Article
citation information:
Kampf, R., Hanzl, J., Stopka, O., Rybicka, I. Possibilities of using unmanned aerial vehicles for
biological protection of airports in Europe. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series
Transport. 2019, 104, 47-56.
ISSN: 0209-3324. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2019.104.5.
Rudolf KAMPF[1],
Jiří HANZL[2],
Ondrej STOPKA[3], Iwona
RYBICKA[4]
POSSIBILITIES OF USING UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES
FOR BIOLOGICAL PROTECTION OF AIRPORTS IN EUROPE
Summary. This paper offers a
comparison of selected European countries´ approaches to the civil and
commercial use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) with the approach and rules
set by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in the Czech Republic. The authors
specially focused on the differences in the approaches of individual
authorities, which regulate the use of unmanned vehicles in the countries
concerned in order to emphasise the inconsistency of rules within the European
Economic Area. In the other part of the paper, the authors outline the
possibilities of using unmanned aerial vehicles (drones), particularly dealing
with increasing safety in air transport as a complement to biological
protection of airports, and propose their original idea of the system.
Keywords: unmanned
aerial vehicles, UAV operation regulation, civil aviation authority, unmanned
aircraft system.
1. INTRODUCTION
At
present, with technological advances in aviation is likewise the growth of new
technology systems with demands on security. An example of such new technology
may be the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) that have become very popular in the
civil sector. It is the mass character of their use itself, both civil and
commercial, that puts greater demands on safety and the regulation of their
use. The two largest organisations that implement the global rules and
regulatory frameworks in the field of unmanned aerial navigation – EASA
(in Europe) and the FAA (in North America) have a heterogeneous approach to
regulatory principles. Both, however, quite considerably ignore a number of
technological loopholes. While the FAA favours direct and uncompromising modes
of implementation, the EASA takes a step-by-step approach in order to
involve all major UAV stakeholders in the definition of legislative frameworks
[1,2].
The
United States is a few steps ahead of Europe in the global implementation of unifying
rules, and the situation is not expected to change in nearest the future. The
US's lead is given by the level at which the two organisation operate. While
the FAA is an entity that unites the smaller administrative units (states) in
the US under its agenda, the EASA unifies the sovereign EU countries, each
having its regulatory framework, either established or with their deployment
underway. It is desirable for all EASA member states to adopt uniform
legislation between 2018 and 2019, when the EU’s active bodies should
approve the regulatory framework. In the United States, the introduction of
unified legislation became a reality in 2016 and today, it serves not only as
an important source of information, experience and recommendations for EASA but
also as an important aspect for the compatibility of these two agencies, whose
common interest is in mutual cooperation.
2. BASIC RULES FOR UAV OPERATION IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC
The operation of unmanned aircraft in the Czech Republic is
directly anchored by legislation (in particular by L2 - the ICAO Annex 2, and
Amendment X), and pilots must follow precisely defined parts of the airspace
when controlling the aircraft. The airspace structure is international,
crossing borders and enabling flights in a protected area [3].
Under standard conditions, the aircraft may move in the
airspace of Class G, the level of which begins at an altitude of up to 300 m
above ground level (AGL) outside the control zone of airports with controlled
traffic (CTR). VFR and IFR flights are not part of the flight permit. Special
modifications of operation are provided by the Amendment X in the airport
traffic zone, where the airports with air traffic control need to be
distinguished from airports without air traffic control. In the aerodrome
traffic zone (ATZ) of a non-controlled airport, flight may only be operated on
the grounds that it meets previously set conditions by its operator and based
on communication with the airport flight information service (AFIS). Above the
airspace of class G, flights in ATZ may only be operated on the condition that
AFIS is present at the aerodrome or air traffic information is provided in the
aerodrome area. Up to 100 m above the ground at a controlled zone of the
aerodrome, the flight may only be operated with the exceptional permit of the
appropriate air traffic control unit and at a horizontal distance greater than
5,500 m from the reference point of the controlled aerodrome, except for the
case of authorisation by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), or during
aeronautical shows and public appearances [3].
