CHAPTER 3: REVIEWING THE REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Extending EASA's competence
45. One of the key proposals outlined in the
Communication is that the European Aviation Safety Authority (EASA)
should develop common rules for all RPAS operations, thereby expanding
its regulatory powers to include RPAS weighing less than 150kg.
This would limit the rule-making powers of national aviation authorities,
which currently have competence in this area. Figure
1: RPAS Regulators
COHERENT SAFETY REGULATIONS
46. The Communication states that the current
divide between national and European regulations for RPAS (whereby
those weighing 150kg or more are regulated by EASA and those less
than 150kg are regulated by national aviation authorities), is
"arbitrary" and "questionable in view of a coherent
RPAS safety policy."[43]
47. The CAA agreed with the Commission: "it
is most unlikely that an RPAS of 160kg (EASA) would be assessed
in a way that is dramatically different from an RPAS of 140kg
(NAA) when performing a similar mission/type of flight".[44]
Mr Sivel, of the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned
Systems (JARUS), a body of civil aviation regulators, said that
although there was disagreement about what should replace this
limit "everybody agrees that 150 kilograms was put there
during the initial debates 10 years ago and it does not make sense
any more."[45]
INTERNAL MARKET FOR RPAS
48. The Communication argues that EASA should
develop common rules for all RPAS operations, in order to create
a single RPAS market across the EU. It states that the current
regulatory system for RPAS "is based on fragmented rules
for ad hoc operational authorisations" in individual Member
States, such that "National authorizations do not benefit
from mutual recognition and do not allow for European wide activities,
either to produce or to operate RPAS." The result, it argues,
is that "a true European Market will not emerge, hampering
the development of this sector."[46]
49. The Communication says that part of the challenge
lies in the fact that adequate regulatory frameworks permitting
RPAS operations are missing in most Member States.[47]
By expanding EASA's competence to include RPAS weighing less than
150kg, the Commission could facilitate small RPAS operations in
all Member States by creating common rules. To illustrate this,
we learnt that in Belgium there is no regulatory framework which
permits commercial RPAS operations, only exemptions for operations
conducted by research institutions. Koen Meuleman, President of
the Belgian Unmanned Aircraft Systems Association (BeUAS), told
us that, as a result, commercial operators fly illegally with
no regulatory oversight to ensure safe operations.[48]
50. The Commission goes on to argue that as a
result of the cross-border nature of the aviation industry, EASA
is well placed to harmonise rules for RPAS. Margus Rahouja, DG
MOVE, said: "We are not looking at it from the local or national
markets perspective. Whenever the Commission makes an assessment
or a proposal, it has to have a cross-border effect because, otherwise,
the internal market is not affected."[49]
This view was echoed by Airbus Defence Ltd, which said: "RPAS
regulation needs to be globally harmonized in order to permit
international cross border operations."[50]
51. Enabling safe RPAS operations in all Member
States will enlarge the RPAS market and remove barriers to entry.
