1. UAS: Regulatory developments in EASA Michael Smethers Chairman of EASA Management Board 13 September 2011

2. EASA Mission 1. Principal objective: high uniform safety 2. Additional objectives: (a) high uniform level of environmental protection (b) facilitate free movement of goods, persons and services (c) cost-efficiency in the regulatory processes avoiding duplication at national and European level (d) assist Member States in fulfilling ICAO obligations (e) promote Community views throughout the world (f) level playing field in the internal aviation market 2 Art. 2 Basic Regulation 216/2008 as amended by 1108/2009

3. Total system approach Clear and simple principles : Airborne, ground, satellite segments Human, procedure, equipment And complex consequences … mainly on boundaries: Common semantics & processes for Risk Assessment & Mitigation The design of total system itself : no single manufacturer delivers it Impact on responsibilities of the organisations at the interfaces (including subcontractors) need for coordination between EASA, EUROCONTROL, other Agencies and competent authorities at national level Recital (1) Regulation 1108/2009

4. 4 EASA progress National Rules (from ~1999) JAA/Eurocontrol Task Force (2001-2004) EASA A-NPA 16/2005 (April 2005) EASA CRD 16/2005 (December 2007) EASA Policy published August 2009 http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/doc/Policy_State ments/E.Y013-01_%20UAS_%20Policy.pdf http://easa.europa.eu/ws_prod/c/doc/Policy_State ments/E.Y013-01_%20UAS_%20Policy.pdf Legal structure of EASA rules (i.e. binding rules on processes not on technical details) allows certification of UAS even without dedicated certification specifications = EASA is NOT a show stopper Policy for airworthiness type certification

5. EASA experience on UAS certification 4 applications for civil UAS (>150 Kg) received until Sept 2011 No airworthiness Type Certificates (TC) issued Permit to fly for development and testing not an issue SMEs not always familiar with EASA rules Some UAS designers did not hold DOA TC would most probably be restricted Lack of OPS/airspace rules Lack of detect and avoid TC restricted to segregated airspace possibly not attractive for civil operators State (OAT) market more attractive Financial difficulties for applicants for civil certificates

6. 6 EASA rulemaking plans Implementing Rules and AMC/GM x UAS OPS & FCL: Start: 2013 Opinion: 2016 (IRs) Decision: 2017 (AMC/GM) UAS Third Country Operators (TCO) to be considered CS for UAS Airworthiness Start: 2014 Align concept with ICAO Decision: Sept 2016 EASA 4-year rulemaking programme 2012-15 (Tasks MDM.030 renumbered RMT.0229, 0230 & 0235):

7. UAS priority for EASA? Only few applications for civil UAS > 150 Kg Airworthiness specifications can only build upon concrete experiences … not an issue (= policy) But many issues not linked to the mass (data link, detect and avoid, OPS, access to airspace, crew licensing, etc.) … necessary to maintain harmonisation: NOW Conflicting priorities: European Aviation Safety Plan (EASP) large aeroplanes commercial air transport general (manned) aviation 1 st & 2 nd extension replying to safety recommendations Etc… 7

8. Main topics for 3 rd Workshop The workshop will explore what work on safety regulation would help the European UAS sector to make the most of its opportunities for future growth and development. Main expected topics: 1. Is it better to have national, harmonised or common rules for small (<150 Kg) UAS? And, in case of common rules, who should issue the type certificate? 2. How to regulate UAS operations? 3. And UAS flight crews? 4. Is EU action appropriate for governmental non-military UAS? 5. Is there a minimum threshold for technical and procedural aviation rules? 6. Do we need to improve UAS safety data collection & analysis? At EUROCONTROL, 19 October 2011