Aviation Law Archives - Blakistons

When “Just a Minute” Becomes BVLOS: Legal Lessons for Drone Operators from CHIRP’s September 2025 Reports

admin.richard — Mon, 27 Oct 2025 19:14:43 +0000

By Richard Ryan, Barrister & Drone Lawyer – practical takeaways, not legal advice for your specific situation.

Why this matters

CHIRP’s Drone/UAS FEEDBACK Edition 14 (September 2025) curates incidents that look ordinary until you view them through a law-and-liability lens:
three model-flying events that drifted into unintentional BVLOS, a Mini 2 injury at a carnival, a controller or app freeze mid-mission,
a fatigue-tinged flight that autolanded at 20 percent battery into a tree, and an RTH climb toward powerlines. Each contains avoidable legal exposure
that you can mitigate with better planning, clear roles, and a few settings changes.

The incidents, in plain English – and what the law expects

1) Unintentional BVLOS x3 (BMFA community)

What happened: One EDF jet lost power from a poor solder joint after a user modification; two other flights went BVLOS when sea fog or thermal lift arrived faster than forecast.
Legal frame (UK): The Drone and Model Aircraft Code requires direct VLOS and the ability to determine orientation at all times. If you cannot do that, the flight is non-compliant.
Practical fix: Treat post-purchase alterations as airworthiness-significant and inspect them before each flight. Use BMFA’s SWEETS pre-flight. Adopt a simple “radial scan” habit: eyes out (aircraft and airspace) then quick glance down (controller or map) then eyes out again.

2) Nottingham Carnival injury (Mini 2)

What happened: A minor pressed “land” while the supervising adult was distracted; the drone struck another child who was sitting on someone’s shoulders. Police confiscated the aircraft. No Operator ID was displayed and it was flown over a crowd.
Legal frame (UK): Never fly over crowds or assemblies of people. Label the aircraft with a visible Operator ID. Where injury occurs, expect scrutiny under general endangerment provisions.
Practical fix: Establish a safe TOLA (take-off and landing area) away from the crowd. Use aviation-style handover phraseology: “You have control” / “I have control”. Keep controller audio alerts audible. Supervision of minors must be active and informed by the Code.

3) “My app froze” (Mavic 4 Pro + RC2; 87-waypoint mission)

What happened: Switching to Map View mid-mission froze the Fly app. The pilot used the hardware RTH button to recover the aircraft. Possible overload from running a large waypoint mission while screen-recording.
Legal frame: You remain responsible for safe operation even when the UI hiccups. The defensible question is whether your procedures anticipated foreseeable failures, such as hardware RTH muscle memory, function checks, and reboot-on-the-ground policies.
Practical fix: For long waypoint jobs, test the profile without screen-recording first. Pre-brief the hardware RTH action. Use a visual observer if you will be heads-down.

4) Fatigue and stress (power-line inspection)

What happened: The pilot became disoriented, lost VLOS about 1,700 ft from home, hit 20 percent battery, and, unaware that “land at 20 percent” was set, descended into a tree despite pressing RTH.
Practical fix: Know and brief your low-battery action (RTH vs auto-land vs hover) in the Operations Manual. Use two-crew where terrain or workload increases disorientation risk. Remember UK requirements to maintain VLOS and orientation at all times.

5) RTH vs powerlines (mapping mission)

What happened: An automated flight went off-nominal. On RTH, the aircraft likely contacted an obstacle while climbing. CHIRP notes the perception trap of judging wire clearance at range and reminds that wires sag mid-span.
Practical fix: Set RTH altitude locally before each flight, above towers, tree lines, cranes, and powerlines. Do not rely on obstacle avoidance to detect thin wires. Pre-flight, measure line heights relative to the home point and add margin for sag and wind.

Five legal pillars these cases keep hitting

VLOS is non-negotiable. Keep the aircraft in direct sight and be able to tell its orientation, with a full view of surrounding airspace.
Crowds are out of bounds. “Assemblies of people” are defined by the inability to disperse quickly, not by a headcount.
Operator ID labelling is strict. Visible, legible, on the airframe. Sub-250 g camera drones typically still require an Operator ID.
Endangerment provisions are broad. If someone is endangered or injured, regulators may consider reckless or negligent operation.
Automation is not absolution. You own the outcomes of RTH, low-battery actions, waypointing, and controller limits.

Turn the lessons into a defensible playbook

A. Pre-flight and design for failure

Modified anything? Treat user soldering, adapters, and third-party leads as risk-relevant. Inspect that joint every flight until replaced with a proven assembly. Log the check.
Weather is slippery. Do not rely on one app. Triangulate forecasts. Identify abort gates if visibility closes in (fog, showers, glare). Use SWEETS at the field.
Controller workload. For heavy waypoint missions, disable screen-recording unless proven stable. Rehearse hardware RTH and app-independent control.

B. RTH and battery settings you can defend

Set RTH altitude locally, every time. Clear known obstacles and powerlines. Consider Advanced RTH where available.
Know low-battery behavior. Document thresholds in the Operations Manual, brief them to the crew, and confirm on the controller before take-off.

