CHAPTER 8: LEISURE USERS AND PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Concerns regarding leisure use
218. Several submissions expressed surprise at
the Commission's decision not to discuss leisure users in its
Communication. Aviation stakeholders took very seriously the risk
that a leisure user could cause a catastrophic accident and stunt
the development of an RPAS market. In December 2014, the CAA gave
an 'A' rating, meaning a serious risk of collision, to an incident
on 22 July 2014 involving an RPAS and an Airbus A320 landing at
Heathrow airport.[286]
BALPA said that if there were more such events, "public perception
may well turn against these machines which in turn could delay
adoption", a view shared by the Professional Society of Drone
Journalists.[287] ARPAS-UK,
RSPSoc said that the risk posed by leisure users was "sufficiently
large that it be addressed through regulation at a European level."[288]
219. Mr Meuleman, of BeUAS, said that further
consideration of the leisure use of RPAS was required, because
"there is hardly any difference any more between toys and
professional systems, and certainly in terms of technology, it
is just the same."[289]
Jaqueline Foster MEP emphasised that it was important to
"differentiate how [RPAS] are being used and in what category".[290]
The CAA acknowledged that it was important to ensure that "two
similar devices being flown in the same location, one used recreationally
and one used commercially, are not subject to drastically different
regulatory requirements".[291]
220. Mr Mckenna agreed that regulation of
leisure users warranted further examination at an EU level: leisure
users contributed a large part to the growing RPAS market, so
"manufacturers will seek to meet (create) the demand of the
personal user".[292]
By way of example, EuroUSC said that 150,000 DJI Phantoms, a popular
RPAS for leisure use, were sold globally last year.[293]
221. The potential benefits from the increased
civilian use of RPAS are such that we certainly do not support
banning the leisure use of RPAS. However, we believe that the
hazard presented by leisure users needs to be addressed. In this
chapter, we consider possible short and long term solutions to
the risks posed by the leisure use of RPAS.
222. For the most part, the concerns we heard
about the leisure use of RPAS were related to areas of national
competence, such as the ability of a national aviation authority
to prosecute in the case of a criminal offence. Figure 2 compares
the rules for leisure and commercial small RPAS use as derived
from the Air Navigation Order 2009, Article 138 of which stipulates
that "a person shall not recklessly or negligently cause
or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property."[294]
Figure
2: Leisure and commercial small RPAS use in the UK[295]
Solutions in the short term
RAISING AWARENESS
223. An important way to mitigate the risk of
a catastrophic accident involving an RPAS in the short term is
to raise awareness among leisure users of the risks posed by their
aircraft. Mr Cremin said:
"You can go into Maplins today and buy a
fairly sophisticated system for about £500. The question,
as you quite rightly say, is that when you get the box home, where,
first of all, does it tell you that you are buying an aircraft,
let alone anything else? These are aircraft. They are viewed in
the Air Navigation Order as aircraft, and you have responsibilities
under that order, but if I do not know that they are aircraft
I do not know how to behave".[296]
224. This lack of awareness was described as
the distinguishing factor between the model aircraft hobbyist
community and the emerging leisure user. The British Model Aircraft
Association (BMFA) described its members as "informed, committed
and conscientious" operators, while characterising the typical
leisure user as "an individual flying on an ad hoc
or casual basis".[297]
It warned that it would be difficult to target leisure users specifically:
"The sheer number of multirotor, camera equipped aircraft
being sold through a wide variety of outlets" made it "very
difficult to target [leisure users] through responsible bodies
such as the BMFA or ARPAS."[298]
225. Some witnesses recommended a focus on the
media. The Minister said that a publicity campaign highlighting
the dangers of the misuse of RPAS would be helped by the fact
that RPAS use was "viewed by the media as a very sexy area:
you do not need to say very much before you get a headline and
a piece in a newspaper".[299]
Chief Inspector Nick Aldworth, of the Metropolitan Police Service,
said that his force was considering reaching out to the public
through its website, "one of the most frequently visited
in London", and social media platforms to share information
about the safe use of RPAS.[300]
226. Given the difficulty of engaging with
leisure RPAS users through formal representative bodies, we support
the Government and Metropolitan Police Service in seeking to make
use of websites and social media platforms to inform the public
about how to fly RPAS safely.
