<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Legal Insights Archives - Blakistons</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blakistons.co.uk/category/legal-insights/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blakistons.co.uk/category/legal-insights/</link>
	<description>Drone Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Nov 2025 16:25:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-GB</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>How Europe’s new AI rulebook would (and wouldn’t) touch autonomous combat aircraft—and what the defence carve?outs really mean</title>
		<link>https://blakistons.co.uk/how-europes-new-ai-rulebook-would-and-wouldnt-touch-autonomous-combat-aircraft-and-what-the-defence-carveouts-really-mean/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin.richard]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2025 18:28:20 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[AI and Drone Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AI Governance and Ethics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AI Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AI Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Airspace Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Airspace Management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Airspace Management and UTM Systems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Artificial Intelligence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Autonomous Systems]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Autonomous Systems in Aviation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aviation Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aviation Law and Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aviation Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aviation Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aviation Safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aviation Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aviation Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Aviation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defence]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defence Procurement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defence Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Defense Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EASA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emerging Technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Emerging Technologies in Logistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU AI Act Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU Regulations and Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Union Policy Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Future Trends]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government Reports]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[High-Risk AI Applications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Analysis and Recommendations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Challenges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Conflicts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Frameworks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Implications of AI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Insights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Insights for Drone Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Local Government Policies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Local Government Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Procurement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulations and Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory and Legal Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory Compliance Strategies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory Oversight]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Risk Assessment & Mitigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Risk Management and Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Safety and Risk Management - Emphasizes safety protocols]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Safety and Security in Aviation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tech Law and Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technological Innovations in Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology and Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Aviation Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Defence Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Government Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[autonomous fighters]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[biometric identification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CE marking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defence law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drone law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU AI Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU aviation law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GA-ASI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GPAI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[high-risk AI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Fighter Conference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[manned-unmanned teaming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[real-world testing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rome]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAS]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blakistons.co.uk/?p=2624</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Richard Ryan, barrister and drone lawyer How Europe’s new AI rulebook would (and wouldn’t) touch autonomous combat aircraft — and what the defence carve-outs really mean. In Brief&#8230; Purely military AI systems are out of scope of the EU AI Act. If an AI system is developed or used exclusively for military/defence or national-security [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk/how-europes-new-ai-rulebook-would-and-wouldnt-touch-autonomous-combat-aircraft-and-what-the-defence-carveouts-really-mean/">How Europe’s new AI rulebook would (and wouldn’t) touch autonomous combat aircraft—and what the defence carve?outs really mean</a> appeared first on <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk">Blakistons</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!-- Begin blog content (no title; WordPress provides its own) --></p>
