helvetica 71: 67-75. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-71-67-2016.
19.
Jiang Tao et al. 2016. “Unmanned
Aircraft System traffic management: Concept of operation and system
architecture”. International
Journal of Transportation Science and Technology 5: 123-135. ISSN
2046-0430. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtst.2017.01.004.
20.
Marzocchi Ottavio. 2015. Privacy and Data Protection Implications of
the Civil Use of Drones. Brussels: Directorate General for Internal
Policies. Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs.
Civil liberties, justice and home affair.
21.
Molina Maria de Miguel et al. 2018.
“Ethics for civil indoor drones: A qualitative analysis”. International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles
10(4): 340-351. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1756829318794004.
22.
SESAR Joint Undertaking. 2016. “Demonstrating
RPAS integration in the European aviation system. A summary of SESAR drone
demonstration project results”. SESAR, Brussels.
23.
SESAR Joint Undertaking. 2016. “European
Drones Outlook Study. Unlocking the Value for Europe”. SESAR, Brussels.
24.
SESAR Joint Undertaking. 2017. “U-space
Blueprint”. SESAR, Brussels.
25.
SESAR Joint Undertaking.
“European ATM Master Plan: Roadmap for the safe integration of drones
into all classes of airspace”. Available at:
https://www.sesarju.eu/node/2993.
26.
Sivakova L., A. Zubkova, W. Piellowski. 2018.
“Application of a priori and a posteriori estimate on risk assessment”.
Komunikacie (Communications - Scientific
Letters of the University of Zilina) 20(2): 56-61.
Received 02.11.2018; accepted in revised form 11.01.2019
Scientific
Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License