EuroUSC said: "Manufacturers need to sell and operators need
to operate worldwide, so they want a harmonised approach from
day one", a view shared by the National Air Traffic Service
(NATS).[51] The Professional
Society of Drone Journalists also supported harmonised regulations:
"Presently each country has its own regulation
for RPAS use, this is a large disincentive to opening a successful
RPAS operation in Europe".[52]
52. English Heritage, which uses RPAS to monitor
over 400 historic sites and monuments in England, noted that increasing
the market for RPAS would "almost certainly stimulate massive
technological development and innovation relating to RPAS applications".[53]
53. Creating a European internal market for RPAS
would also assist Europe in negotiating safety regulations for
RPAS at an international level. The Communication states that
any rules used by EASA should be compatible with ICAO standards
and based on international consensus.[54]
Aerospace Defence Security Space told us:
"it is, therefore, vital that there is one
set of internationally recognised regulations
[the] region
that takes the initiative to progress with a regulatory framework
will both drive international regulatory development policy, and
simultaneously gain the commercial advantage required to grow
its market share."[55]
54. The Honourable Company of Airline Pilots
said that although ICAO provided an "overarching framework"
for manned aviation regulations, in practice the "FAA and
EASA predominate and most states adopt or copy the processes and
practices of one or the other agency."[56]
55. On the other hand, some witnesses argued
that there should be clear limits to EASA's role in regulating
small RPAS (those weighing less than 20kg). NATS said: "if
an operator intends to only fly in a single country, local laws/standards
should be established, primarily to address societal and privacy
concerns."[57] The
Royal Aeronautical Society said that small RPAS should be managed
"under identical regulatory rules as the rest of the [European
Union] but with local 'geographic' differences to enable day-to-day
operations."[58]
56. We also heard that national regulations would
be more responsive to local need. Ursula Agriculture and the National
Centre for Precision Farming recommended a national approach for
small RPAS, which would "respond more quickly to developing
technologies [and] would better assist the development of industry."[59]
BALPA said: "The advantage of regulating at a national level
is that it should be much quicker to implement changes, and this
is fine whilst the majority of RPAS are small and do not travel
far."[60]
57. While small RPAS flights are currently restricted
to remain in view of the pilot and within national boundaries,
technological improvements, such as longer battery life, and market
demand will require the development of a regulatory framework
that permits cross-border flights in the internal market. Mr Rahouja,
DG MOVE, agreed: "we [the European Commission] probably need
to define exactly what should be done and where", in anticipation
of this issue arising in the future.[61]
58. Substantive concerns were raised about the
impact harmonised rules for commercial RPAS operations would have
on the existing small-RPAS industry in the UK. English Heritage
cautioned that "a framework may be developed and enforced
upon member countries that undermines the progress, development
and implementation of RPAS already made in that country."[62]
Callen-Lenz Associates Ltd was concerned that "any significant
changes to regulation governing its existing activities could
impact its business base significantly
a similar concern
is shared by other RPAS businesses in the UK."[63]
59. In oral evidence Dr Wolfe, of Callen-Lenz,
went on to question the impact a change in the levels of regulations
might have on the relationship between regulators and industry.
She said that the small-RPAS community in the UK had built up
"great rapport" with the CAA, and that as a result "at
the moment the UK has some advantage compared with other countries".[64]
60. Maintaining the UK's lead in the RPAS market
will require the Government to continue to play a proactive role
in the creation of EU-wide RPAS rules. Mike Lissone, Air Traffic
Management Integration Programme Manager at EUROCONTROL, suggested
that the UK was already at an advantage in that European regulators
sought "the experience you have with flying in the UK because
you are quite ahead with developing CAP 722".[65]
The Government told us: "we will seek to ensure that any
proposals for further regulation or new Implementing Rules are
proportionate to the risk and [do] not cause additional barriers
to growth in this sector."[66]
61. Some witnesses questioned EASA's capacity
to take on an extra area of competence. The Royal Aeronautical
Society said that "centralised control will mean additional
administrative and resource pressures on an already stretched
EASA", and recommended that "there should be a lighter
touch of control from EASA, with authority delegated to a local
level, with administrative oversight at a centralised (EASA) level."[67]
Jaqueline Foster, MEP, said that EASA had run into difficulties
with overregulating rather than harmonising regulations in the
past: "That has been a great challenge for them [EASA]."[68]
62. On the other hand, Thales UK said it was
reasonable that EASA had been taking on greater role in harmonising
regulations over the past eight years: "This is based on
the desire for regulatory harmony in areas such as Airworthiness,
Licencing, Aerodrome operations, Personnel and Aircraft operations."[69]
63. The CAA suggested that concerns about EASA's
increased competence somewhat missed the point: "JARUS has
already been nominated as the 'rulemaking group' for the current
EASA rulemaking programme, and hence the work towards harmonisation
is already underway."[70]
The role of JARUS is discussed below.