<div>
By Richard Ryan, barrister and drone lawyer </p>
<p><em>How Europe’s new AI rulebook would (and wouldn’t) touch autonomous combat aircraft — and what the defence carve-outs really mean.</em></p>
<hr />
<h3>In Brief&#8230;</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Purely military AI systems are out of scope</strong> of the EU AI Act. If an AI system is <strong>developed or used exclusively for military/defence or national-security purposes</strong>, the Act does not apply. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</li>
<li><strong>Dual-use is different.</strong> If the same autonomy stack, sensors or models are marketed or used for <strong>civilian</strong> purposes in the EU (for example, civil UAS, border or law-enforcement tasks), the Act can apply — with stringent duties for “high-risk” systems. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</li>
<li><strong>Real-world testing is regulated.</strong> Pre-market R&amp;D is generally excluded, <strong>but real-world testing isn’t</strong> — it requires specific safeguards and registration. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</li>
<li><strong>Foundation models (GPAI)</strong> have their own rules from <strong>2 Aug 2025</strong>; the defence carve-out in the Act is written for <strong>AI systems</strong>, not explicitly for <strong>models</strong>. If a model is placed on the EU market generally, the provider’s GPAI obligations can still bite. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</li>
</ul>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Context:</strong> sUAS News reports that GA-ASI is showcasing its autonomous fighter portfolio (for example, YFQ-42A CCA, MQ-20 Avenger) at the International Fighter Conference in Rome, 4–6 Nov 2025. This post overlays that scenario with the EU AI Act’s rules.</p>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<h2>1) First principles: When does the EU AI Act apply?</h2>
<p>The Act has <strong>extraterritorial reach</strong>. It covers (i) providers and deployers in the EU, (ii) providers placing on the EU market or putting systems into service in the EU — even if they are not established here — and (iii) providers/deployers in third countries <strong>where the AI system’s output is used in the EU</strong>. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</p>
<p>However, <strong>Article 2(3)</strong> draws a bright line: the Act <strong>does not apply</strong> to <strong>AI systems used exclusively</strong> for <strong>military, defence or national security</strong>. It also does not apply where a system is <strong>not</strong> placed on the EU market but its <strong>output is used in the EU exclusively</strong> for those purposes. Recital 24 reiterates this and clarifies that <strong>non-defence use falls back under the Act</strong>. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</p>
<p><strong>What this means in Rome:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>A <strong>closed, defence-only</strong> showcase for European militaries: <strong>out of scope</strong>.</li>
<li>A <strong>civil-use pitch</strong>, civil flight trials, or plans to sell autonomy modules to <strong>EU civilian buyers</strong>: <strong>in scope</strong> (see the high-risk section below). (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<h2>2) The key defence carve-outs (and their limits)</h2>
<p><strong>Carve-out #1 — Defence/military:</strong></p>
<blockquote>
<p>“This Regulation shall not apply to AI systems … used exclusively for military, defence or national security purposes.” (Article 2(3))</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Two important nuances:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Exclusivity matters.</strong> The moment an autonomy stack or sensor suite is also <strong>marketed or used for civilian</strong> or law-enforcement tasks, the <strong>defence exclusion no longer shields those non-defence uses</strong>. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</li>
<li><strong>Models vs systems.</strong> The text explicitly excludes <strong>AI systems</strong> for defence; it <strong>does not create an explicit defence exclusion for general-purpose AI models</strong>. If a <strong>GPAI model</strong> is <strong>placed on the EU market</strong>, Chapter V obligations for model providers can still apply — even if one downstream customer is a defence user. (More on GPAI below.) (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Carve-out #2 — Pre-market R&amp;D:</strong><br />
  R&amp;D <strong>before</strong> placing on the market is generally outside scope, <strong>but real-world testing is not</strong>. Testing in real-world conditions triggers a dedicated regime (for example, registration, time limits, informed consent or special conditions for law enforcement, incident reporting). (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</p>
<p><strong>Carve-out #3 — Emergency derogations (non-defence):</strong><br />
  For <strong>exceptional public-security reasons</strong> (or imminent threats to life/health), <strong>market surveillance authorities</strong> can authorise <strong>temporary use</strong> of a high-risk AI system <strong>before</strong> full conformity assessment — subject to strict conditions. Law-enforcement or civil-protection bodies can also use in urgent cases, then seek authorisation without undue delay. This is <strong>not</strong> a defence-specific carve-out, but it explains emergency deployments outside the military context. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</p>
<hr />
<h2>3) If the defence exclusion doesn’t apply, would autonomous fighters tech be “high-risk”?</h2>
<p>Very likely <strong>yes</strong> — for <strong>civil</strong> variants or dual-use spin-outs:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Annex I (product-safety route).</strong> AI that is a <strong>safety component</strong> of products covered by sectoral EU safety laws is <strong>high-risk</strong> where those products need <strong>third-party conformity assessment</strong>. That list <strong>explicitly includes EU civil aviation law (Reg. 2018/1139)</strong> — covering <strong>unmanned aircraft</strong> and their remotely controllable equipment. In a civil-UAS configuration, an autonomy stack acting as a safety component would be regulated as <strong>high-risk</strong>. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</li>