In the airspace of class G, an unmanned aeroplane can move
without restriction. However, pilots have to abide by the principle of
increased caution from a height of 150 m, where normal air traffic can occur.
The minimum height at which the UAV can be conducted is not specified. The
basic principle for all operations of these aircraft is the provision
determining the exclusion of flights from the common airspace. The protection
of people and property on the ground is also primary for this area. The CAA
recommends that twice the flight height should be maintained as a safe
distance. Flights are possible in densely populated areas, but only under
specific conditions and with the permission of the CAA. An aircraft may not be
operated in a forbidden, hazardous and other, user-activated restricted and
reserved areas [4].
Special areas of the restricted ban on movement of unmanned
aircraft are protection zones. Unless otherwise provided by the CAA, flights of
unmanned aircraft may not be carried out in the following areas: the protection
zones established by the relevant legislation alongside aboveground transport
constructions, aboveground utility constructions, aboveground communications
networks, inside specially protected areas, around water resources, and
buildings important for state defence [4]. Among other things, a drone operator
may use the aircraft only within the visual line of sight (VLOS); the start and
take-off must always be carried out with the consent of the owner of the land;
in the air, the drones must not be closer than 50 m to people, vehicles, etc.
2.1. German approach
The
Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Infrastructure in Germany proposed
new rules effective on 9 November 2015. Individual Länder may allow
flights beyond the VLOS depending on safety and traffic conditions. There is no
national regulatory authority in the area of unmanned aerial vehicles in
Germany, and the issue of permits and regulatory frameworks is, therefore, the
responsibility of individual Länder. Some of the states even have more
than one active body within their region. There are currently 22 competent
authorities in Germany (in a total of 16 Länder). Every flight operated
for commercial purposes has to be approved by the appropriate aviation
authority. Operators must pass an appropriate exam to test their piloting
capabilities and knowledge of aviation laws. In practice, the aviation
authority is in charge of issuing individual licenses. The following principles
apply to the Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) with a payload of less
than 25 kg [5, 6]:
·
the use
within the perimeter of an airport or restricted airspace only on the basis of
permits; flights within the perimeter of 1.5 km from the airport or landing
area are also subject to a special permit
·
flights in
controlled air traffic must have permissions from the Air Traffic Control (ATC)
·
take-offs and
landings must always be permitted by the landowner or airport operator
·
permission is
mandatory in the Radio mandatory zone (RMZ)
·
all flights
are forbidden in the area of protection zones (public, military, industrial,
motorways, and railways), as well as flights over people, sites of crashes or
disasters; flying over sites of security forces actions is not allowed as well
·
safe
distances have to be maintained around people, vehicles, high voltage lines,
and other obstacles. However, unlike the Czech Republic, the exact distances
have neither been determined nor recommended by the German authorities
·
the UAV
operator must be able to take control of the vehicle in manual mode at any time
·
accidents and
incidents must be reported immediately to the appropriate aviation authority
If
unmanned aeroplanes are heavier than 25 kg, their operators must apply for a
special permit. A usual flight request must include a copy of a valid
insurance, date, time, and start of the flight. As a recommendation, it also
states that it is desirable to inform the local police department.
