Keywords

These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

1 Introduction

Since approximately 2011 there has been an increasing tendency to legislate the use of drones in the civil sphere, countries being incorporated with more or less celerity into a regulatory process that is lengthened by the aeronautical approach adopted. Drones are rated as aircraft and treated as such in the use of airspace and in their relationship with other users, both active (other aircraft) and passive (people who are outside the scope of use but who may be affected), with a requirement for safety conditions in the operation that are comparable as far as possible to those of manned aviation.

As Bernauw (2016) highlights, Art. 8 of the Chicago Convention (ICAO 2006) subjects the operation of drones to national authorization. The consequence at present is a regulatory environment that differs between the respective countries, from permissive to restrictive, while the professional and commercial use of drones has an impact on safety that must be addressed.

In countries that already have legislation, there is evidence of some homogeneity in some aspects of regulation , as is the case with the weight limits (MTOW , maximum take-off weight) of regulated aircraft, the operation limits (height, distance to the pilot, etc.), or the registration requirements for the operator, although there is no harmonized regulation in common spaces such as the European Union (EU). In this regard the strategy has been defined to achieve common European legislation (towards 2018), and working groups have been established to develop it under the ward of the Council, the European Commission, and the European Parliament, with the EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) working on drafting legislation.

Bearing in mind that, although there will be a common European regulation , there will always be differences from the regulation of other countries outside the EU. The approach of this study is to attain adequate practical knowledge of the regulation of each country to provide academia with a comparative legal framework as well as to give the user a tool to obtain this information. The parameters analysed are:

  • Updated legislation applied in each country;

  • Limitations for operating drones;

  • Compulsory requirements for operators , drones, and pilots to operate drones.

As a sector that is in the process of settlement and based on technologies that evolve very quickly, it is important to keep in mind at all times that there will be a frequent dynamic of changes and updates of legislation until standardized forms of technology utilization are adopted. For this reason references are included to regulatory agencies and links to the information sources, with the date of the last version of legislation in force.

A table has been drawn up (Table 1) to provide a reference document containing adequate knowledge of the specific legislation. The nomenclature and explanation of the sections are detailed. The table’s format tries to parameterize or group the most relevant aspects of each of the regulations under study in sections that are common or at least similar. Although at first glance this is a complicated task due to the different ways of approaching drones’ operation, control, and regulation in each country, some common areas have been defined to provide an appropriate guide to be introduced in each piece of legislation.

Table 1 Proposal for a reference document to compare drone regulations related to operators and pilots
Full size table

2 Regulatory Framework General Evolution

For some years aeronautical authorities have been concerned about the generalization of drones’ use, and since 2011 an important effort has been made to integrate these aircraft into the air space with the maximum safety conditions for all users. The problems are the coordination of the different sensitivities and the establishment of a technical scheme suitable for all countries. From the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization), coordination is attempted somehow mildly, and the main efforts are exerted through the JARUS organization (Joint Authorities for Regulation of Unmanned Systems) or through the States within the European Union. Consequently, as it can be seen, different actors influence this regulatory framework, which can sometimes be confusing.

2.1 European Parliament Ruling on Drones

Being aircraft, drones have to comply with aviation safety rules. International civil aviation rules at the United Nations level have prohibited unmanned aircraft from flying over another state’s territory without its permission since 1944. In the EU the current regulatory system for drones is based on fragmented rules, with many Member States having already regulated or planning to regulate some aspects of civil drones with an operating mass of 150 kg or less. The responsibility for civil drones of over 150 kg is left to the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA ). However, the extent, content, and level of detail of national regulations differ, and conditions for mutual recognition of operational authorization between EU Member States have not been reached.

In 2012, having completed a set of consultations, the Commission published a staff working document on the civil use of RPASs and established a European RPAS steering group to plan and coordinate EU work on civil RPASs. In 2013 the steering group presented its recommendations in a roadmap that covers all types of RPASs except model aircraft and toys. The roadmap identifies potential improvements to the existing regulatory framework and outlines the research and technologies necessary for the safe integration of RPASs into the EU aviation system.

Subsequently, in 2014 the Commission adopted a Communication outlining a strategy for opening the aviation market to the civil use of RPASs in a safe and sustainable manner. It focuses on how to enable the development of RPASs while at the same time addressing their societal impact. The Commission noted its intention to take a step-by-step approach by first regulating drone operations with mature technologies. More complex operations would be permitted progressively. In the longer term, the objective is to integrate RPASs into non-segregated airspace, which is open to all civil air transport.