<li><strong>Annex III (stand-alone uses).</strong> Separate “high-risk” buckets also capture, for example, <strong>remote biometric identification</strong> and other sensitive functions (if and where permitted by Union/national law), <strong>critical infrastructure</strong> safety components, and more. If a fighter-born sensing suite were repurposed for <strong>civil border surveillance</strong> or <strong>public-space identification</strong>, you quickly hit these Annex III categories. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>What “high-risk” demands in practice</strong><br />
  Providers must implement a <strong>risk-management system</strong>, <strong>data governance</strong>, <strong>technical documentation</strong>, <strong>logging</strong>, <strong>transparency/instructions</strong>, <strong>human oversight</strong>, and <strong>accuracy/robustness/cybersecurity</strong> — then pass <strong>conformity assessment</strong>, issue an <strong>EU Declaration of Conformity</strong>, and affix <strong>CE marking</strong>. Deployers also carry duties (for example, monitoring, data relevance, user notification in some cases). (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</p>
<hr />
<h2>4) Sensors on show: what about face recognition and other “red lines”?</h2>
<p>The <strong>EU bans</strong> several AI practices outright (from <strong>2 Feb 2025</strong>), including:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Untargeted scraping</strong> of facial images to build recognition databases.</li>
<li><strong>Biometric categorisation</strong> inferring sensitive traits (for example, race, political opinions, religion).</li>
<li><strong>Emotion recognition</strong> in workplaces or schools (with narrow safety/medical exceptions).</li>
<li><strong>Predictive “risk assessments”</strong> of criminality based solely on personality traits/profiling.</li>
<li><strong>Real-time remote biometric identification (RBI) in public spaces for law enforcement</strong> — <strong>unless</strong> strictly authorised and necessary for narrowly defined objectives (for example, locating a specific suspect in serious crimes, preventing a specific imminent threat, finding missing persons), with prior judicial/independent approval and registration. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Implication for a trade-show demo:</strong> training a camera on attendees to test <strong>real-time RBI</strong> in a public venue would <strong>likely be unlawful</strong> unless those strict law-enforcement exceptions and procedural safeguards apply — which they typically <strong>will not</strong> at a commercial defence conference. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</p>
<hr />
<h2>5) Real-world testing in the EU (civil or dual-use variants)</h2>
<p>If a provider runs <strong>real-world flight tests</strong> in the EU (outside the defence exclusion), the Act requires — among other things — <strong>registration</strong>, an EU-established entity or <strong>EU legal representative</strong>, limits on <strong>duration</strong> (normally up to six months, extendable once), rules on <strong>informed consent</strong> (with special handling for law-enforcement tests), <strong>qualified oversight</strong>, and the ability to <strong>reverse/ignore</strong> the system’s outputs. <strong>Serious incidents</strong> must be reported promptly. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</p>
<hr />
<h2>6) Foundation models (GPAI): obligations can still attach</h2>
<p>From <strong>2 Aug 2025</strong>, <strong>Chapter V</strong> sets <strong>baseline transparency and copyright-policy duties</strong> for <strong>providers of general-purpose AI models</strong> (with extra obligations if the model presents <strong>systemic risks</strong>). The defence exclusion in Article 2(3) is framed for <strong>AI systems</strong>, not <strong>models</strong>. So, if a foundation model is <strong>placed on the EU market</strong>, the <strong>model provider</strong> can have obligations even if a downstream customer is a defence prime. (Open-source specifics and systemic-risk thresholds also apply.) (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</p>
<hr />
<h2>7) Timelines you need in Rome (as of 6 Nov 2025)</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Entry into force:</strong> 1 Aug 2024 (20 days after OJ publication).</li>
<li><strong>Prohibited practices + core chapters (I–II):</strong> apply from <strong>2 Feb 2025</strong>.</li>
<li><strong>GPAI rules (Chapter V), plus other chapters (III §4, VII, XII, and Article 78):</strong> apply from <strong>2 Aug 2025</strong>.</li>
<li><strong>General application:</strong> <strong>2 Aug 2026</strong> (high-risk regime starts to bite broadly).</li>
<li><strong>Article 6(1) Annex III classification trigger &amp; related obligations:</strong> <strong>2 Aug 2027</strong>. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<h2>8) Enforcement and penalties</h2>
<ul>
<li>Violating <strong>prohibited practices</strong> (Article 5) can draw fines up to <strong>€35m or 7%</strong> of worldwide annual turnover, whichever is higher.</li>
<li>Other operator obligations can reach <strong>€15m or 3%</strong>; supplying <strong>misleading information</strong> can reach <strong>€7.5m or 1%</strong> (SMEs benefit from caps). Separate fine scales apply to EU institutions. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<h2>9) Practical playbook for IFC attendees</h2>
<p><strong>If you are a defence OEM showing autonomy stacks:</strong></p>
<ol>
<li><strong>Map uses</strong>: Defence-only (excluded) vs <strong>any civil or law-enforcement</strong> pathways (potentially in scope). Document the <strong>exclusivity</strong> of defence deployments if you rely on the carve-out. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</li>
<li><strong>GPAI suppliers</strong>: If you place a <strong>foundation model</strong> on the EU market, expect <strong>Chapter V</strong> duties regardless of defence customers. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</li>