C. People, roles, and sterile cockpit

Observer next to you for heads-down tasks, with real-time verbal coordination.
Minors at the sticks? Only with active oversight, formal handovers, and never within or over a crowd.
Events and assemblies. Create buffer zones and safe TOLA sites. If a client insists on crowd-proximate shots, the safest and most defensible answer is often no without appropriate authorization and controls.

D. Evidence and reporting (preserve the facts)

After any occurrence, preserve flight logs, app caches, screen recordings, controller settings, and note battery and RTH configuration.
Consider confidential safety reporting to CHIRP in the UK (and NASA ASRS in the U.S.) to help the community learn without blame.

Bottom line

The risk here is ordinary: a conversation at the wrong moment, fog rolling in, a buried setting, an RTH altitude that did not clear wires,
or a controller pushed too hard. The Code’s core duties – VLOS, no crowds, proper ID labelling,
know your automation, and keep records – are your best legal shield when something goes wrong.

BMFA SWEETS: a quick pre-flight check

S — Sun: position now and later; glare; keep VLOS; avoid flying through the sun.
W — Wind: direction/strength/turbulence; safe areas for forced or dead-stick landings.
E — Environment: visibility (rain, mist, fog, fading light), people nearby, RF risks, space to fly a full circuit.
E — Emergencies: plan what you will do if there is a malfunction or airspace incursion; confirm failsafes.
T — Transmitter control: local Tx control and frequencies; correct model; trims/rates; Tx power/voltage.
S — Site rules: club rules, local byelaws, no-fly zones, height and airspace limits.

Note: some older guides use “Eventualities” for the first E. Meaning is the same: think ahead about what could happen and how you will handle it.

This article is general information, not legal advice. If an incident has occurred, speak to counsel at Blakiston’s Chambers before making statements to third parties and preserve all electronic evidence immediately.

Credit and resources

Based on incidents and analysis in CHIRP Drone/UAS FEEDBACK Edition 14 (September 2025).
BMFA pre-flight mnemonic SWEETS: handbook.bmfa.uk/13-general-model-safety
UK Drone and Model Aircraft Code: register-drones.caa.co.uk
Report a safety concern to CHIRP (confidential): chirp.co.uk/aviation/submit-a-report

The post When “Just a Minute” Becomes BVLOS: Legal Lessons for Drone Operators from CHIRP’s September 2025 Reports appeared first on Blakistons.

What the UK Drone Industry Can Learn from EASA’s Adoption of SORA 2.5

admin.richard — Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:57:46 +0000

By Richard Ryan, Barrister & Drone Lawyer •
30th September 2025

Introduction

On 29 September 2025, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) published ED Decision 2025/018/R, updating the Acceptable Means of Compliance (AMC) and Guidance Material (GM) to Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/947. This update introduces the European version of the Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA) 2.5, developed by the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS).

Although the UK has left the EU regulatory framework, these developments are highly relevant. UK operators, manufacturers, and regulators can learn much from how EASA is simplifying compliance, clarifying roles, and promoting harmonisation across Member States.

What Changed under SORA 2.5?

Simplification of procedures: Ambiguities from earlier SORA versions have been removed, making it easier for operators and authorities to understand their obligations.
Clarity of roles: Responsibilities are now more clearly divided between operators, designers, and manufacturers. For example, design verification reports (DVRs) from EASA are required at SAIL IV, and type certification is required at SAIL V and VI.
Terminology alignment: EU-specific terms replace JARUS wording. For instance, “EVLOS” has been dropped in favour of “BVLOS with airspace observer”.
Containment requirements: Refined criteria for ground risk buffers and adjacent ground areas, particularly relevant for BVLOS and urban operations.
Flexibility for competent authorities: NAAs can use direct assessment, recognised entities, or qualified entities to review compliance.
Removal of weak cybersecurity rules: EASA stripped out JARUS’s cybersecurity provisions, deeming them disproportionate, but stressed that vulnerability assessments remain best practice.

Lessons for the UK CAA

Consistency and clarity – EASA has responded to industry feedback by clarifying operator versus manufacturer responsibilities. The UK’s guidance could benefit from similar precision, particularly in BVLOS authorisations.
Streamlining approvals – The two-phase SORA process (Phase 1 for risk identification, Phase 2 for compliance evidence) allows operators to obtain early regulatory feedback. This approach could make the UK’s OSC process faster and more predictable.
Population density mapping – EASA now recommends more accurate, dynamic maps to avoid over- or under-estimating risk in commercial and recreational areas. The UK could adopt a similar model, especially for urban drone delivery corridors.
Terminology alignment – Dropping “EVLOS” in favour of “BVLOS with AO” reflects operational reality and removes confusion. The UK should consider whether maintaining unique terminology helps or hinders international harmonisation.
Cybersecurity gap – By removing JARUS’s rules but encouraging vulnerability assessments, EASA has left space for proportionate, risk-based security. The CAA could similarly mandate cybersecurity risk assessments in line with wider aviation resilience standards.