2.2 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA )

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA ) has been tasked by the European Commission to develop a regulatory framework for drone operations and proposals for the regulation of “low-risk” drone operations. To achieve this, the EASA is working closely with the Joint Authorities for Regulation of Unmanned Systems (JARUS).

Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008 mandates the Agency to regulate unmanned aircraft systems (UASs) and in particular remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPASs) when used for civil applications and with an operating mass of 150 kg or more. Experimental or amateur-built RPASs, military and non-military governmental RPAS flights, and civil RPASs below 150 kg, as well as model aircraft, are regulated by the individual Member States of the European Union.

The EASA has been tasked by the European Commission—following the Riga Conference (held in 2015) and its associated Declaration—to develop a regulatory framework for drone operations as well as concrete proposals for the regulation of low-risk drone operations.

The “Advance notice of proposed amendment 2015-10” (A-NPA) (EASA 2015a) reflects the principles laid down in the Riga Declaration. It follows a risk- and performance-based approach; it is progressive- and operation-centric. It introduces three categories of operations as already proposed in the published EASA “Concept of operations for drones”:

  • An “open” category (low risk): safety is ensured through operational limitations, compliance with industry standards, requirements for certain functionalities, and a minimum set of operational rules. Enforcement shall be ensured by the police. In this group we could also include indoor drones.

  • A “specific operation” category (medium risk): authorization by National Aviation Authorities (NAAs), possibly assisted by a qualified entity (QE) following a risk assessment performed by the operator. A manual of operations shall list the risk mitigation measures.

  • A “certified” category (higher risk): requirements comparable to manned aviation requirements. Oversight by NAAs (issue of licences and approval of maintenance, operations, training, air traffic management (ATM)/air navigation services (ANS), and aerodrome organizations) and by the EASA (design and approval of foreign organizations).

This regulatory framework will encompass European rules for all drones in all weight classes. The amendments to Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008 that are underway will reflect the above.

Besides, in December 2015 the Agency published a Technical Opinion (EASA 2015b) that contains, in its section 4, an update of the roadmap published by the European RPAS Steering Group (ESRG) in 2013 (ESRG 2013). This Technical Opinion is the result of the consultation performed with A-NPA 2015-10. It has been developed in parallel to the draft modifications to Regulation (EC) No. 216/2008 (hereinafter referred to as the “Basic Regulation”) included in the “Aviation Strategy to Enhance the Competitiveness of the EU Aviation Sector” (hereinafter referred to as the “Aviation Strategy”), published on 7 December 2015.

The Agency also supports the work of the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) UAS Study Group. The ICAO published Circular 328 (2011) on UASs and amended Annexes 2, 7, and 13 to the Chicago Convention to accommodate RPASs intended to be used by international civil aviation.

Moreover, the EASA is member of the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS), which is currently developing recommended requirements for:

  • Licensing of remote pilots ;

  • RPASs in visual (VLOS ) and beyond line-of-sight (BVLOS) operations;

  • Civil RPAS operators and approved training organizations for remote pilots (JARUS-ORG);

  • Certification specifications for light unmanned rotorcraft (CS-LURS) and aeroplanes (CS-LURS) below 600 kg;

  • Performance requirements for “detect and avoid” to maintain the risk of mid-aid collision below a tolerable level of safety (TLS) and taking into account all the actors in the total aviation system;

  • Performance requirements for command and control data link, whether in direct radio (RLOS) or beyond line-of-sight (BRLOS) and in the latter case supported by a communication service provider (COM SP);

  • Safety objectives for the airworthiness of RPASs (“1309”) to minimize the risk of injuries to people on the ground; and

  • Processes for airworthiness.

The EASA has already published:

  • Guidance material to support approved design organizations (DOA or AP-DOA) in selecting the appropriate certification specifications (among the ones applicable to manned aviation) from which to build the certification basis for RPAS design (see E.Y013-01);

  • NPA 2012-10 to transpose amendment 43 to ICAO Annex 2 into the Standard European Rules of the Air (SERA).

2.3 Joint Authorities for Regulation of Unmanned Systems (JARUS)

JARUS is a group of experts gathering regulatory expertise from all around the world. At present 48 countries, as well as the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA ) and EUROCONTROL, are contributing to the development of JARUS’s work products. Participation in JARUS is open to all regulatory authorities with expertise in unmanned or remotely piloted aircraft systems.

The purpose of JARUS is “to recommend a single set of technical, safety and operational requirements for all aspects linked to the safe operation of the Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS ). This requires review and consideration of existing regulations and other material applicable to manned aircraft, the analysis of the specific tasks linked to RPAS and the drafting of material to cover the unique features of RPAS” (JARUS 2015a).