<li><strong>No RBI demos</strong> on the show floor. Those prohibitions already apply in 2025. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</li>
<li><strong>Planning EU flight tests</strong> for civil variants? Prepare for <strong>real-world testing</strong> conditions (registration, oversight, incident reporting). (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</li>
<li>For <strong>civil UAS commercialisation</strong>, treat your autonomy as <strong>high-risk</strong> (EASA product-safety route), budget time for <strong>conformity assessment</strong> and <strong>CE marking</strong>. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>If you are a European ministry or agency:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Distinguish <strong>military operations</strong> (out of scope) from <strong>law-enforcement or border</strong> uses (in scope; watch <strong>RBI</strong> limits and high-risk duties). Consider <strong>Article 46</strong> emergency derogations only in <strong>exceptional</strong> and <strong>documented</strong> cases. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>If you are a civil UAS integrator:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Expect the full <strong>high-risk</strong> package (risk management, data governance, human oversight, cybersecurity, logs, conformity assessment, CE). Build compliance into your <strong>system architecture</strong>, <strong>ML pipelines</strong>, <strong>safety cases</strong>, and <strong>ops manuals</strong> from day one. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</li>
</ul>
<hr />
<h2>10) Quick decision pathway</h2>
<ol>
<li><strong>Is the use exclusively defence or national security?</strong><br />
      Yes: AI <strong>system</strong> is <strong>out of scope</strong>.<br />
      No: continue. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)
    </li>
<li><strong>Is it a civil product or law-enforcement/border use?</strong><br />
      Civil product with safety function (for example, civil UAS): <strong>High-risk</strong> via <strong>Annex I</strong> ? conformity assessment + CE. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)<br />
      Stand-alone sensitive use (for example, RBI, critical infrastructure): <strong>Annex III</strong> high-risk or <strong>Article 5</strong> prohibition applies. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)
    </li>
<li><strong>Is there a GPAI model being placed on the EU market?</strong><br />
      Yes: <strong>Chapter V</strong> duties for <strong>model providers</strong> from <strong>2 Aug 2025</strong>, separate from the defence carve-out for systems. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)
    </li>
<li><strong>Is this pre-market testing?</strong><br />
      <strong>Real-world testing</strong> rules apply (registration, oversight, incident reporting). (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)
    </li>
</ol>
<hr />
<h3>Bottom line for “Autonomous Fighters in Rome”</h3>
<ul>
<li>A <strong>military-only</strong> display of GA-ASI’s autonomous fighters is <strong>outside</strong> the AI Act.</li>
<li>Any <strong>civil</strong> spin-off (cargo drones, civil surveillance, airport ops) or <strong>law-enforcement</strong> application in the EU will trigger the Act — often at the <strong>high-risk</strong> level — together with <strong>tight prohibitions</strong> around biometric uses in public spaces. Plan your <strong>compliance architecture</strong> accordingly. (<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ%3AL_202401689" target="_blank" rel="noopener">EUR-Lex</a>)</li>
</ul>
<p><em>This article is informational and not legal advice. Citations are to the Official Journal text of the <strong>Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689)</strong> for scope (Art. 2), prohibitions (Art. 5), high-risk regime (Ch. III), real-world testing (Arts. 57–61), GPAI (Ch. V incl. Art. 53), timelines (Art. 113), and penalties (Art. 99–101).</em></p>
<hr />
<section aria-label="Author bio">
<p><strong>About the author — Richard Ryan</strong></p>
<p>Richard Ryan is a UK barrister (Direct Access), mediator and Chartered Arbitrator (FCIArb), and a Bencher of Gray’s Inn. He practises across defence, aerospace, construction, engineering and commodities, with a leading specialism in drone and counter-drone law, unmanned aviation regulation, and AI-enabled safety and compliance. Richard advises government, primes and operators on EU/UK UAS frameworks, BVLOS, U-space/UTM and the EU AI Act. He leads Blakiston’s Chambers and contributes regularly to industry guidance and policy consultations.</p>
</section>
</div>
<p><!-- End blog content --></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk/how-europes-new-ai-rulebook-would-and-wouldnt-touch-autonomous-combat-aircraft-and-what-the-defence-carveouts-really-mean/">How Europe’s new AI rulebook would (and wouldn’t) touch autonomous combat aircraft—and what the defence carve?outs really mean</a> appeared first on <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk">Blakistons</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Constructive Outcome for Safer Skies: What the Client’s Case Means for UK Drone Pilots</title>
		<link>https://blakistons.co.uk/a-constructive-outcome-for-safer-skies-what-the-clients-case-means-for-uk-drone-pilots/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin.richard]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Nov 2025 17:53:49 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Aviation Law and Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aviation Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aviation Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) Operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BVLOS Operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Drone Operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Accidents & Case Studies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Incidents]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Industry Challenges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Industry Concerns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Industry News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Innovation and Trends]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Law - As the article provides legal insights specific to drone operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Law - Covers legal aspects and compliance specific to drone operations and incidents.