64. We support the Commission's aim to create
an internal market for Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS)
in the EU. EU rules on safety rules will be needed to achieve
this, but we recognise the concerns expressed by small RPAS businesses
that such rules risk stifling the existing industry. We recommend
that EU rules for small RPAS should be flexible enough for Member
States to respond to, and support local industry.
THE ROLE OF THE JOINT AUTHORITIES
FOR RULEMAKING ON UNMANNED SYSTEMS (JARUS)
65. JARUS is a voluntary membership body comprising
national civil aviation authorities from EU and non-EU countries
and regional organisations. Its purpose is to develop technical,
safety and operational requirements for the certification and
safe integration of large and small RPAS into the airspace and
at aerodromes.[71] The
Communication recommends that EASA takes a leading role in JARUS
and helps it to produce "implementing rules or guidance"
for safe commercial RPAS operations.[72]
Gerry Corbett, UAS Programme Lead, Intelligence, Strategy and
Policy, Safety and Airspace Regulation Group, CAA, summed up this
as follows: "Essentially, JARUS is becoming the rule-making
team for EASA."[73]
66. An important advantage of using JARUS to
develop safety regulations for commercial RPAS is its international
membership. Mr Cremin, Department for Transport, said that
JARUS "has in it a number of leading experts in regulatory
authorities across the world".[74]
Adam Simmons, also Department for Transport, said that JARUS "enables
us to share experience" with other countries about how to
regulate RPAS.[75]
67. The international make-up of JARUS also increases
the number of countries and international organisations likely
to adopt its recommendations. Mr Lissone, of EUROCONTROL,
told us that China, Taiwan and South Korea were seeking to join
JARUS.[76] Eric Sivel,
Chairman of JARUS, said: "Once we have China, all the main
actors in the world will be in JARUS, and we all have the objective
of [agreeing safety rules for RPAS] quickly."[77]
Gary Clayton, Chairman of the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Systems
Association, confirmed that JARUS could be "a very valuable
tool for the aviation authorities jointly to create strong regulation
and obviously advise EASA and ultimately ICAO."[78]
68. However, we also heard that JARUS had not
recognised the distinction between large and small RPAS in the
past. Mr Meuleman said that the early work of JARUS was very
poor in relation to small RPAS, because "if you would literally
apply what they write, you will never be able to fly." He
continued: "They were technical people or people from the
administration that had never seen a drone, in my opinion."[79]
69. Such an approach reflected concerns about
how JARUS, a body consisting of aviation regulators, engaged with
the RPAS industry. Aerosynergy Certification Ltd said: "at
present, industry is denied access to contribute to JARUS."[80]
Thales UK called for greater transparency between JARUS and industry,
because "industry will constrain civil RPAS development until
standards and regulatory requirements are clear and institutionalised
on a transparent and mutually inclusive basis."[81]
The Minister said:
"In the absence of any other international
body, I am content that this is the most appropriate form to undertake
this role. However, JARUS will work out its relationships with
industry, and in particular how industry can make an effective
contribution to the work. I will keep that under review."[82]
70. Mr Simmons said that improved communication
between JARUS and industry could be the solution: "ensuring
that there is more sharing when it comes to how the manufacturers
are developing their products and how they are used, and in feeding
into some of their considerations from JARUS."[83]
Mr Sivel, of JARUS, said that JARUS had listened to these
concerns, and was establishing a mechanism to reach out and improve
its relationship with industry.[84]
71. The Government also noted that JARUS's task
was made more difficult because it was a voluntary body without
its own resources. Mr Cremin said JARUS "could probably
be more effective", and that "managing times and priorities
is a key issue for JARUS. Getting the right people in the room
at the same time also remains incredibly difficult."[85]
72. Mr Sivel responded: "One of the
questions we are asking ourselves is: should we formalise the
existence of JARUS and create an association similar to what existed
in the past when the Joint Aviation Authorities existed in Europe
or something like that, which will allow JARUS to have a minimum
staff to develop?"[86]
Over the course of the inquiry, Mr Sivel himself, the EASA
representative on JARUS, was elected Chairman, and Christopher
Swider, of the Federal Aviation Administration in the USA, was
elected Vice Chair to JARUS. A press release, dated 23 September
2014, also stated that a secretariat for JARUS had been created
in EASA to support the group's work.[87]
73. Mr Lissone cautioned against the risk
that different entities operating at the European level would
each put in place "the perfect plan, perfect roadmaps, perfect
deliverables done in splendid isolation."[88]
He was seeking to put in place an implementation steering group
comprising people from JARUS, EUROCAE, EASA, and other bodies,
to synchronise the different work streams. Koen De Vos, of DG
MOVE, said that the Commission would also ensure that proposals
would incorporate the work being done by its different Directorates-General.[89]
74. The Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on
Unmanned Systems (JARUS), through its flexible structure, has
the potential quickly to draft safety regulations for the use
of RPAS. Working through JARUS should ensure that any future EU
rules will be compatible with international arrangements in other
countries.