Best Practice for UK Drone Pilots and Operators

Adopt SORA 2.5 methodology voluntarily – Even though the UK hasn’t formally adopted it, operators preparing risk assessments will benefit from aligning with European standards, especially if seeking approvals abroad.
Keep clear records – Maintain compliance matrices and comprehensive safety portfolios (CSPs) as outlined in SORA 2.5. This not only supports OSC applications but also protects operators in audits and insurance claims.
Use accurate population data – Don’t rely solely on outdated maps; supplement with local knowledge, real-time data, or site surveys to avoid underestimating risk.
Plan robust contingency procedures – Ensure abnormal and emergency procedures are well defined, tested, and rehearsed with crew. The new focus on containment means that “fly-away” risks must be demonstrably controlled.
Stay ahead on cybersecurity – Even though not mandated, conduct vulnerability assessments for command-and-control links and data storage. Cyber weaknesses could undermine insurance and liability cover.

Conclusion

EASA’s adoption of SORA 2.5 is a significant step towards regulatory clarity and harmonisation across Europe. The UK CAA should take note: simplifying authorisations, clarifying roles, and embracing proportionate risk-based approaches would strengthen the UK’s position as a leader in drone regulation.

For operators and pilots, the message is clear: best practice means anticipating international standards, not just meeting the minimum domestic requirement.

At Blakiston’s Chambers we advise drone operators, manufacturers, and service providers on all aspects of UK drone law, including airspace rights, regulatory compliance, and litigation risk. If your business is concerned about trespass or overflight liability, our team can help.

The post What the UK Drone Industry Can Learn from EASA’s Adoption of SORA 2.5 appeared first on Blakistons.

Trespass by Drones: Is Section 76 Civil Aviation Act 1982 Fit for Purpose?

admin.richard — Tue, 30 Sep 2025 09:51:14 +0000

Blakiston’s Chambers – Insight for Drone Operators •
30th September 2025

Why this matters for drone companies

The question of whether a drone operator can be sued for trespass when flying over private land is no longer a theoretical debate. With drones now routinely used for surveying, deliveries, inspections, and filming, landowners are increasingly asking whether they can stop flights above their property.

At the heart of this issue lies section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. Originally drafted for manned aviation, it has never been fully adapted to the realities of drones flying close to the ground, often well below 400 feet.

Recent High Court cases – Anglo-International Upholland Ltd v Wainwright (2023) and MBR Acres Ltd v Curtin (2025) – have thrown the law into sharper focus. For drone operators, the practical question is whether your drone can legally enter the airspace above a neighbour’s land without risking an injunction or damages claim.

Trespass: the basic position

Trespass is normally straightforward: step onto someone’s land without permission, and you’re liable – even if you cause no harm. Landowners don’t need to prove loss; mere entry is enough.

But what about airspace? Does a landowner “own the sky” above their property? Historically, English law used the maxim cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum – whoever owns the soil owns all the way up to the heavens. Courts have long since rejected that absolute view. Instead, the law recognises ownership only of the airspace “necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the land”.

For manned aircraft, Parliament drew a compromise in section 76(1): flights at a “reasonable height” cannot be challenged as trespass or nuisance. But what is a “reasonable height” when drones are often flown at 50 metres, 20 metres, or even lower?

Bernstein and the buffer zone

In Bernstein v Skyviews (1978), a landowner sued after an aircraft flew hundreds of feet above his estate to take photographs. The court held that this was not trespass, because the aircraft was too high to interfere with the landowner’s use of his land.

That decision gave us a rough principle: landowners control only the slice of airspace that matters to their ordinary use of land. The problem is that drones now operate in precisely that slice – near buildings, gardens, roads, and industrial sites – where interference with land use is most likely.

The new drone cases

1. Anglo-International (2023)

Drone flights over a derelict college were used to capture images which encouraged trespassers to enter the site. The judge treated the flights as mischievous and granted an injunction, holding that section 76 did not protect the operators.

The ruling was short and did not carefully analyse airspace ownership or flight height, but it showed courts are willing to act against drone flights if their purpose is seen as facilitating trespass or mischief.

2. MBR Acres (2025)

Animal rights campaigners used drones to film over a research facility. Some drones were flown as low as the height of a single-storey building, but evidence on height and operators was inconsistent.

The judge refused to grant an injunction. He accepted that flights at 50 metres or more did not interfere with the use of the land. Importantly, he suggested that other legal remedies – nuisance, harassment, or data protection – might be more appropriate than trespass.

What this means for drone operators

Trespass claims are harder to make stick than many landowners think. Courts are reluctant to find trespass unless flights interfere with the actual use of land (e.g. disrupting activity on site, flying extremely low, or endangering people).
Section 76 may be becoming redundant. Both Bernstein and MBR Acres suggest that unless a flight interferes with land use, there is no trespass at all – making section 76’s “reasonable height” defence almost irrelevant.
Purpose of flight matters – at least sometimes. In Anglo-International, mischievous use of drones was enough to justify an injunction. Operators engaged in legitimate commercial activity (surveying, deliveries, inspections) are on stronger ground.
Evidence is critical. Landowners will struggle to obtain injunctions unless they can prove height, frequency, and impact of flights. For operators, maintaining robust flight logs and compliance records (as required by the UK drone regulations) is the best defence.
Regulatory compliance is non-negotiable. Section 76 only protects operators if flights are lawful. Breach of drone regulations (flying beyond visual line of sight, too close to people, or over congested areas without permissions) will undermine any defence.