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drone operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Operators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Safety and Operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Future of Drone Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Insurance and Liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Analysis and Recommendations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Challenges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Challenges in Drone Operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Conflicts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Frameworks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Insights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Insights for Drone Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulations and Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory and Legal Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory Compliance - Focuses on the importance of adherence to regulatory guidelines and consequences of violations.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory Compliance - Includes insights on compliance with FAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Risk Assessment & Mitigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Safety and Security in Aviation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technological Innovations in Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAS Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAV Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAVs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Drone Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK drone policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Drone Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorised]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unmanned Aircraft Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blakistons.co.uk/?p=2615</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Richard Ryan, barrister and drone lawyer Constructive outcome, practical lessons. A technical proximity breach was confirmed, a more serious allegation was dismissed, and there are clear takeaways that raise standards on evidence, cooperation and public safety. Outcome at a glance Count 1 (conviction): Operating an unmanned aircraft close to the site of an ongoing [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk/a-constructive-outcome-for-safer-skies-what-the-clients-case-means-for-uk-drone-pilots/">A Constructive Outcome for Safer Skies: What the Client’s Case Means for UK Drone Pilots</a> appeared first on <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk">Blakistons</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!-- Begin WordPress post content (no H1 included; WordPress will supply the title) --></p>
<p>By Richard Ryan, barrister and drone lawyer</p>
<p><strong>Constructive outcome, practical lessons.</strong> A technical proximity breach was confirmed, a more serious allegation was dismissed, and there are clear takeaways that raise standards on evidence, cooperation and public safety.</p>
<section aria-labelledby="outcome">
<h2 id="outcome">Outcome at a glance</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Count 1 (conviction):</strong> Operating an unmanned aircraft close to the site of an ongoing emergency response — <strong>Air Navigation Order 2016</strong> Articles <strong>265B(3)</strong>, <strong>265B(5)(j)</strong> and <strong>265F(3)(c)</strong> (reflecting <strong>UAS.OPEN.060(3)</strong>).</li>
<li><strong>Count 2 (dismissed):</strong> Obstructing or hindering emergency workers — <strong>Emergency Workers (Obstruction) Act 2006</strong>, sections <strong>1</strong> and <strong>4</strong> — no case to answer.</li>
<li><strong>Sentence:</strong> <strong>£300</strong> (reduced from <strong>£2,500</strong>). <strong>Deprivation order refused</strong> — the client’s equipment will be returned.</li>
</ul>
<p></strong>.</p>
</section>
<section aria-labelledby="background">
<h2 id="background">Competence, cooperation and public interest flying</h2>
<p>The client is an experienced operator with hundreds of hours and thousands of flights, combining sound aviation literacy with routine work around public interest incidents. On the day in question, the client used aircraft tracking tools and air band monitoring, maintained a conservative standoff where no formal cordon existed, and landed promptly when requested by police. This was a measured and safety first response in a dynamic setting.</p>
</section>
<section aria-labelledby="lesson-telemetry">
<h2 id="lesson-telemetry">Lesson 1: Telemetry clarity</h2>
<p>When presenting flight data, clarity matters. Plot the flight path with a <strong>thin, precise line</strong> so the <strong>base map remains legible</strong>, including fences, road edges, cordons and measured standoffs. A thick line can obscure the very features that prove separation.</p>
<ul>
<li>Keep a clean thin line map and a forensic overlay with timestamps for take off, orbit points, return to home and landing, plus measured distances to fixed features.</li>
<li>Use a thin line that clearly shows accurate telemetry when placed on a map, not a thick line that obscures part of the map.</li>
</ul>
<p>  <!-- Optional image placeholder:
  

<figure>
    <img decoding="async" src="telemetry-thin-vs-thick.png" alt="Thin flight path line keeps the base map legible; thick line obscures fences, roads and standoffs." loading="lazy" />
    
 
<figcaption>Thin versus thick telemetry overlays (illustrative).</figcaption>
 

  </figure>


  --><br />
</section>
<section aria-labelledby="lesson-dat">
<h2 id="lesson-dat">Lesson 2: Plan for seizure and understand where DJI DAT lives</h2>
<p>High fidelity <strong>DJI DAT</strong> logs are stored on the aircraft and typically require <strong>connecting the drone to a computer</strong> to extract. If a drone is seized by police, immediate access to those DAT files is difficult.</p>
<ul>
<li>Build redundancy: back up app and controller logs after each flight, use screen recordings of the flight user interface, and capture independent stills or video.</li>