PRODUCT INFORMATION
227. The CAA said that it was designing an information
leaflet to include in RPAS packaging. The British Model Flying
Association and ARPAS-UK recommended working directly with manufacturers,
rather than just retailers, to ensure that information explaining
the responsibilities of an RPAS pilot was distributed as widely
as possible.[301] Firstpersonview
said that all the recreational RPAS it sold contained information
from the CAA, and that it had the agreement of manufacturers to
include information about the responsibilities of RPAS pilots
in all shipments to the UK in future.[302]
228. Mr Meuleman, though, highlighted difficulties
implementing a similar strategy in Belgium: "We also had
this discussion in Belgium, but I would say the Ministry of Mobility
has nothing to say about what is being sold. There is the Ministry
of Economy and it is regulated on the European level mostly, so
there is a big discrepancy".[303]
229. Chief Inspector Aldworth suggested that
the dissemination of safety information could be co-ordinated
at an EU level:
"The most likely form of European regulation
would most probably be on import-export activity and engagement
with the manufacturers and to have a consistent approach towards
material that comes in, either the capability of the equipment
that is being sold or, going back to our education piece, our
ability to get people to take messages on our behalf within the
material that they are selling." [304]
On the other hand, the Minister cautioned against
"prescriptive legislation on this, which we believe might
end up being disproportionate and difficult, if not impossible,
to oversee."[305]
230. We commend the work of the UK Civil Aviation
Authority in creating a safety message to include in the packaging
of RPAS. While the Commission is only proposing regulations for
the safe operation of commercial RPAS, we believe it could support
Member States by co-ordinating the dissemination of guidance for
the leisure use of RPAS, including information on safety and data
protection.
GEO-FENCING
231. In addition to raising awareness, existing
technology could also be employed to limit where RPAS are able
to fly. Geo-fencing uses geographical information stored on a
GPS-equipped RPAS to prevent it from flying in areas selected
by the manufacturer. This could be used to limit flights near
airports, or above certain altitudes. When an RPAS encounters
a bounded area, it can be programmed to fly downward to the ground.
BALPA said that a commonly sold RPAS now included this technology,
and that consideration should be given to making it mandatory
on all but the very lightest of small RPAS.[306]
Firstpersonview said that it only sold imported RPAS which were
fitted with geo-fencing.[307]
232. Geo-fencing could be a useful tool for
preventing hazardous RPAS flights in sensitive areas, but it is
not yet universally available. Over the next year, we recommend
that the Government, along with the Commission, should approach
industry to assess how this technology could be more widely applied.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
233. As we have already discussed in the context
of journalistic and state use of RPAS for surveillance, it will
be important for the Government to consult the general public
on the implications of the increased civilian use of RPAS. The
Communication also states that "progressive integration of
RPAS into the airspace from 2016 onwards must be accompanied by
adequate public debate on the development of measures which address
societal concerns."[308]
234. The evidence we received highlighted additional
reasons why a public consultation on the civilian use of RPAS
in the UK might be required. Mr Mckenna compared public perceptions
of RPAS flying overhead to the controversy surrounding wind turbines.[309]
English Heritage noted that the term 'drone' was often used in
the media, and that "its military connotations bring a negative
association to many parts of the industry."[310]
Mr Cremin, of the Department for Transport, said: "The
time is drawing near when we look to have some sort of public
dialogue with the general public on the use of RPAS and what they
think"[311]. The
Government said this was important because this industry "will
only be feasible if the general public can be convinced that it
is safe to exploit this technology".[312]
235. The Minister confirmed that a cross-Government
working group on RPAS was planning a series of public engagement
events to take place during the summer of 2015. These events would
aim to "better understand the public's perception and their
concerns about the use of unmanned aircraft in the UK." The
Government was at an early stage in planning these events, but
they would take place in several locations around the UK, "drawing
on a wide range of people from all walks of life to discuss the
prominent issues with operating these systems in the UK. This
work will help to shape and inform future government policy in
this area."[313]
236. We endorse the Government's plans to
consult the general public on acceptable future uses for RPAS.
Solutions in the long term
237. Awareness of existing regulations would
be reinforced by effective prosecution of those who break the
rules. ARPAS-UK and the British Model Flying Association both
said that while work was underway to educate leisure users, "little
is being done with regard to enforcement".[314]
Dr Wolfe, of Callen-Lenz Associates Ltd, said that improving
enforcement was essential in creating a deterrent to operators
who might well otherwise act outside the legislative framework
in the belief that there would be no prosecution.[315]
IMPROVING ENFORCEMENT
238. Concerns were raised in the evidence regarding
the CAA's capacity to regulate the increasing numbers of RPAS.