2.2. French approach
France,
in comparison to the Czech Republic as well as the whole EU, is much more
benevolent concerning UAV operation regulations. French laws likewise
distinguish drones flying for recreational and commercial purposes. Flying in
France similarly requires a prior one-time permit. In connection with this
issue, the regulations adopted by the Transport Ministry on 17 November
2015—on the concept of UAV and the rules for the use of UAV—are
crucial. The legislation divides RPAS into seven categories, primarily
depending on weight. Regardless of the purpose of the flight, VLOS traffic is
only allowed for aircraft with a maximum payload of less than 25 kg and a
maximum flight height of 150 m above unpopulated areas; flights above populated
areas are permitted for aircraft weighing less than 4 kg. Beyond VLOS, traffic
irrespective of the distance is permitted for drones weighing less than 2 kg
flying below 150 m, and in the range of 1 km for drones up to 25 kg flying
below 50 m of flight level. Current regulations state, inter alia, that:
·
drones must
be in the pilot′s VLOS
·
aircraft is
not allowed to move above 150 m
·
night
operation of drones is prohibited
·
recreational
use of drones over inhabited areas is not allowed
·
commercial
flights can only be operated by an operator based in France that owns a PPL
pilot license (at least its theoretical part) for aeroplanes, helicopters or
gliders
·
in the event
of unauthorised use of UAS, the user may be liable to a maximum of one year's
imprisonment and a fine of up to 75,000 Euros.
France
divides flights by region and local conditions into 4 different areas (flight
scenario areas):
1. outside
a built-up area, flight in visibility to a maximum distance of 200 m and
a maximum flight level of up to 150 m
2. outside
a built-up area, flight in visibility to a maximum distance of 1000 m and
a maximum flight level of 150 m for aeroplanes up to 2 kg, or 50 m for
aeroplanes above 2 kg
3. in
the city, flight in visibility to a maximum flight distance of 100 m at a
maximum flight level of 150 m; in the case of aircraft weight exceeding 2 kg,
the aeroplane must be equipped with a parachute safety system and the safety
perimeter should be set within a range of 30-50 m
4. in
a built-up area without visual contact, the maximum permitted flight level is
150 m and unlimited distance at a maximum aircraft weight of 2 kg.
2.3. Italian approach
The
Italian ENAC regulates the aviation law legislation dealing with the UAS quite
often. The basic principles of flying with drones in Italy include the
following:
·
a ban on
flying with drones above 70 m
·
when flying
with UAV, the maximum flight distance is set to 130 m of visibility
·
a ban on the
transport of any potentially dangerous material by UAV
·
the UAV
operation over built-up areas, beaches, national parks, cities and gatherings,
railways, motorways and industrial areas is not permitted
·
the UAV must
always be kept by the pilot at least 8 km away from an airport
·
piloting a
drone is possible only in the daytime
·
the maximum
permitted weight of a drone is 25 kg
·
every
aircraft must be insured
·
when
operating drones, a safety distance of 50 m from persons or property must be
maintained
2.4. British approach
As far
as the United Kingdom is concerned, the UAS legislation and operation is in
charge of the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) as in the Czech Republic. The CAA
divided drones into 3 basic categories by weight. The first category includes
UAV up to 20 kg, the second one includes drones in the weight range of 20-150
kg and the third contains drones weighing 150 kg or more. For most flights of
drones, there is no need for special permissions except for aviation works.
These are similar to the aviation works considered by the Czech Republic
legislation. These works concern civil flights. The following rules on flying
in the UK have to be followed [5]:
·
the maximum
flight level of the aircraft must be 120 m
·
the maximum
(horizontal) distance between the pilot and the controlled aeroplane must not
exceed 500 m (unless there is an exception by the CAA)
·
operation
with FPV system only is not possible, there has to be at least one other
person—a direct observer of the aeroplanes who always maintains visual
contact with the aeroplane
·
if the UAV
weighs less than 3.5 kg, the maximum flight level is 305 m
·
take-offs and
landings must be at least 30 m from the nearest person, including the pilot and
other people involved in the operation of the aircraft
·
in case of a
large gathering which is anchored in the law as a gathering of more than 1,000
people the aircraft must not exceed a safety distance of 150 m
·
in the air,
drones must not be closer than 50 meters to people, vehicles or buildings
2.5. Spanish approach
Similarly,
to the United Kingdom, the Spanish Civil Aviation Authority (DGAC) divides UAV
into three basic categories. The first category includes drones with a maximum
take-off weight of up to 25 kg. UAV with a maximum take-off weight between 25
and 150 kg are classified as the second weight category, but they must also be
registered in the aircraft register (Registro de matrícula de aeronavegabilidad).