Looking ahead

The law remains unsettled. Drone operators should assume:

Routine overflights at safe, documented altitudes are unlikely to amount to trespass, provided they don’t interfere with land use.
Low-level flights directly over private land remain risky, particularly if they appear intrusive, harassing, or unsafe.
Other causes of action are emerging – nuisance, data protection, and harassment are likely to be more powerful tools for landowners than trespass.

For commercial operators, the key is to plan flight paths with landowner sensitivities in mind, document compliance, and keep up with evolving case law. What remains unclear is whether Parliament will modernise section 76 to deal explicitly with drones – or whether the courts will continue to adapt 20th-century law to 21st-century technology.

Blakiston’s Chambers advises drone operators, manufacturers, and service providers on all aspects of UK drone law, including airspace rights, regulatory compliance, and litigation risk. If your business is concerned about trespass or overflight liability, our team can help.

The post Trespass by Drones: Is Section 76 Civil Aviation Act 1982 Fit for Purpose? appeared first on Blakistons.

Airprox 2024294 – What Actually Happened at RAF Lakenheath?

admin.richard — Fri, 27 Jun 2025 13:41:37 +0000

Airprox 2024294 – What Actually Happened?

On the night of 22 November 2024 at 21:51 UTC, a National Police Air Service (NPAS) EC135 helicopter operating near RAF Lakenheath reported multiple “drones” manoeuvring around it. In reality, the objects were USAF F15 fighters engaged in authorised night training in Class G airspace (surface–FL150), coordinated by Lakenheath Approach (“Overlord”).

Summary of Key Facts:

Closest Point of Approach (CPA): 1 NM horizontal / 1900 ft vertical separation (recorded).
ATC Services:
- EC135 – Basic Service (no traffic information guaranteed).
- F-15s – Traffic Service (received information about the EC135).
Misidentification Factors:
- EC135’s TCAS did not display the F-15s.
- F-15 lighting did not resemble standard civil aircraft lighting.
- The crew believed the lights were drones due to their apparent behaviour and lack of TCAS confirmation.

The UK Airprox Board (UKAB) concluded that there was no risk of collision (Risk Category E) and attributed the report to misidentification and situational awareness breakdown rather than unsafe flying.

Why This Matters to Drone Operators

1. Misidentification Risk

Even experienced police aircrew using EO/IR cameras mistook military jets for drones. This shows how easily drone operators can be blamed for aerial events they weren’t involved in.

2. Electronic Conspicuity Limitations

The EC135’s TCAS did not detect the F-15s despite them squawking Modes A and C. This highlights the ongoing limitations of EC systems in complex or mixed-use airspace, particularly at night.

3. ATC Service Levels – Know the Difference

Under a Basic Service, ATC is not required to provide traffic information. Drone operators should consider requesting a Traffic Service or Deconfliction Service for BVLOS, urban, or sensitive operations.

Public Perception: A Persistent Challenge

“Drone blame” is the default: Unidentified lights in the sky are often assumed to be drones, fuelling public concern and regulatory overreaction.
Poor understanding of airspace rules: The public often assumes ATC sees and controls everything — which is untrue in Class G.
Coordination gaps: The police helicopter tasking was not pre-notified to the USAF. This shows the need for better operational coordination.

Risk Assessment for UK Drone Operations

Potential Scenarios and Risk Levels:

Misidentification by other aircraft:
- Likelihood: Medium
- Severity: Low to Medium
- Risk Level: Moderate overall, but High reputationally
No traffic info under Basic Service:
- Likelihood: Medium
- Severity: Medium
- Risk Level: Moderate
Public/media backlash from perceived near-miss:
- Likelihood: High
- Severity: High
- Risk Level: High (especially for commercial operators)

Key Mitigations for Drone Operators:

Use dual EC systems (ADS-B OUT and ground-based detect-and-avoid).
Maintain a telemetry and flight log archive for every operation.
Pre-notify military ATC when operating near MOD airspace.
File CANPs, NOTAMs, or Temporary Danger Areas when applicable.
Train pilots to request an upgrade to Traffic Service where required.

Legal and Regulatory Observations

SERA.3205 and ANO Article 239 set the standard for proximity liability. Keep compliance well-documented.
Expect growing pressure for mandatory electronic conspicuity, with incidents like this cited in policy.
If blamed in media or police statements without evidence, drone operators may have grounds for defamation or economic loss claims. Get legal advice promptly.

Final Thoughts

This wasn’t a drone incident — but it could have been perceived as one.