Mr McKenna, ARPAS-UK and the British Model Flying Association,
all said that they did not think the CAA had the human resources
necessary to enforce the regulations for RPAS use.[316]
On the other hand, the Minister told us: "There will certainly
need to be more resource committed by regulatory bodies in the
short to medium term, but this does not necessarily translate
to an increase in headcount in regulatory bodies themselves."[317]
239. A number of stakeholders also questioned
whether the CAA was the appropriate body in the UK to carry out
enforcement of existing legislation for leisure users.[318]
Chief Inspector Aldworth said that the CAA had very little statutory
authority over the leisure use of RPAS unless that use breached
the Air Navigation Order. He said that there were real limitations
as to what the CAA could achieve, considering the volume and type
of complaints that might be "coming around the corner".[319]
240. ARPAS-UK and the British Model Flying Association
recommended that the police, rather than the CAA, be empowered
to enforce rules and laws relating to RPAS.[320]
Chief Inspector Aldworth said that the Metropolitan Police was
increasingly dealing with RPAS-related offences itself, instead
of referring them on to the CAA, a move the CAA had welcomed.[321]
241. Mr Sivel, of JARUS, said that in order
for the police in the EU to take on this role effectively, "very
simple rules that any non-aviation person can understand"
would be needed.[322]
Mr Phippard, of Bird and Bird LLP, recommended that every
policeman in the UK should know the relevant provisions under
the Air Navigation Order, so that quick action could be taken
in the event of an offence.[323]
However, Chief Inspector Aldworth noted that the distance restrictions
in the Air Navigation Order were "not easy legislation for
a street police officer to enforce", because they relied
on witnesses and officers being able accurately to judge distances
in the air. He added that the Air Navigation Order provided no
power of seizure: "the ability to retain evidence and perhaps
interrogate it further would be challenging."[324]
242. Chief Inspector Aldworth also said that
a police working group was considering how existing legislation
for public order or harassment offences could be applied when
the offence had been committed using an RPAS.[325]
He said that this group consisted of half a dozen police officers
from around the country tasked with creating clear national guidance
on how to enforce the law with regards to RPAS.[326]
One way to create clear guidance was to record incidents in which
officers intervened where an RPAS was breaching the law, when
these interventions led to prosecution, and why.[327]
243. We are convinced by the evidence we have
received that the workload of regulators at EU and at Member State
level, be they for aviation safety or public order, will increase
in the near future, as the use of RPAS grows. We urge that regulators
be sufficiently resourced to deal with this.
244. Due to the increasing scope for RPAS-related
offences and the limited resources of the UK Civil Aviation Authority,
we support greater police involvement in enforcing existing laws
with regard to the misuse of RPAS. We welcome plans to produce
guidance for police officers on how to apply RPAS safety legislation
in the UK. We encourage other Member States to consider a similar
approach.
REGISTERING RPAS OWNERS
245. Chief Inspector Aldworth said enforcement
of existing laws was made difficult by the fact that it was not
always possible to identify the owner of any given RPAS: "Unless
there is a sound and unarguable way of finding and identifying
the pilot, there is nowhere to start quite frankly."[328]
Mr David Smith, of the Information Commissioner's Office,
said:
"With most CCTV cameras, even if it is not
immediately obvious, you should fairly easily be able to track
down the operator. With a camera phone, someone is holding it.
If you see a RPAS buzzing around, who is controlling it? Where
are they? Who is responsible?"[329]
246. Some witnesses therefore recommended the
introduction of a licensing regime.[330]
Captain Andy Brown, of BALPA, compared this to a TV licence, which
would provide contact details of the owner and a means to trace
them.[331] Gary Clayton,
of UAVS, agreed in principle with the idea of licensing, but added,
"you have to be careful not to stifle the entrepreneurs at
the same time".[332]
Chief Inspector Aldworth said that this was something under consideration
in the police working group, although: "there would be many
challenges such as who administers the process." He added
that licensing might not provide a complete solution to the problemeven
if ownership of an RPAS could be confirmed, the owner might not
be the same person as the pilot at the time the offence was committed.[333]
247. It would also be helpful to enforcement
agencies to be able to track RPAS while in flight. ARPAS-UK and
the British Model Flying Association suggested that "some
form of digital identity chip", including the details of
the owner, could be installed in leisure RPAS. They went on to
say that each owner could be required to "register their
details with the manufacturer who shares these details on an online
database."[334]
Mr Sivel said: "when my children are going somewhere
and I do not know where they are, with my iPhone I can see where
they are. So a type of chip, why not?" He added that this
would assist police officers in identifying RPAS owners and prosecuting
them if they were breaking the law.[335]
248. We have already recommended the creation
of an online database through which commercial RPAS pilots can
provide details of their flights to inform other airspace users.
We heard compelling arguments as to why the leisure use of RPAS
presents risks to the general public and other airspace users.
Therefore, in the long term, we foresee the need for a system
which can track and trace all RPAS, especially those flying below
500ft, irrespective of whether they are flown by commercial or
leisure pilots. This will be essential not only to manage the
increased traffic in the sky, but also to enforce existing and
future laws governing RPAS use.
