The use of the APR (remote piloted aircraft, the so-called drones) is increasingly growing as well as in the military (see, in this regard, what has already been written), even in the civil field (on the other hand, the two areas often go hand in hand, as in other sectors) and the numbers are already high if we consider that, in the 2015, all over the world, they have crossed the skies a about a million unmanned robots.
If on the one hand they have turned out to be useful in the most disparate sectors (from the simple "pastime" to the more complex and important one of territorial control, with the analysis of the risk of landslides or floods, of soil verification in view of future constructions, of contrasting unauthorized building, first aid or, again, intervention in emergencies and / or natural disasters - see, lastly - the recent earthquake involving some towns in central Italy ), and with their development the fields and the activities in which the aforementioned can be successfully used are growing, above all for the consequent great saving of costs (if compared to other means currently in use), on the other it is, obviously , a legislation which, (in primis) at European level, it regulates its use.
In fact, there are already several recorded cases of "near-accidents" due to collisions that have been barely touched between the APR and commercial aircraft (in the United Kingdom alone, last year, there appeared to have already been seven cases of "class A" collision failures, the most serious one) or real clashes that, fortunately, did not lead to fatal consequences (memorable that of 17 April 2015, when a British Airways A320 aircraft coming from Geneva, with 137 between passengers and crew members at board, while it was landing at Heathrow airport, in London, was hit by a drone, or the one, more recently - August this year - which involved, again in the United Kingdom, a plane of the company Flybe who was landing in Newquay, Cornwall, coming from London Stansted airport with 62 passengers on board).
Of course: the problem is not only of security, but also (and in some ways, consequently) of industrial production, and certainly at the level of individual nations there are already (timid) references to dedicated regulations, but of course they are still "young "And fragmentary (and uneven from each other) and have the difficult task of running after a technology (that of remote piloted aircraft, in fact) in continuous development, with all the pros and cons that follow.
Hence the need that, at European level, system legislation be reached soon that can include and address the aforementioned (national regulations) and make them homogeneous, as also read on the EASA website1 (European Aviation Safety Agency), the European body called to play a key role in the drafting of a corpus supranational normative able to regulate this delicate sector: "Unmanned aircraft (some people call them civil 'drones') are increasingly being used in Europe, but under a fragmented regulatory framework. Basic national safety rules apply, but the rules differ across the EU and a number of key safeguards are addressed in a coherent way".
Currently, it has not yet reached a definitive text that, indeed, seems far from being perfected, as can be seen from the resolution of 28 October 2015 (2014 / 2243 (INI)) of the European Parliament "on safe use of Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems (RPAS), commonly known as Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in the field of civil aviation", Where, after having taken note of the rapid development of the market concerning the" drones ", originally born for military purposes, it is noted (see the advance notice above) the total disharmonization of national legislation of individual European states that, already in the immediate future, could seriously jeopardize the growth of the aforementioned (market) and the relative competitiveness on a world scale (where the United States, China, Australia or Israel alone are decidedly at the forefront)2.
At the moment, there are guidelines for the study of European Organisms that were outlined at the 6 March 2015 Riga conference, organized by the Latvian Ministry of Transport in collaboration with the European Commission, concerning "Remote Pilot Aircraft Systems" (Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems).
It is in this occasion, in fact, that some principles have been defined to regulate the development of civil APR technologies, to guarantee the safety of these systems and to ensure the protection of rights, in particular the protection of personal data, with the commitment to implement the same within the 2016.
In particular, in the related Declaration, adopted after the meeting, they have settled 5 basic objectives, according to which:
a) the APR must be considered as a new type of aircraft, with proportionate rules based on the risk deriving from each transaction (“Drones need to be treated as new aircraft with proportionate rules based on the risk of each operation") And the supply of the related technologies must ensure safety levels equal to those expected in the civil aviation sector;
b) European rules must be developed immediately for the safety of remote piloted air systems (“EU rules for the safe provision of drone services").
Under the aegis of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), specific harmonized safety measures will have to be introduced at European level ("...the essential requirements should be harmonized at the global level "), to be submitted to public consultation;
c) technologies must be developed and standards to allow the full integration of the APR in the air space ("Technologies and standards need to be developed for full integration of drones in the European airspace");
d) given the enormous amount of personal data that can be collected through them, it will be necessary for the national and European authorities appointed to do so to develop guidelines and adopt procedures to ensure compliance with data protection regulations, given the fact that acceptance by the public should be considered the key to the development of services that can be performed with the APR (“Public acceptance is key to growth of drone services"):
e) because the APR operator is responsible for its use ("The operator of a drone is responsible for its use"), it will be necessary to introduce rules that provide for an obligation to identify the driver or the APR operator (for example through the adoption of an electronic identity card - so-called “IDrones” -), as well as appropriate measures to be taken in the its comparisons where the APR is used in a prohibited airspace, or used in an unsafe manner, or for illicit purposes.
On the basis of these indications, the EASA immediately proceeded to draw up a draft regulatory approach (Concept of Operations for Drones), which hopefully will soon lead to the improvement of that legal framework from which, now, with all evidence, we can no longer ignore.
1 See the link: http://www.easa.europa.eu/easa-and-you/civil-drones-rpas (last consulted on 2 September 2016).
2 "The international dimension:
1. Notes that the US is seen by many as the leading market for RPAS, albeit for military operations; stresses however that Europe is the leader in the civil sector with 2 500 operators (400 in the UK, 300 in Germany, 1 500 in France, 250 in Sweden, etc.) it should be its most competitive position;
2. Notes that Japan has a large number of RPAS operators and two decades of experience, mostly in RPAS precision-farming operations, such as crop spraying; recalls that was the first country to allow RPAS technology to be used in farming activities during the mid-nineties and the number of operators multiplied within a few years;
3. Notes that Israel has a very active manufacturing industry, but with a direct focus on military RPAS; underlines the fact that an integrated civil-military air navigation service now makes it easier to integrate RPAS into Israeli airspace;
4. Notes that Australia, China (where many of the small RPAS are manufactured) and South Africa are among the 50 other countries that are currently developing RPAS;
5. Stress that the global dimension of RPAS must be acknowledged and calls upon the Commission to take full account of this".
(photo: EUROCONTROL / British Airways)