<li>For sensitive assignments, consider periodic DAT offloads in advance.</li>
</ul>
</section>
<section aria-labelledby="commitments">
<h2 id="commitments">Five straightforward commitments</h2>
<ol>
<li>Thin line telemetry as the default for mapping outputs.</li>
<li>Evidence resilience: dual path logging (logs plus screen capture) and periodic DAT offloads.</li>
<li>Proportionate communications near emergency activity where appropriate.</li>
<li>A simple one page ops note on every job covering airspace, standoffs and abort triggers.</li>
<li>Calm, courteous engagement with officers, with a record of powers used and a property schedule if equipment is seized.</li>
</ol>
</section>
<section aria-labelledby="tech-ref">
<h2 id="tech-ref">Technical reference: cross motorway separation</h2>
<p>To contextualise the judge’s description (opposite side of a six lane motorway plus hard shoulder plus verge), the following uses standard UK dimensions.</p>
<h3>Assumptions from UK highway standards</h3>
<ul>
<li><strong>Lane width (motorways):</strong> 3.65 m per lane (DMRB CD 127). <a href="https://moderngov.fareham.gov.uk/documents/s27875/8.12%20DMRB%20CD127%20-%20Cross-sections%20and%20headrooms.pdf" rel="nofollow">[1]</a></li>
<li><strong>Hard shoulder width:</strong> 3.3 m (National Highways). <a href="https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-work/smart-motorways-evidence-stocktake/emergency-area-width-review/" rel="nofollow">[2]</a></li>
<li><strong>Central reservation (median):</strong> assume about 3.0 m (DMRB derived guidance). <a href="https://cdn.tii.ie/publications/DN-GEO-03036-01.pdf" rel="nofollow">[3]</a></li>
<li><strong>Verge:</strong> varies by site; on trunk roads, about 3.0 m is common. Use 2.0 to 3.0 m to bracket reality. <a href="https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/dmrb-stage-3-report-pass-of-birnam-to-tay-crossing-a9-dualling/engineering-assessment/" rel="nofollow">[4]</a></li>
</ul>
<h3>Baseline components</h3>
<ul>
<li>Six lanes = 6 x 3.65 = <strong>21.90 m</strong>. <a href="https://moderngov.fareham.gov.uk/documents/s27875/8.12%20DMRB%20CD127%20-%20Cross-sections%20and%20headrooms.pdf" rel="nofollow">[1]</a></li>
<li>Two hard shoulders = <strong>6.60 m</strong>. <a href="https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-work/smart-motorways-evidence-stocktake/emergency-area-width-review/" rel="nofollow">[2]</a></li>
<li>Central reservation (median) about <strong>3.00 m</strong>. <a href="https://cdn.tii.ie/publications/DN-GEO-03036-01.pdf" rel="nofollow">[3]</a></li>
<li>Verge per side about <strong>2.0 to 3.0 m</strong>. <a href="https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/dmrb-stage-3-report-pass-of-birnam-to-tay-crossing-a9-dualling/engineering-assessment/" rel="nofollow">[4]</a></li>
</ul>
<h3>Real world lateral separation (verge to verge)</h3>
<p><code>Distance = 6 lanes + 2 x hard shoulder + 2 x verge + median</code></p>
<ul>
<li>With 2.0 m verges (conservative): <strong>21.90 + 6.60 + 4.00 + 3.00 = 35.50 m</strong></li>
<li>With 3.0 m verges (typical): <strong>21.90 + 6.60 + 6.00 + 3.00 = 37.50 m</strong></li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Figure to use:</strong> about <strong>37.5 m</strong> horizontal separation verge to verge (typical). <strong>Lower bound:</strong> about <strong>35.5 m</strong> if verges are unusually narrow.</p>
<h3>Lean reading (narrow phrasing)</h3>
<p>Six lanes plus one hard shoulder plus one verge (omitting the median and the opposite side shoulder and verge):</p>
<p><code>21.90 + 3.30 + (2.0 to 3.0) = 27.2 to 28.2 m</code></p>
<p>This underestimates the physical cross section that most operators and engineers would use.</p>
<h3>Add altitude for slant distance</h3>
<p>If height is h, the slant range is <code>sqrt(lateral^2 + h^2)</code>.</p>
<ul>
<li>With 37.5 m lateral: <strong>48.0 m</strong> at 30 m AGL, <strong>70.8 m</strong> at 60 m, <strong>125.7 m</strong> at 120 m.</li>
<li>With 35.5 m lateral: <strong>46.5 m</strong> at 30 m, <strong>69.2 m</strong> at 60 m, <strong>124.2 m</strong> at 120 m.</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>Practical effect:</strong> even before adding any field offset inside the field beyond the verge, cross motorway separation is around 36 to 38 m. Any field offset adds to that figure. Slant range increases further with altitude.</p>
<p>Standards: <a href="https://moderngov.fareham.gov.uk/documents/s27875/8.12%20DMRB%20CD127%20-%20Cross-sections%20and%20headrooms.pdf" rel="nofollow">DMRB CD 127</a>, <a href="https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-work/smart-motorways-evidence-stocktake/emergency-area-width-review/" rel="nofollow">National Highways</a>, <a href="https://cdn.tii.ie/publications/DN-GEO-03036-01.pdf" rel="nofollow">TII DN GEO 03036</a>, <a href="https://www.transport.gov.scot/publication/dmrb-stage-3-report-pass-of-birnam-to-tay-crossing-a9-dualling/engineering-assessment/" rel="nofollow">Transport Scotland</a>.</p>
</section>
<section aria-labelledby="closing">
<h2 id="closing">Bottom line</h2>
<p>This is a constructive outcome. The most serious allegation fell away, the fine is modest, and the client retains their equipment. More importantly, the experience is being used to lead on best practice: clearer telemetry, stronger data resilience and exemplary on scene conduct, supporting emergency services, informing the public and keeping UK skies safe.</p>
</section>
<hr />
<section aria-labelledby="bio">
<h2 id="bio">About the author</h2>
<p><strong>Richard Ryan</strong> is a Barrister (Direct Access), Mediator and Chartered Arbitrator based in the UK, specialising in drone and counter-drone law, aviation regulation, and complex commercial disputes. He advises operators, insurers and public bodies on SORA/AAE approvals, BVLOS programmes, privacy/data governance, and risk allocation across the drone ecosystem.</p>
</section>
<p><em>This post is for general information only and is not legal advice.</em></p>
<p><!-- End WordPress post content --></p>
<p>The post <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk/a-constructive-outcome-for-safer-skies-what-the-clients-case-means-for-uk-drone-pilots/">A Constructive Outcome for Safer Skies: What the Client’s Case Means for UK Drone Pilots</a> appeared first on <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk">Blakistons</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>What the UK Drone Industry Can Learn from EASA’s Adoption of SORA 2.5</title>