REGULATING FOR THE FUTURE
249. Throughout the inquiry, we were told that
RPAS have the potential to revolutionise the aviation industry,
with far-reaching consequences for other industries. Mr Cremin
and Mr Bregman compared the use of RPAS to the development
of the Internet. [336]
Mr Bregman noted that in the early days of the Internet "trust
was scarce":
"It would have been tempting in the early
1990s to attempt to address the Internet problems of the day through
traditional legislation. This might have led to ever-increasing
prohibitions against identity theft, credit card fraud, and misrepresentation.
But it would not have led to Verisign and Thawte. Likewise, I
do not believe that traditional legislation should attempt to
solve the problem entirely. It should instead be focused on providing
a safe means for the market to develop innovations to regulate
itself."[337]
250. The Minister compared thinking about the
future of RPAS to predictions made in 'Tomorrow's World':
"In the 1960s or 1970s
they would
discover this wonderful new technology and predict how it would
be in 10 or 20 years' time. They usually did find a technology
that was going to have applications, but they correctly predicted
neither how it would be developed nor how it would be used. We
need to make sure that whatever we do as a Government now we do
not tie ourselves into future predictions both of the technology
and of the application. It is important that we have that degree
of flexibility."[338]
251. The civilian use of RPAS has the potential
to bring aviation into all industries. It is important that rules
developed by the Commission and Member States enable growth in
the industry and development of technology for the future.
286 'Heathrow plane in near miss with drone', BBC
News, (7 December 2014), http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30369701
[accessed on 12 February 2015] Back
287
Written evidence from BALPA (RPA0031) and the Professional Society
of Drone Journalists (RPA0032) Back
288
Written evidence from ARPAS-UK and UAV Sig, of RSPSoc (RPA0005)
Back
289
Q131 Back
290
Q106 Back
291
Written evidence from the UK CAA (RPA0029) Back
292
Written evidence from Alan McKenna (RPA0025) Back
293
Written evidence from EuroUSC (RPA0037) Back
294
The Civil Aviation Authority, 'Basic Principles': http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?pageid=11185
[accessed on 25 February 2015] Back
295
i The Air Navigation Order defines a congested area as being "any
area of a city, town or settlement which is substantially used
for residential, industrial, commercial or recreational purposes".
Permission must be obtained from the CAA to land or operate within
a congested area. Permissions granted may be valid for one flight
or for a period of up to 12 months;
ii Articles 166-167 Air Navigation
Order. See Box 1;
iii Q164. Nick Aldworth, Metropolitan
Police, said that the Public Order Act 1986 and Sexual Offences
Act 2003 could be used to prosecute the misuse of RPAS by leisure
users. Back
296
Q10 Back
297
Written evidence from the British Model Flying Association (RPA0043) Back
298
Written evidence from the British Model Flying Association (RPA0043)
and ARPAS-UK (RPA0047) Back
299
Q179 Back
300
Q173 Back
301
Supplementary written evidence from the British Model Flying Association
(RPA0051) and written evidence from ARPAS-UK (RPA0047) Back
302
Written evidence from Firstpersonview (RPA0045) Back
303
Q131 Back
304
Q174 Back
305
Q180 Back
306
Supplementary written evidence from BALPA (RPA0041) Back
307
Written evidence from Firstpersonview (RPA0045) Back
308
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
309
Written evidence from Alan McKenna (RPA0025) Back
310
Written evidence from AM-UAS (RPA0006) Back
311
Q10 Back
312
Written evidence from the Department for Transport (RPA0011) Back
313
Q178 Back
314
Written evidence from ARPAS-UK (RPA0047) and supplementary written
evidence from the British Model Flying Association (RPA0051) Back
315
Q30 Back
316
Written evidence from Alan McKenna (RPA0025), ARPAS-UK (RPA0047)
and supplementary written evidence from the British Model Flying
Association (RPA0051) Back
317
Q184 Back
318
Written evidence from Alan McKenna (RPA0025), ARPAS-UK (RPA0047)
and supplementary written evidence from the British Model Flying
Association (RPA0051) Back
319
Q166 Back
320
Written evidence from ARPAS-UK (RPA0047) and supplementary written
evidence from the British Model Flying Association (RPA0051) Back
321
Q166 Back
322
Q57 Back
323
Q145 Back
324
Q172 Back
325
Q162 Back
326
Q165 Back
327
Q170 Back
328
Q169 Back
329
Q150 Back
330
Q30 (Dr Sue Wolfe), and Q45 (Andy Brown) Back
331
Q45 Back
332
Q45 Back
333
Q167 Back
334
Supplementary written evidence from ARPAS-UK (RPA0047) and supplementary
written evidence from the British Model Flying Association (RPA0051) Back
335
Q58 Back
336
Q8 (Paul Cremin), Written evidence from Jay Bregman (RPA0049)
Back
337
Written evidence from Jay Bregman (RPA0049). Verisign and Thawte
began as companies providing certification for websites created
on the Internet. Back
338
Q176 Back
|