Summary of Conclusions and Recommendations
Reviewing the regulatory framework
1. 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. (Paragraph 64)
2. 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. (Paragraph 74)
3. 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. (Paragraph 75)
4. We further recommend that the UK Civil Aviation
Authority maintain and strengthen its involvement with JARUS.
(Paragraph 76)
5. 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. (Paragraph 81)
Proportionate Safety Regulations for RPAS
6. We support the Commission's move towards adopting
a risk-based approach to safety regulations for RPAS. Not only
would this approach, which considers the characteristics of the
RPAS flight, accommodate the variation in size of RPAS, but it
would also avoid burdensome regulations for businesses. (Paragraph 96)
7. We recommend that commercial RPAS pilots operating
in the EU should be assessed for their competence to fly safely
to a level which reflects the risk of the operation to be undertaken.
EU-wide guidance on grades of pilot competence should be produced
to support the development of the internal market and improve
the quality of training received across the EU. (Paragraph 105)
8. We support the ongoing development of EU airworthiness
standards for small RPAS. These standards should be, as far as
possible, consistent with emerging international approaches, particularly
that of the USA. The requirement for airworthiness standards should
depend on the type of RPAS operation. (Paragraph 116)
9. We recommend that the Commission quickly considers
requiring CE marking for small toy-like RPAS (below 2kg). While
this is not an airworthiness standard, and would not compensate
for pilot error, it would introduce basic quality standards for
these products. (Paragraph 117)
10. In addition, we believe airworthiness assessments
can improve the safety of RPAS operations, and we encourage the
Commission to consider creating guidance on this for national
aviation authorities. (Paragraph 118)
Enabling technologies
11. We welcome the Commission's support for the
development and incorporation of key technologies, which will
encourage the growth of the RPAS industry. (Paragraph 121)
12. RPAS development is currently hampered by
a 'chicken and egg' problem: industry is reluctant to invest in
developing the necessary technologies without certainty about
how they will be regulated, while regulators are reluctant to
develop standards until industry comes forward with technologies
for validation. ASTRAEA is a good example of how industry and
regulators can work together to overcome this challenge through
shared funding and early joint working. We recommend that the
Commission adopts a similar collaborative approach to forthcoming
research projects in the RPAS sector. (Paragraph 133)
13. As the second phase of the ASTRAEA programme
is now complete, we recommend that the UK Government publish a
plan setting out how it proposes to build on the programmes outputs.
(Paragraph 134)
14. In light of the evidence we have received,
and the example set by ASTRAEA, we recommend that the Commission,
the Government and the RPAS industry should work together to explore
the creation of an online database through which commercial small
RPAS pilots can provide details of their flights (below 500ft)
to inform other airspace users. In order to keep the UK and Europe
at the forefront of RPAS developments, we recommend that all parties
seek to engage with NASA in the USA, which is currently researching
the development of such a system. (Paragraph 144)
15. We recognise that the allocation of spectrum
is a Member State competence. The Commission will have to respect
this while promoting the use of RPAS in the internal market. We
recommend that Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research
Joint Undertaking (SESAR JU) focus its research on improving the
security and integrity of the RPAS command and control link. (Paragraph 151)
16. The late inclusion of RPAS in the scope of
SESAR JU increases the likelihood that the Commission will not
meet its timetable for the progressive integration of RPAS into
non-segregated airspace. We recommend that a realistic timetable
for RPAS integration must be decided as soon as possible. (Paragraph 155)
17. We recommend that SESAR JU, together with
Horizon 2020 and COSME, should focus more on the technological
priorities of the small RPAS sector. It should also consider the
financial barriers to SMEs' participation in research programmes,
and actively seek to increase their involvement. (Paragraph 158)
Data protection and privacy
18. We do not believe that there should be technology-specific
data protection legislation for RPAS. The proposed General Data
Protection Regulation is the appropriate vehicle to meet the challenges
of increased commercial use of RPAS. At the same time, pilots
should be made aware of their obligations under existing data
protection legislation as well as the draft Regulation. We recommend
that the Commission, through Member States' data protection agencies,
create and share specific data protection guidance for commercial
RPAS pilots. (Paragraph 172)
19. We have recommended the creation of an online
database through which commercial RPAS pilots could share details
of their flights with other airspace users. One of the benefits
of such a database would be that RPAS pilots could use it to inform
members of the public of their data protection policies to make
it easier for individuals to rely on their data protection rights.
(Paragraph 174)
20. While we agree with the principle of encouraging
RPAS pilots to carry out Privacy Impact Assessments, care must
be taken not to overburden regulators and emerging RPAS businesses.
Once the EU General Data Protection Regulation is agreed, we recommend
that the Government explain the extent to which it specifically
addresses the use of RPAS. (Paragraph 179)
21. It is beyond the scope of this inquiry, which
focuses on commercial operations, to draw conclusions regarding
state use of RPAS for surveillance but the acceptability of state
use of RPAS should be subject to urgent public debate. (Paragraph 189)
22. While journalists can use RPAS to enhance
the reporting of important events, they can also be used to invade
people's privacy. UK media regulators should initiate a public
consultation on the appropriate use of RPAS by the media, with
a view to providing clear guidance. (Paragraph 194)
Third party liability
23. While similar equipment may be used by both
leisure and commercial RPAS pilots, introducing mandatory third
party liability insurance for the leisure use of RPAS would be
disproportionate to the hazard posed by such users. (Paragraph 201)
24. In order to improve the information used
to determine third party liability premiums, we recommend that
any future EU legislation governing RPAS operations should require
national aviation authorities to share statistics regarding RPAS
incidents with regulators, insurers and operators in other Member
States. (Paragraph 207)
25. The cost of third party liability insurance
premiums is likely to decrease with greater demand from RPAS pilots.
We therefore recommend that trade associations and national aviation
authorities raise awareness of and enforce commercial RPAS pilots'
obligations under EU Regulation 785/2004 to purchase insurance.
This will reduce the number of operators running the risk of not
taking out insurance and encourage a safer RPAS industry. (Paragraph 213)
26. To address confusion regarding the scope
and applicability of EU Regulation 785/2004, we recommend that
the Commission brings forward amendments that would clarify that
the legal requirement to purchase public liability insurance depends
on whether the RPAS is being used for hobbyist or commercial use.
(Paragraph 214)
27. In line with a risk-based approach to RPAS
safety regulations, we recommend that the Commission increases
the minimum amount of public liability cover required by commercial
RPAS operators under EU Regulation 785/2004. The Regulation currently
stipulates a minimum amount of €660,000 for all commercial
RPAS weighing up to 500kg. (Paragraph 217)
Leisure users and public consultation
28. 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. (Paragraph 226)
29. 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. (Paragraph 230)
30. 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. (Paragraph 232)
31. We endorse the Government's plans to consult
the general public on acceptable future uses for RPAS. (Paragraph 236)
32. 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. (Paragraph 243)
33. 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. (Paragraph 244)
34. 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. (Paragraph 248)
35. 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. (Paragraph 251)
| 