		<link>https://blakistons.co.uk/what-the-uk-drone-industry-can-learn-from-easas-adoption-of-sora-2-5/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin.richard]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Sep 2025 10:57:46 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Aviation Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aviation Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Aviation Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BVLOS Operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAA guidelines]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Aviation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Commercial Drone Operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Corporate Governance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Industry Concerns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Industry News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Law - As the article provides legal insights specific to drone operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Law - Covers legal aspects and compliance specific to drone operations and incidents.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drone operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Operators]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EU Regulations and Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[European Union Policy Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Conflicts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Frameworks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Insights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Insights for Drone Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory and Legal Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory Compliance - Focuses on the importance of adherence to regulatory guidelines and consequences of violations.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory Compliance - Includes insights on compliance with FAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Risk Assessment & Mitigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Risk Management and Insurance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Safety and Risk Management - Emphasizes safety protocols]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Safety and Security in Aviation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tech Law and Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAS (Unmanned Aircraft Systems)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAS Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAV Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAVs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Aviation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Aviation Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Drone Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK drone policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Drone Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Government Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorised]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unmanned Aircraft Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UTM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UTM (Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bvlos uk]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drone law barrister]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drone operators compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Regulations UK]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[easa drone rules]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[osc applications]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sora 2.5]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[specific operations risk assessment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[uk caa drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Drone Law]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blakistons.co.uk/?p=2580</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>By Richard Ryan, Barrister &#038; 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 [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk/what-the-uk-drone-industry-can-learn-from-easas-adoption-of-sora-2-5/">What the UK Drone Industry Can Learn from EASA’s Adoption of SORA 2.5</a> appeared first on <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk">Blakistons</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!-- Blakiston's Chambers | SORA 2.5 Article --></p>
<section id="bc-sora-article" lang="en-GB">
<style>
    #bc-sora-article {
      --content-width: min(900px, 92vw);
      --pad: max(16px, 6vw);
      --text: #222222;
    }
    #bc-sora-article, #bc-sora-article * {
      box-sizing: border-box;
      color: var(--text) !important;
      font-family: Georgia, "Times New Roman", serif;
    }
    #bc-sora-article .bc-wrap {
      width: var(--content-width);
      margin: 0 auto;
      padding: 0 var(--pad);
    }
    #bc-sora-article .bc-meta {
      margin: .25rem auto 1.5rem;
      font-size: .95rem;
      opacity: .95;
    }
    #bc-sora-article article {
      line-height: 1.6;
      padding: 0 0 2.5rem;
    }
    #bc-sora-article h2 {
      margin-top: 2rem;
      font-size: 1.55rem;
      line-height: 1.35;
    }
    #bc-sora-article h3 {
      margin-top: 1.1rem;
      font-size: 1.2rem;
    }
    #bc-sora-article p { margin: .85rem 0; }
    #bc-sora-article ul,
    #bc-sora-article ol { margin: .6rem 0 1rem 1.25rem; }
    #bc-sora-article li { margin: .35rem 0; }
    #bc-sora-article .bc-callout {
      border-left: 4px solid var(--text);
      background: #f7f7f7;
      padding: .9rem 1rem;
      margin: 1.5rem 0;
    }
    #bc-sora-article .bc-foot {
      border-top: 1px solid #e6e6e6;
      padding: 1rem 0 2rem;
      font-size: .9rem;
      text-align: center;
      opacity: .9;
    }
  </style>
<p>  <!-- Meta line only --></p>
<div class="bc-wrap bc-meta">
    <span>By Richard Ryan, Barrister &#038; Drone Lawyer</span> •<br />
    <time datetime="2025-09-30">30th September 2025</time>
  </div>
<p>  <!-- Article body --></p>
<article class="bc-wrap" role="article">
<section id="intro">