The JARUS guidance material aims to facilitate each authority to write its own requirements and to avoid duplicate efforts. The work is performed by the JARUS working groups; seven WGs are active at this moment (JARUS 2015b): WG1 Flight Crew Licensing, WG2 Operations, WG3 Airworthiness, WG4 Detect & Avoid, WG5 Command, Control & Communications, WG6 Safety & Risk Management, WG7 Concept of Operations.

In the last three years, it has published and made available to the RPAS community some deliverables to clarify concepts or recommend some uses. It is working to provide further inputs into the development of RPAS and UAS regulatory guidance and recommendations in domains in which other organizations (e.g. the ICAO) have not been active.

JARUS is creating a high-level framework that will be at the heart of the development effort. This effort is based on a number of high-level “concepts of operations” (CONOPS) addressing the key elements of the operation of UASs. These CONOPS set high-level assumptions that should guide the work activities in the coming years. They are aimed at providing a stable yet flexible environment, in which JARUS’s work products can be developed and amended as necessary. This will allow innovation to take place with a level of certainty. The members of JARUS have agreed to develop these CONOPS for the following subjects:

  • Regulatory oversight with three categories —A, B, and C or open, specific, and certified;

  • UAS operational categorization;

  • Specific operational risk assessment specifications (SORA);

  • ATM concepts for different operations;

  • The detect and avoid concept for visual line of sight, extended, and beyond visual line of sight;

  • Command and control, from the simplest to the most complex systems.

After JARUS has reached consensus on these concepts, other deliverables—such as operational, technical, safety , and operational requirements and certification specifications—will be derived to support them.

2.4 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)

In the previous section on the AESA, we introduced this United Nations specialized agency. Established by States in 1944, it manages the administration and governance of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention). The ICAO works with the Convention’s 191 Member States and industry groups to reach consensus on international civil aviation standards and recommended practices (SARPs) and policies in support of a safe, efficient, secure, economically sustainable, and environmentally responsible civil aviation sector. These SARPs and policies are used by ICAO Member States to ensure that their local civil aviation operations and regulations conform to global norms.

The ICAO has developed the UAS Toolkit (ICAO 2017) as a guide to assist States that are working on the development of UAS operational guidance, regulation , and enabling operation in a safe manner. This Toolkit provides interesting guidance to take into account, but users should always be aware that it could be updated.

There seems to be a general consensus that unmanned aircraft must be allowed to operate without segregation from other air space users (Bernauw 2016).

3 Legal Framework of Spain

According to Pauner-Chulvi (2016), Spain was one of the first European countries to pass a technical regulation on drones.

At the national level, the body responsible for regulating the activity of drones is the State Agency for Air Safety (AESA), under the General Secretariat of Transport (Ministry of Development). It is the aeronautical authority and is responsible for the supervision, inspection, and management of air transport, air navigation, and airport security (AESA 2017a). In addition, it assesses the risks in air transport safety through threat detection, risk analysis and evaluation, and a continuous process of control and mitigation of risks. It also has sanctioning power over violations of civil aviation regulations.

Within its activity it is responsible for developing the regulation of operations with drones up to 150 kg and for monitoring their compliance and operation. The drone section has been framed within the Aircraft Safety Directorate, with the description of remote control piloted aircraft units (RPASs).

As the first action, Royal Decree-Law 8/2014 was passed on 4 July, giving “approval of urgent measures for growth, competitiveness and efficiency”, in which section 6 included the temporary regime for operations with remotely piloted aircraft, drones, weighing less than 150 kg at take-off.

Subsequently, this legislation was processed as a law, Law 18/2014, on 15 October 2014, giving “approval of urgent measures for growth, competitiveness and efficiency” (AESA 2014), which is currently in force. This regulation responded to the need to establish a legal framework that would allow the safe development of a technologically advanced and emerging sector, and from the beginning it was promised that it would be developed in the short term, the Administration being aware that it was a temporary solution that needed to be improved.

This temporary regulation contemplates the different scenarios in which the different aerial works can be realized, depending on the aircraft’s weight. Besides, the conditions now approved are supplemented by the general scheme of Law 48/1960, 21 July, on air navigation and establish the operating conditions of this type of aircraft in addition to other obligations.

Legislation on drones in Spain was published in a somewhat accelerated way in July 2014, to alleviate the sense of freedom, reinforced by the lack of information, that had spread among users over the misconception that “if it is not forbidden, it is permitted”. With regard to aircraft, such as aircraft flying within certain defined parameters , there had always been legislation, and the use of model aeroplanes for many years, being restricted to a specific environment (that of fans and aeromodelling clubs), had not posed major problems.