To aircraft with a maximum take-off weight higher than 150 kg operated in the
civilian sector, the same standards apply as to a normally piloted
aircraft. An aircraft of each of these three categories is subject to
registration and must have a visible registration plate on it. As in the Czech
Republic, two types of use are considered. The first type is recreational use,
to which licensing requirements do not apply. The second one is professional
use, which has been regulated in Spain since 2014 and is intended only for
professional pilots who meet the following conditions:
·
age over 18
years
·
at least one
of the following certificates: a pilot license or the theoretical knowledge
certificate issued by an organisation that is authorised by the EASA, or an
issuing organisation approved by the Spanish administration
·
medical
examination
·
operational
manual
·
insurance
The
use of drones for recreational purposes is also regulated by Spanish
legislation under the following conditions:
·
only during
the day and in clear weather (no rain, fog, strong wind)
·
outside
towns, villages, built-up areas, and gatherings
·
only in
uncontrolled airspace
·
only in good
visual conditions, up to a horizontal distance of 500 m from the pilot, while
maintaining a maximum flight level of 120 m
3. UAS AND BIOLOGICAL PROTECTION OF AIRPORTS
The following passage was adapted from the authors'
research project entitled "Biological Protection of Airports Using
Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)". The term "biological protection of
airport" comprises of activities related to frightening birds and animals
off the airport area, especially the area of the runway and the approach area
in order to prevent collisions of birds or flocks of birds with aeroplanes.
This is one of the most important components of airport subjects.
The organisation and control of biological protection must
ensure the timely and quality use of all forces and means possible to
estalblish air traffic, that is, biological protection employees with the help
of all practical means must reduce the risk of a bird crash with a moving
aircraft. However, it is not possible to eliminate the movement of birds from
around the airport. Collisions of birds with aircraft are relatively common.
Usually, most of these collisions take place directly at the airport when
airplanes take off or land, and at lower flight levels. Every day, tens to
hundreds of such collisions are dealt with in international aviation and this
is is the reason these collisions rank among the major risks in air transport.
According to available data, 20% of all aeroplane collisions with birds cause damage
to the aircraft;
from the viewpoint of biological protection, the protection of
passengers and the aircraft crew is very important, although the high cost of
repairing damaged parts of aircraft must be considered as well. Up to 75% of
devastating collisions damage aircraft engines and parts of aircraft wings
[7-9].
Work of the biological protection employees, however, is
complicated by the fact that, for their extensive grassy areas, the airport
spaces become optimal living habitats for small animals and birds. Airports are
usually located as close to major cities as they are close to agricultural
areas. Due to the modern phenomena that disrupt natural ecosystems, such as growing
agriculture, chemistry, building roads, land-drying, etc., these animals are
forced to move their sanctuaries elsewhere. Moreover, the airport space
combined with the adjacent agricultural areas offers them ideal conditions for
living. Although, the airport is a very noisy place, birds like most creatures,
are endowed with the ability to adapt to changing conditions. Currently,
different types of active or passive methods are used to drive birds and
animals off airport take-off and landing areas. Very often, a combination of
several methods is necessary because of the constant adaptation of birds to the
set conditions [10].
Fig. 1. Percentage representation of bird collisions with
individual parts of an aeroplane according to international data [7]
Thus, active and passive methods are combined in a bid to
frighten birds and animals off the area around the airport. Examples of the
active methods include the use of live predators and dogs for frightening
birds, the use of bio-acoustic equipment and even pyrotechnic methods. On the
other hand, passive methods may be represented by the selection of crops that
can be grown in the vicinity of airports, so that the crop species do not
attract flocks of birds. Other examples include a variety of preventative
training of aviation personnel, maintenance and removal of green vegetation
around the runway, and the like.