The lesson? Control the narrative by controlling the data.
Record everything. Secure it. Share it when necessary. With the right evidence, drone operators can protect themselves from false blame and help improve UK airspace safety.

About the Author

Richard Ryan is a UK barrister and aviation lawyer specialising in drone regulation, UAS integration, and counter-drone law. A Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, he advises police forces, government bodies, and commercial operators on airspace compliance and emerging UTM frameworks. He is also completing a PhD on airspace integration and unmanned traffic management at Cranfield University.

The post Airprox 2024294 – What Actually Happened at RAF Lakenheath? appeared first on Blakistons.

Consent Judgment Entered Against Philadelphia Drone Flyer for Violations of FAA Regulations

admin.richard — Wed, 05 Feb 2025 11:10:25 +0000

Consent Judgment Entered Against Philadelphia Drone Flyer for Violations of FAA Regulations

By Richard Ryan, Drone Lawyer (UK)

In a noteworthy development across the pond (thanks to sUAS News for the notification!), the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has entered a consent judgment against a Philadelphia resident, Mr Michael DiCiurcio, for multiple breaches of Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) regulations and safety guidelines. Although this case has arisen under US law, it is a useful reminder for drone operators in the UK of the absolute necessity to adhere strictly to local regulations—particularly when flying in congested or controlled airspace.

Background of the Case
According to the complaint, the United States alleges that Mr DiCiurcio operated small unmanned aircraft systems (“sUAS”), commonly referred to as drones, illegally and unsafely in the Philadelphia area from December 2019 onwards. Notable alleged violations include:
1. Night-time flights without proper authorisation.
2. Flying in close proximity to landmark buildings, including the William Penn Statue, the PSFS Building, and Liberty One Building—once nearly striking a church steeple.
3. Operating in controlled airspace near Philadelphia airport without permission, and over people and cars.
4. Losing control of a drone, causing it to fly uncontrolled over Philadelphia.
The FAA had previously issued written warnings to Mr DiCiurcio, offering counselling and education regarding sUAS regulations. Despite these efforts, the government contends that Mr DiCiurcio continued to fly drones in a manner deemed careless, reckless, and endangering public safety.

Terms of the Consent Judgment
On 23 January 2025, before Magistrate Judge Jose Arteaga, Mr DiCiurcio agreed to a consent judgment that includes several key terms:
1. Admissions of Liability
o Mr DiCiurcio admits that the allegations in the Verified Complaint are both true and accurate, and that they constitute violations of FAA regulations.
2. Permanent Ban on Drone Operations
o Mr DiCiurcio agrees never to operate any sUAS in the United States in any capacity, nor to seek any form of certification or licence to do so.
3. Removal of Online Content
o Mr DiCiurcio must take down his “Philly Drone Life” YouTube channel and is prohibited from reviving its content in any form.
4. Abandonment of Equipment
o He relinquishes ownership of the sUAS and related items previously surrendered to the FAA.
Chief Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg signed the consent judgment on 29 January 2025.

Enforcement and Commentary
FAA Deputy Administrator Katie Thomson emphasised that while the agency strives to educate drone operators, it will not hesitate to take stringent enforcement action when individuals “deliberately flout the rules.”
U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Jacqueline C. Romero, reiterated that failing to observe sUAS regulations endangers people and property. The authorities involved have made it clear that they intend to take firm action against drone operators who disregard safety protocols and regulatory requirements.
It is important to note that, as is typical in a civil proceeding, all allegations remain just that—allegations—until liability is formally established. In this instance, Mr DiCiurcio has effectively acknowledged those allegations by agreeing to the judgment.

Lessons for UK Drone Operators
Although this case unfolded in the United States, the lessons are equally pertinent for drone enthusiasts and professional operators here in the UK:
1. Know Your Regulations
o In the UK, drone operations are governed by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA). There are specific requirements based on the weight category of your drone and the environment in which you intend to fly (e.g., near airports, above crowds). Understanding these regulations is paramount.
2. Obtain the Necessary Permissions
o Just as the FAA requires authorisations for certain flights, UK law may also demand operational authorisations for flights in congested areas or controlled airspace. Always seek the appropriate permission before taking off.
3. Heed Warnings and Guidance
o If you ever receive a caution or formal notice from a regulatory body, treat it seriously. As illustrated by this case, repeated violations—particularly after being warned—can escalate into severe legal consequences.
4. Operate Safely and Responsibly
o Safety should always be at the forefront of every flight. This includes maintaining control of your sUAS, respecting no-fly zones, and refraining from operating drones while distracted or in hazardous conditions.

Conclusion
The consent judgment against Mr DiCiurcio underscores the serious consequences drone operators may face if they wilfully violate aviation regulations. For those of us practising and flying drones in the UK, it serves as a timely reminder to remain vigilant, operate responsibly, and stay fully abreast of ever-evolving drone laws.
While national regulations may differ, the underlying principle is universal: drones must be flown safely, ethically, and in compliance with applicable rules. Failing to do so jeopardises both the public and the future of drone innovation.