However, the appearance of drones and the extension of their use outside the domain of model aircraft increased the number of users and potentially dangerous situations at the same time as a professional activity “sub-sector” was being formed, gaining size on a base lacking legal solidity.

By the end of 2013 and early 2014, a number of incidents involving drones had occurred, which motivated the accelerated position taken by the Ministries of Development, Defence, and Industry and the elaboration of regulations that were presented as “provisional” pending more elaborate and refined legislation.

Royal Decree 8/2014 covered the regulation of RPASs, conforming to a scenario of use that evidenced certain deficiencies but giving the possibility to undertake work and activities using drones in a legal way. Subsequently Law 18/2014 was approved.

In the years afterwards, work was carried out on new legislation to improve the aforementioned and currently in force legislation with a draft that has already circulated in its final versions and that seems only to be waiting for its approval by the Government.

Given the imminence of this new legislation, it has been considered appropriate to include and consider it at the same level as Law 18/2014, which is in force, to achieve adequate knowledge about a reality that seems close, although it must be borne in mind that changes may still be made to the wording of some points of this new regulation . The version has been developed by the Ministry of Public Works and Transport and the Ministry of Defence (2016).

To gain an adequate understanding of the regulation of drones and how it applies, it is necessary to examine the “guidance material” published by the State Agency for Air Safety (AESA 2017b), which articulates the implementation of the law.

3.1 Current Regulation

At the moment the regulation in force is defined by the following parameters (Table 2):

Table 2 Administration and regulation in Spain
Full size table

3.2 New Regulation and Comparison

There is the intention on the part of the Spanish Administration to update the legislation on drones in the short term, and it has elaborated a draft of regulation that is waiting for the last political formalities for its approval and publication.

A comparative analysis of the two regulations is displayed in Table 3. As we can observe, some parameters have no changes, while others are more detailed or adjusted.

Table 3 Comparative analysis of regulations in Spain
Full size table

4 Legal Framework of the UK

In the UK the administration authority in charge of civil drones is the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). In relation to drones (CAA 2017a), the regulation separates drones as follows: up to 7 kg or up to 20 kg (small) and up to 150 kg (light). Art. 94 of the Air Navigation Order (CAA 2017b) and the regulations made under the order exclude small drones from some obligations.

However, this depends on the use of the drone. It is not compulsory to register a personal drone or obtain a permit for a recreational drone in the UK, but, if the drone is used for professional work, then a Permission for Aerial Work is needed, which has to be renewed annually (CAA 2017a).

The basic parameters are the following:

  • Line of sight (LOS) at a maximum height of 400 ft (122 m);

  • 500 m of distance horizontally;

  • In any case fly away from aircraft, helicopters, airports, and airfields;

  • If fitted with a camera, a drone must be flown at last 50 m away from a person, vehicle, building, or structure not owned or controlled by the pilot;

  • Camera-equipped drones must not be flown within 150 m of a congested area or large group of people, such as a sporting event or concert.

It is important to respect “no fly zones”, which depend not only on the city or town but also on the commons. For example, in London, London’s royal parks, Wimbledon Common, Putney Common, and Clapham Common, among others, are no-drone zones. In other cases, such as the borough of Lambeth, a commercial licence is necessary. Therefore, it is better to check with the local council before flying. There is still confusion in some areas about whether drones are permitted or not.

In the case of private property, it is possible to fly in the airspace above (but not higher than the general rule of 400 ft) as long as it does not cause a nuisance, infringe privacy , or otherwise interfere with the “ordinary use and enjoyment” of the land.

On the other hand, the regulation makes no distinction between indoor or outdoor flights in the case of commercial work. Certain hazard factors are heavily mitigated by the fact that the aircraft is flying in an enclosed environment and access to the venue can be controlled (CAA 2017a).

The UK Government is proposing to change the regulations so that any recreational drone weighing more than 250 g has to be registered. Ministers also want drones to be “electronically identifiable” on the ground so that their owners can be tracked. They are also proposing increases to the maximum fine for flying in a no-fly zone, which is currently limited to £2500.

It is not necessary to have drone insurance by law, but it will protect the operator against claims. Moreover, endangering an aircraft in flight is a criminal offence in the UK, and anyone convicted of the charge can face a prison term. Some drones have the capacity to geo-fence restricted areas, such as airports. They can also be used in “beginner” modes, which limit the height and distance that the quadcopter can fly away from the user.

In Table 4 we can observe the different parameters according to UK regulation . As our first observation, we can notice that the UK regulation is less detailed than the Spanish one reviewed.