4.
DRAFT OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM SUPPORTING THE BIOLOGICAL PROTECTION METHODS
USED AT AIRPORTS
The proposal for a new concept of the method for driving
birds off the surrounding area of airports allows for a combination of some
already proven technologies. A
carrier, that is, a UAV, constitutes the basis, given the fact that it is easy
to use and programmable to become semi-autonomous. UAV can be organised into
swarms or squadrons that work together due to a created controlling
program. Owing to the software that ensures semi-autonomous decision-making,
the vehicle can be called a drone. The drone becomes a carrier for other types
of devices: a bio-acoustic device for frightening off birds and animals is
considered in particular, as well as a camera that can be connected to a
monitoring device via a transmitter to enable monitoring of the airport area
[9].
The cooperative drone system should have both a monitoring
function (due to airport security or for data collection purposes) and a safety
function, implemented by a bio-acoustic device installed on the drones
representing the tool for frightening birds off the airport [10]. There should
also be a scanning and detection function (bird detection plays an important
role here), which can be performed by a detection device placed directly on the
drone board or by a land-based device linked to the system (ornithological
surveys and data collection, or bird detection).
The innovative idea in this system is a specially developed
software that could enable drones to be controlled and capable of partial
decision making in different situations. For example, one element of the system
records a flock of birds in the approach zone of the airport; it evaluates this
situation as serious and passes the information to other drones in the system,
which will then cooperate with one another to frighten birds off the respective
part of the airport. The software development would also require creation of
flight levels within the airport CTR and the operation of the system only in a
limited area, or flights of drones along defined routes using the Global
Satellite Positioning System.
Another type of technology is the GNSS, which is an
essential technology enabling accurate targeting of each drone in the system,
while allowing drones to be controlled by means of precise information about
their location, minimal interference in control and maintenance by the
dispatcher (the drone itself disconnects and connects to the docking station)
and targeting coordinates for other activities (data collection for
ornithologists, airport security component, etc.). The choice of this kind of
satellite positioning device falls on the GNSS, particularly because of its
topicality in real time, signal continuity and the widest possible coverage. In
terms of the services offered by Galileo, unwanted persons (SOL or PRS) should
use encrypted data transmission to avoid system misuse [11].
Fig. 2. Diagram of the system including the different
technologies
Following the proposal for a new active method of
biological protection for airports, it is recommended that this method be
combined with already established active and passive methods and other
procedures in the field of ornithological observation, that is, monitoring of
migratory movements, nesting of birds, bird food, etc. The creation of a
nesting site at a safe distance from the airport, where the birds would be
directed with the help of drones, is also considered as an effective method [12-13].
5. CONCLUSION
The analysis of selected European countries regarding their
regulation of unmanned flights has shown that a relatively progressive and
coherent group of states, such as the EU member states, is not uniform in this
respect. The reason for the high number and scope of measures is due primarily
to the short-term rapid development of these technologies or even the
development of aviation in the civil sector. Only a small number of countries
expected to be main co-authors of the new, global and uniform legislation were
able to promptly react to such development.
These concerns countries that were selected for analysis in
this paper. Countries such as Germany, France, or the United Kingdom are the
world's leading legislators, which goes hand in hand with their level of
technological advancement and UAS development. Their major contribution can be
seen in their improvement in professionalism and accessibility that is
currently at such a level, which according to the official EASA schedules, the
united Europe will achieve in five years time. The main initiators of the
gradual expansion of discussions and measures at individual aviation offices
are manufacturers of these technologies with high volume of production and
a global group of potential customers. They put pressure on specific state
apparatuses, owing to the fact that they can on demand launch machines in tune
with legislative requirements with huge turnover profits.