75. However, stakeholders had legitimate concerns
about the transparency and capability of JARUS. We welcome JARUS'
intention to involve industry more in its work. To increase the
organisation's transparency and improve its reputation, we recommend
that JARUS be organised on a more formal basis, and that it receive
more resources from national aviation authorities.
76. We further recommend that the UK Civil
Aviation Authority maintain and strengthen its involvement with
JARUS.
Other non-EU regulatory frameworks
77. We have concentrated in this report on the
civilian use of RPAS, but we are aware of international agreements
governing the military and state use of RPAS, which could potentially
hinder the development of the internal market in the EU for the
civilian use of RPAS.
78. The growing use of RPAS for military purposes
worldwide led to the development of a number of national treaties
governing their export and trade, which lie outside the EU's areas
of competence. The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) governs
the export of any RPAS with a range of 300km or more and a payload
of at least 500kg (referred to as a Category 1 system).[90]
The UK, along with the 33 other states party to the MTCR, has
agreed not to export Category 1 RPAS, reflecting the aim of the
agreement to prevent the export of or trade in systems which could
be potentially used for the delivery of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
79. Thales UK said that the "efficacy"
of this treaty should be considered to ensure the right balance
between "preventing the proliferation of technologies necessary
to produce long range missiles, whilst allowing the legitimate
globalisation of RPAS for both military and civil applications."[91]
Mr Rahouja, DG MOVE, did not think that the MTCR would necessarily
limit trade of RPAS in the internal market, because "19 out
of 28 member states" had signed up to the agreement.[92]
80. Andrew Horton, of the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills, argued that while the MTCR appeared limiting
on paper, its impact on trade in practice could be mitigated.
He said that "it must be borne in mind that Category 1 of
the MTCR applies to around 5% of all RPAS systems. We are talking
about only a small number of potential systems"though
this situation would change as the technology enabling larger
RPAS to fly was developed. He also noted that countries that had
military links predating the MTCR would still be able to trade
in RPAS, including the UK and the US as members of NATO. Where
such earlier agreements did not exist, "that is where we
run into difficulties."[93]
Moreover, Mr Horton said that when it came to "dual
use items"[94],
an EU-wide agreement existed which allowed the export of RPAS
with a range of less than 300km between Member States without
an export licence.
81. Some EU Member States have existing obligations
under international treaties, such as the Missile Technology Control
Regime, which govern how large RPAS are sold. The Commission will
need to consider carefully these obligations as it seeks to create
an internal market for RPAS in the EU.