About the Author
Richard Ryan is a UK-based Direct Access Barrister specialising in drone and aviation law, advising on regulatory compliance, operational approvals, and dispute resolution. With extensive experience navigating the complexities of both UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) regulations and international drone frameworks, Richard assists private clients, commercial operators, and industry stakeholders alike. Passionate about emerging technologies, Richard frequently speaks and writes on the legal aspects of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) operations, promoting safe, responsible, and innovative drone use. When he’s not in chambers, Richard is deeply engaged in exploring the latest developments in drone technology and advocating for robust regulatory standards that balance innovation with public safety.

Disclaimer: This blog is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have specific questions about drone operations and regulatory compliance in the UK, please consult a qualified drone lawyer at Blakiston’s Chambers.

The post Consent Judgment Entered Against Philadelphia Drone Flyer for Violations of FAA Regulations appeared first on Blakistons.

Transforming UK Airspace: A New Era for Drones and Aviation with NATS OpenAir

admin.richard — Tue, 26 Nov 2024 13:01:36 +0000

Transforming UK Airspace: A New Era for Drones and Aviation with NATS OpenAir

By Richard Ryan, Drone Lawyer

The skies over the UK are on the verge of a transformative shift, thanks to the ambitious NATS OpenAir initiative. Designed to integrate drones and advanced air mobility (eVTOLs) into shared airspace alongside traditional aircraft, the proposal promises innovation, efficiency, and safety. But as with any grand vision, the devil is in the detail.
Here’s an in-depth look at what the OpenAir initiative is getting right, where there are gaps, and how it can evolve to meet the needs of all airspace users.
________________________________________
1. Prioritising Data Privacy and Ownership

One of the most valuable resources in aviation is data. For drone operators, who depend on real-time information about flight paths, weather, and airspace restrictions, access to reliable data is critical. However, the OpenAir proposal is light on specifics about who owns the data and how privacy will be protected.
Without clear protections, drone operators might worry about their data being exploited—whether commercially or in ways that jeopardise their competitive edge.

The Fix:
OpenAir must adopt a clear data privacy framework. Operators should retain ownership of their data, with mandatory anonymisation for any information shared beyond essential safety and operational use. Only the bare minimum of data required for regulatory compliance should be shared, and stringent safeguards must prevent its misuse.
________________________________________
2. Keeping the Playing Field Fair

OpenAir is envisioned as a centralised hub for managing UK airspace, which sounds great—until you consider the potential impact on smaller players. Consolidating services under one entity like OpenAir might inadvertently stifle competition among Uncrewed Traffic Management Service Providers (UTMSPs).

The Fix:
To level the playing field, OpenAir should adopt open standards that allow seamless third-party integration. Smaller UTMSPs must be supported, not sidelined. Clear rules around equitable access to data and services will ensure innovation thrives without creating monopolies.
________________________________________
3. Setting Realistic Timelines

Integrating drones and eVTOLs into shared airspace isn’t a simple task. OpenAir’s proposed rollout timeline—beginning pilots in 2025 and achieving full deployment by 2028—might be overly ambitious, especially given the complexity of regulatory approvals and the need for robust infrastructure.

The Fix:
A phased approach with realistic benchmarks is the way forward. OpenAir should focus on pilot projects in key areas where demand is highest (e.g., urban delivery drones or emergency medical services). This would provide valuable data to refine the system while reducing the risk of rushed implementation.
________________________________________
4. Managing Costs for Drone Operators

OpenAir’s “user pays” principle makes sense in theory—those who use the airspace services should cover the costs. But smaller operators, such as local delivery drone companies, could be disproportionately affected by high fees, potentially pricing them out of the market.

The Fix:
Introduce tiered pricing. Small operators should pay less, at least during the initial phases. Alternatively, subsidies or credits could be offered to early adopters, ensuring fair access while fostering adoption across the board.
________________________________________
5. Addressing Legal Grey Areas

OpenAir aligns with the UK’s Airspace Modernisation Strategy, but its relationship with existing regulations like CAP 722 (which governs drone operations) needs to be crystal clear. Ambiguities in compliance requirements could delay approvals or lead to legal disputes.
Similarly, liability concerns loom large. If there’s a system outage or data error, who’s responsible for the fallout? Drone operators? OpenAir? The CAA? NATS? DfT?

The Fix:
OpenAir must explicitly state how its services integrate with CAP 722, especially for critical areas like Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations. As for liability, service agreements must clearly define responsibilities, ensuring all parties—operators, OpenAir, and regulators—understand their obligations.
________________________________________
6. Building Trust Through Transparency

For OpenAir to succeed, trust is key. Stakeholders—including drone operators, regulators, and public service agencies—must feel confident in the system’s fairness and security.

The Fix:
Establish an independent advisory board with representatives from all key groups, including Blakiston’s Chambers! This board would oversee the rollout of OpenAir, ensuring transparency and accountability. Regular public updates and feedback sessions would further build trust and address concerns early.
________________________________________
7. Looking to the Future

The potential of OpenAir is undeniable. By creating a unified platform for managing UK airspace, it could unlock opportunities ranging from efficient logistics to life-saving medical deliveries. But to truly succeed, OpenAir must:
1. Prioritise data privacy and ownership.
2. Ensure fair competition for all service providers.
3. Adopt a phased, realistic rollout plan.
4. Keep costs manageable for smaller operators.
5. Align with existing regulations like CAP 722.
6. Address liability concerns upfront.
7. Foster trust through transparency and stakeholder engagement.