This contribution also includes a demonstration of the
potential use of unmanned systems in the transport sector, namely to increase
safety in air transport. The project entitled "Biological Protection of
Airports Using Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS)" is a research project by
the authors of the paper. Unmanned aeroplanes can, however, be used and are
used in other areas of the economy and commercial sphere. For example, they
serve for photographic documentation during construction, in photogrammetry, or
even as a means of inventorying in logistics warehouses.
6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This contribution was
created within the solution of the Czech research project LTC17040 named
"Regionální letiště v České a
Slovenské republice a vliv jejich provozu na ekonomický rozvojj
regionu" of the INTER-EXCELLENCE program, the INTER-COST subprogram.
References
1.
Jeřábek Karel, Jakub Kraus. 2015. “Helicopter
approach to offshore objects”. Nase
More 62(2): 74-77. ISSN 0469-6255. DOI: 10.17818/NM/2015/2.5.
2.
Madleňák Radovan, Dominika
Hoštáková, Lucia Madleňáková, Pawel
Droździel, Adam Török. 2018. “The analysis of the traffic
signs visibility during night driving”. Advances in Science and Technology-Research Journal: 71-76. DOI:
10.12913/22998624/92103.
3.
Kulčák Ludvík. 2002. Air traffic management. Brno: Akademické
nakladatelství CERM. ISBN 80-7204-229-7.
4.
Czech Republic. Supplement X: Unmanned systems. In: Aviation Annex L2 - Rules of the air.
2016. Available at:
http://lis.rlp.cz/predpisy/predpisy/dokumenty/L/L-2/data/effective/doplX.pdf.
5.
ICAO, International Civil Aviation Organization. 2015. Manual on Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems
(RPAS). Montréal: International Civil Aviation Organization. ISBN
978-92-9249-718-7.
6.
Munguia Rodrigo, Sarquis Urzua, Antoni Grau. 2016. “Delayed
monocular SLAM approach applied to unmanned aerial vehicles”. Plos One 11(12). DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0167197.
7.
BOEING. Nicholson Roger, William S. Reed. “Strategies for
prevention of bird strike events”. Available at: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2011_q3/4/.
8.
Nguyen KD, H. Rosoff, R.S. John. 2017. “Valuing equal
protection in aviation security screening”. Risk Analysis 37(12): 2405-2419. DOI: 10.1111/risa.12814.
9.
Romanová Simona., Ján Ferenc. 2013.
“Prospective biological methods and ways of the airports”. Acta Avionica 15(27). ISSN 1335-9479.
10.
Decký Martin, Eva Remišová, Martin
Mečár, Ladislav Bartuška, Ján Ližbetin, Ivan
Drevený. 2015. "In situ determination of load bearing capacity of
soils on the airfields". In: Marian Drusa, Marian Marschalko, Isik Yilmaz,
Andrea Segallini, Anna Maria Ferrero, Martin Bednarik. Proceedia Earth and Planetary Science: 11-18. Amsterdam, Elsevier.
ISSN 1878-5220.
11.
Lu Cuixian, Florian Zus, Maorong Ge, Robert Heinkelmann, Galina
Dick, Jens Wickert, Harlad Schuh. 2016. “Tropospheric delay parameters
from numerical weather models for multi-GNSS precise positioning”. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques
9(12): 5965-5973. DOI: 10.5194/amt-9-5965-2016.
12.
Chao Ching-Cheng, Tainh-Cherng Lirn, Hung-Chun Lin. 2017.
“Indicators and evaluation model for analyzing environmental protection
performance of airports”. Journal
of Air Transport Management 63: 61-70. DOI:
10.1016/j.jairtraman.2017.05.007.
13.
White Greg. 2017. “Limitations and potential improvement of
the aircraft pavement strength rating system to protect airport asphalt
surfaces”. International Journal of
Pavement Engineering 18(12): 1111-1121. DOI: 10.1080/10298436.2016.1155122.
Received 21.05.2019; accepted in revised form 11.08.2019
Scientific
Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport is licensed
under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License