Table 4 UK current regulation
Full size table

5 Legal Framework of Belgium

The Belgian Civil Aviation Authority (BCAA) published the Royal Decree of 10 April 2016 “concerning the use of remote controlled aircrafts in the Belgian airspace”, which regulates drone operations. It normalizes both the private and the professional use of drones and introduces a registration obligation for drones, regulates the certificates, and defines the authorized take-off and landing spots for registered drones. Moreover, manufacturers of drones need technical requirements, the delivery of conformity certificates, the drafting of a flight manual and safety analysis reporting, maintenance requirements, flight tests, and so on.

According to the BCAA (2017), we can distinguish five types of operations:

  • Private use: maximum higher than 10 m above a private terrain and the drone—weighing less than 1 kg—must be within line of sight at all times. These flights can only happen during daylight, and they are not allowed for commercial or professional purposes.

  • Model aircraft: take-off weight between 1 and 150 kg and used only for recreational purposes above a model aircraft terrain recognized by the BCAA, as specified in the aeronautical information package (AIP). They are not allowed for commercial or professional purposes.

  • Class 2 operations: not higher than around 45 m above ground outside controlled airspace and outside cities or communities. Operations can only occur in daylight conditions and the drone—weighing less than 5 kg—must remain within the pilot’s LOS at all times.

  • Class 1b operations: up to around 90 m above ground outside controlled airspace. Moreover, more than 50 m clear of people and/or goods on the ground. Operations can only occur in daylight conditions and the drone—weighing less than 150 kg—must remain within LOS at all times.

  • Class 1a operations: up to around 90 m above ground outside controlled airspace. Moreover, closer than 50 m to people and/or goods on the ground or even over them or around an obstacle closer than 30 m. Operations can only occur in daylight conditions and the drone—weighing less than 150 kg—must remain within line of sight at all times. All operations that are not covered in the previous categories are to be considered as Class 1a operations.

Therefore, only classes 1 and 2 can be used for commercial or professional purposes. This means:

  • Registration of the drone at the BCAA;

  • A certificate of competence in the case of class 2 (taking a theoretical course and passing a practical skill test with an examiner recognized by the BCAA) or a remote pilot licence in the case of class 1 (a theoretical examination organized by the BCAA and a practical skill test with an examiner recognized by the BCAA);

  • An operation manual and risk assessment for class 1;

  • A declaration made by the operator that the organization is in full compliance with the national requirements for class 1b (starting operations only after receiving confirmation from the BCAA and notifying the BCAA of each drone flight before take-off) and the prior authorization of the BCAA for class 1a (the drone has a certificate of conformity from the BCAA or an equivalent document issued by a civil aviation authority from an EU Member State. If not, one must be obtained prior to requesting authorization);

  • Forbidden zones at all times are: all controlled airspaces, prohibited zones, danger zones, restricted zones, temporary segregated/reserved areas, and so on. Industrial complexes, nuclear power plants, military zones, and other special zones cannot be flown over unless otherwise described in the AIP.

The use of completely autonomous aircrafts, that is, unmanned drones that do not allow the pilot to intervene immediately to take control over the flight, remains strictly forbidden.

Other chapters of the Royal Decree include provisions for the communication and control software that is implemented in drone technology, incident reporting obligations, mandatory insurance coverage for drone operators , and references to compliance with the applicable data protection and privacy legislation (in particular for drones with a camera functionality).

Excluded from the regulatory requirements of the Royal Decree of 10 April 2016 are (a) drones used only to fly inside buildings (indoor ); (b) drones used by the military, customs authorities, the police, coastguard, and so on; and (c) certain types of model aeroplanes solely used for personal/recreational purposes, provided that they meet the strict requirements detailed in the Royal Decree.

As our focus is on the commercial or professional use of drones, we summarize the current parameters in Table 5.

Table 5 Belgium’s current regulation (commercial or professional )
Full size table

6 Comparative Analysis

See Table 6.

Table 6 Comparative analysis from Tables 3, 4 and 5
Full size table

7 Conclusions

As we can observe in Table 6, the differences among European countries regarding the operation of drones are still relevant, diminishing the competitiveness of the European drone industry. However, the future legal framework, as designed by the EASA (2017), will create legal certainty for the industry, especially concerning drone requirements in the case of commercial and professional activities.

Furthermore, distinguishing drones depending on their risk and not on their weight could solve the problems of professionals when working in another European country. As an example, we can observe big differences between countries like Belgium, France, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the UK, where the national authority’s permission is limited to 150 kg, while other countries, such as Denmark, Finland, Lithuania, and Portugal, place the upper weight limit at 25 kg.