The skies above us are changing, and with thoughtful planning, OpenAir could make the UK a global leader in integrated airspace management. But to get there, it must balance ambition with practicality, ensuring the system works for everyone—from global eVTOL operators to local delivery drones.
________________________________________
What do you think about the OpenAir proposal? Share your thoughts, especially if you’re a drone operator or part of the aviation industry. Your feedback could shape the future of our skies!

About the Author
Richard Ryan is a UK-based barrister and drone law expert with over 20 years of legal experience. Specializing in regulatory, operational, and safety challenges, Richard advises defence companies, regulatory bodies, and government agencies on the complexities of UAS operations. A former advisor to the UK Civil Aviation Authority and the House of Lords’ AUTMA committee, Richard is currently pursuing a PhD at Cranfield University, focusing on the legal implications of drone integration into global airspace.
Richard combines his legal expertise with a deep understanding of defence operations, having served in the British Army, including deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. His insights bridge the gap between operational realities and legal requirements, ensuring clients navigate the rapidly evolving world of drone technology with confidence.

The post Transforming UK Airspace: A New Era for Drones and Aviation with NATS OpenAir appeared first on Blakistons.

What’s relevant for Drone Operators when the drone crashes – lessons learned from Alauda Airspeeder MkII?

zeroabove — Wed, 24 Feb 2021 15:49:39 +0000

Having reviewed the 65 pages of the AAIB-25876 report in respect of the Alauda Airspeeder MkII owned by Riotplan Proprietary Limited trading as Alauda Racing crash on 4 July 2019 at Goodwood Aerodrome, the following comments are relevant:

1.There is reference to the commanders flying experience in hours, which included the last 90 days and the last 28 days. Are your records up-to-date?

2. The operators Operating Safety Case (OSC) contained several statements that were shown to be untrue. What does your OSC state?

3. In this case the CAA did not meet the operator or inspect the UA before the accident flight. Why not invite the CAA to inspect your platform so that you have it on record?

4. The CAA were not present at the test flight. Why not invite the CAA to attend the test flight?

5. The UA sustained damage to its landing gear as a consequence of loss of power on a test flight the day before the accident. Under the regulations, the OSC and the exemption provided by the CAA, this was supposed to have been reported, but was not. If in doubt, report?

6. Observing on the day in question, were two members of the CAA’s UAS unit, who were involved in assessing the operator’s application for exemption.

7. At the CAA UAS unit the section lead was a signatory on the exemption and he joined the CAA in May 2018. There have been numerous questions on resources that pertain to the CAA UAS unit. This is further endorsed by report which states “the CAA stated that the level of resources available meant it was not possible for the UA sector team to follow up every exemption.”

8. The CAA asked the Australian Civil Aviation Authority for further information, which does not appear to have been provided. However, the AAIB did ask CASA, and some information was provided. Does this mean that regulators will only correspond in the event of a serious incident? This is certainly going to become much more relevant for those drone operators that are operating in EU jurisdictions and how the EU intends to harmonise information in the future in order to allow drone operators to fly in different jurisdictions when qualified in another. It will be interesting to see how the UK intends to accept drone operators from the EU based upon UK regulations as these regulations may diverged in the future;

9. If you have a number of transmitters as part of your OSC that relate to redundancy, don’t leave them in the workshop!

10. The AAIB will appoint experts to examine certain aspects of the UA. In this case, experts were used to examine the circuit boards for compliance and specialist video forensic examiners using photogrammetry (interestingly from video, the expert was able to determine the UA’s heading, ground speed and altitude);

11. The AAIB compared this UA’s manufacture to EASA’s Special Conditions that relate to gliders with electric propulsion units and associated high-voltage batteries. In the event that there is an absence of regulation, comparisons will be made to other similar regulatory standards;

12. When writing mitigation measures for single points of failure, be mindful that if there is a failure in radio link communication that the UA will continue flying using its last known command. Interestingly, in this case there was no consideration on the effect of a kill switch not operating and that the hazard of a “flyaway” was not considered;

13. As a drone operator, do not state that your system has a return to home function when no GPS is fitted to the UA!

14. From an operator’s perspective, the operator in this case appears to make the admission that there was insufficient time and resources to adequately test and stabilise their equipment in unfamiliar surroundings. Additionally they stated that the team were all relatively inexperienced with aviation systems, procedures, required documentation and the need to formally understand and adhere to these processes. These are significant statements that underline the culture of an organisation in its approach to safe use of equipment and its emphasis on providing necessary training. Do your teams understand the legal obligations that relate to your operational authorisation and/or OSC?