43 Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament and the Council: A new era for aviation: Opening the
aviation market for the civil use of remotely piloted aircraft
systems in a safe and sustainable manner; COM(2014) 607, p 5 Back
44
Written evidence from the UK CAA (RPA0029) Back
45
Q51 Back
46
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and
the Council entitled: A new era for aviation: Opening the aviation
market for the civil use of remotely piloted aircraft systems
in a safe and sustainable manner, COM(2014) 607, p 5 Back
47
Ibid p 4 Back
48
Q115 Back
49
Q82 Back
50
Written evidence from Airbus Defence Ltd (RPA0012) Back
51
Written evidence from EuroUSC (RPA0037) and NATS (RPA0036) Back
52
Written evidence from the Professional Society of Drone Journalists
(RPA0032) Back
53
Written evidence from English Heritage (RPA0007) Back
54
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and
the Council: A new era for aviation: Opening the aviation market
for the civil use of remotely piloted aircraft systems in a safe
and sustainable manner, COM(2014) 607,p 5 Back
55
Written evidence from Aerospace Defence Security Space (RPA0021) Back
56
Written evidence from the Honourable Company of Airline Pilots
(RPA0022) Back
57
Written evidence from NATS (RPA0036) Back
58
Written evidence from the Royal Aeronautical Society (RPA0018) Back
59
Written evidence from Ursula Agriculture (RPA0014), the National
Centre for Precision Farming (RPA0016); Callen-Lenz Associates
Ltd (RPA0004), ARPAS-UK and UAV SIG of RSPSoc (RPA0005) Back
60
Written evidence from BALPA (RPA0031) and Thales UK (RPA0030) Back
61
Q82 Back
62
Written evidence from English Heritage (RPA0007) Back
63
Written evidence from Callen-Lenz Associates Ltd (RPA0004) Back
64
Q25 Back
65
Q74 Back
66
Written evidence from the Department for Transport (RPA0011) Back
67
Written evidence from the Royal Aeronautical Society (RPA0018) Back
68
Q103 Back
69
Written evidence from Thales UK (RPA0030) Back
70
Written evidence from the UK CAA (RPA0029) Back
71
JARUS website, homepage:
http://jarus-rpas.org/ [accessed on 27 January 2015] Back
72
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and
the Council: A new era for aviation: Opening the aviation market
for the civil use of remotely piloted aircraft systems in a safe
and sustainable manner, COM(2014) 607,p 6 Back
73
Q14 Back
74
Q4 (Paul Cremin) Back
75
Q4 (Adam Simmons) Back
76
Q66 Back
77
Q52 Back
78
Q39 Back
79
Q120 Back
80
Written evidence from AeroSynergy Certification Ltd (RPA0001) Back
81
Written evidence from Thales UK (RPA 0042) Back
82
Q183 (Robert Goodwill MP) Back
83
Q4 (Adam Simmons) Back
84
Q51 Back
85
Q4 (Paul Cremin) Back
86
Q53 Back
87
JARUS, Press Release, New appointments and Announcement of
Secretariat (23 September 2014): http://jarus-rpas.org/phocadownloadpap/2_Agenda/140923_JARUS_Press-Release.pdf
[accessed on 27 January 2015] Back
88
Q65 Back
89
Q84 Back
90
The MTCR regime is supported by a voluntary group of 34 countries,
including 19 EU Member States, such as France, Germany and the
UK, and other countries such as the US, Canada, and Russia. In
1992, the MTCR extended its scope with the inclusion of Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles, of which RPAS are a subset, within its definition
of 'missiles'. This regime contains a list of goods, software
and technology which face export restrictions. This list is divided
into two parts. Category I refers to long range missiles, and
this includes UAVs (including target drones and reconnaissance
drones) capable of delivering and carrying a weight of least 500kg
to range of at least 300km. Category II includes UAVS not covered
in Category I, capable of a maximum range equal to or greater
than 300km. The MTCR has also agreed to a set of guidelines on
this list of items which refers to "a strong presumption
to deny transfers of Category I systems". Back
91
Written evidence from Thales UK (RPA0030) Back
92
Q85 Back
93
Q6 Back
94
RPAS which could be used for military or civilian purposes. Back
|