15. As of August 2020, there are over 106,000 registered UA operators in the UK and over 45,000 operators flying model aircraft. That is a significant number of operators that require relevant training and understanding of their legal obligations;

16. According to the drones reunited website, the CAA state that most flyaways occur due to battery loss, poor signal, or a technology failure and some of this is also down to pilot error. It is essential that these aspects are covered in your risk assessment;

17. There are a number of amendments with respect to safety recommendations to CAP 722, which are:

1. detailed evaluation of any unmanned aircraft systems that use on-board systems to mitigate risks with risk severity classifications of “major, hazardous or catastrophic.”
2. guidance on the planning, completion and documenting of radiofrequency surveys to reduce the risk of radio-frequency interference or signal loss when operating unmanned aircraft systems;
3. unmanned aircraft system operators that use unmanned aircraft which rely on a radiolinks to operate safety systems are to provide radiofrequency survey reports to the CAA for review;
4. guidance on how to define an unmanned aircraft systems operational and safety areas, using up-to-date maps, accurate trajectory analysis and human automated safety system reaction times to ensure a safe operation;
5. the CAA are to provide examples of unmanned aircraft system safety systems;
6. the report recommends that the CAA introduce requirements to define a minimum standard for safety systems to be installed in unmanned aircraft systems operating under an operational authorisation to ensure adequate mitigation in the event of a malfunction;
7. data recording systems which are capable of demonstrating compliance with the authorisations conditions, safe operation and the logging of any failures which may affect the safe operation of the unmanned aircraft system are to be required;
8. minimum requirements for the monitoring of high-voltage stored energy devices to ensure safety of operations are recommended;
9. operators of unmanned aircraft systems should have an effective safety management system in place prior to issuing an operational authorisation;
10. expect an inspection from the CAA when seeking an operational authorisation for an unmanned aircraft system that the CAA have not previously had experience with;
11. expect the CAA to adopt appropriate design, production, maintenance and reliability standards for all unmanned aircraft systems with aircraft capable of imparting over 80 J of energy, the same recommendation is made to EASA. It will be interesting to see how this develops within the new CE marking regime that is to apply in the future;

This is a really useful case study for drone operators to consider. It certainly is a timely reminder to make sure that your operational safety cases and/or OSC’s are up-to-date and that all the staff that are involved in your operation are cognisant of their legal obligations with respect to the regulations, the OSC and the exemption provided by the Civil Aviation Authority. If you have any questions about this or any other legal issues, please email info@blakistons.com

The post What’s relevant for Drone Operators when the drone crashes – lessons learned from Alauda Airspeeder MkII? appeared first on Blakistons.

Legal Framework of UTM for UAS – 2020 Digital Avionics Systems Conference

zeroabove — Wed, 23 Dec 2020 13:07:52 +0000

2020 Digital Avionics Systems Conference

UTM Operational Concept

The legal framework for UTM (Unmanned aircraft system Traffic Management) will need to develop as regulators grapple with issues that relate to legal responsibility and accountability as the proliferation of drones increases.

Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Traffic Management (UTM) Enabling Civilian Low-altitude Airspace and Unmanned Aircraft System Operations.

What is the problem?

Many beneficial civilian applications of the UAS have been proposed, that include goods delivery, medical deliveries, infrastructure surveillance, search and rescue and agricultural monitoring. Currently, there is no established UTM infrastructure to enable and safely manage the widespread use of BVLOS low-altitude airspace and UAS operations, regardless of the type of UAS.

To read the full article click here.

The post Legal Framework of UTM for UAS – 2020 Digital Avionics Systems Conference appeared first on Blakistons.

Commercial and recreational drone use in the UK

zeroabove — Mon, 11 Nov 2019 15:27:23 +0000

This is a report published by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee in October 2019. The government has been busy to the many aspects of drones and finally is taking some positive measures.

The report focuses on current regulations, primarily under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and the Air Navigation Order 2016, as amended in 2018 (Order 2019 No.261).

It is now for most, common knowledge that Flight Restriction Zones (FRZ) exist around airports and is now 5Km, increased from 1Km. It was a concern for Air Traffic Control operators that by increasing the disctance it would capture more drone pilots flying their drones and calling the ATC asking for permission to fly, thereby increasing the workload of those ATC operators. It is clear that there is an inconsistent approach by ATC’s in how they deal with drone operators and some taking an inordinate amount of time to approve such a request. Some ATC’s are levying charges for permission!

The report refers to forthcoming regulation and names the Drones Bill, which passage on to the statute books has been halted due to Brexit and a General Election. However, there will be new legislation that was mentioned in the recent Queen’s Speech, namely the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Bill. The new bill does include to an extent what the original drones bill was going to include:

Drone registration;
Remote pilot competency;
Personal details of drone operators.

The consensus around registration is that law abiding professional drone operators will at some poiint engage in registration, however those wishing to act illegally shall not, a point which was acknowledged by the CAA. The report recommends that those operators that avoid registration should be subject to a sliding scale of penalties for failure to register, starting with a warning, and culminating in a fine and a prison sentence. You have been warned!

The post Commercial and recreational drone use in the UK appeared first on Blakistons.