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>On 29 September 2025, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) published <strong>ED Decision 2025/018/R</strong>, 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 <strong>Specific Operations Risk Assessment (SORA) 2.5</strong>, developed by the Joint Authorities for Rulemaking on Unmanned Systems (JARUS).</p>
<p>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.</p>
</section>
<section id="changes">
<h2>What Changed under SORA 2.5?</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Simplification of procedures:</strong> Ambiguities from earlier SORA versions have been removed, making it easier for operators and authorities to understand their obligations.</li>
<li><strong>Clarity of roles:</strong> 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.</li>
<li><strong>Terminology alignment:</strong> EU-specific terms replace JARUS wording. For instance, “EVLOS” has been dropped in favour of “BVLOS with airspace observer”.</li>
<li><strong>Containment requirements:</strong> Refined criteria for ground risk buffers and adjacent ground areas, particularly relevant for BVLOS and urban operations.</li>
<li><strong>Flexibility for competent authorities:</strong> NAAs can use direct assessment, recognised entities, or qualified entities to review compliance.</li>
<li><strong>Removal of weak cybersecurity rules:</strong> EASA stripped out JARUS’s cybersecurity provisions, deeming them disproportionate, but stressed that vulnerability assessments remain best practice.</li>
</ul>
</section>
<section id="lessons">
<h2>Lessons for the UK CAA</h2>
<ol>
<li><strong>Consistency and clarity –</strong> 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.</li>
<li><strong>Streamlining approvals –</strong> 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.</li>
<li><strong>Population density mapping –</strong> 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.</li>
<li><strong>Terminology alignment –</strong> 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.</li>
<li><strong>Cybersecurity gap –</strong> 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.</li>
</ol>
</section>
<section id="best-practice">
<h2>Best Practice for UK Drone Pilots and Operators</h2>
<ul>
<li><strong>Adopt SORA 2.5 methodology voluntarily –</strong> 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.</li>
<li><strong>Keep clear records –</strong> 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.</li>
<li><strong>Use accurate population data –</strong> Don’t rely solely on outdated maps; supplement with local knowledge, real-time data, or site surveys to avoid underestimating risk.</li>
<li><strong>Plan robust contingency procedures –</strong> 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.</li>
<li><strong>Stay ahead on cybersecurity –</strong> Even though not mandated, conduct vulnerability assessments for command-and-control links and data storage. Cyber weaknesses could undermine insurance and liability cover.</li>
</ul>
</section>
<section id="conclusion">
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>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.</p>
<p>For operators and pilots, the message is clear: best practice means anticipating international standards, not just meeting the minimum domestic requirement.</p>
<div class="bc-callout">
<p>At <strong>Blakiston’s Chambers</strong> 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.</p>
</p></div>
</section>
</article>
<div class="bc-wrap bc-foot">&copy; 2025 Blakiston’s Chambers. All rights reserved.</div>
</section>
<p>The post <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk/what-the-uk-drone-industry-can-learn-from-easas-adoption-of-sora-2-5/">What the UK Drone Industry Can Learn from EASA’s Adoption of SORA 2.5</a> appeared first on <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk">Blakistons</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>From the Battlefield to the Courtroom: Building a Resilient and Modern Drone Fleet</title>
		<link>https://blakistons.co.uk/from-the-battlefield-to-the-courtroom-building-a-resilient-and-modern-drone-fleet/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin.richard]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Nov 2024 09:32:30 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Defence Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Humanitarian Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Insights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Military Procurement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAS Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Defence Policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[agile procurement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[airspace integration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[data sovereignty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[defence technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drone liability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISTAR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Healey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military procurement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MOD cuts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resilience]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK defence]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blakistons.co.uk/?p=2514</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>From the Battlefield to the Courtroom: Building a Resilient and Modern Drone Fleet By Richard Ryan, drone lawyer Recent announcements from John Healey, the UK Secretary of State for Defence, regarding cuts to the MOD&#8217;s fleets of ships, drones, and helicopters have sparked widespread debate. While some argue that these reductions undermine the UK&#8217;s defence [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk/from-the-battlefield-to-the-courtroom-building-a-resilient-and-modern-drone-fleet/">From the Battlefield to the Courtroom: Building a Resilient and Modern Drone Fleet</a> appeared first on <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk">Blakistons</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" src="https://blakistons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/241123_From-the-Battlefield-to-the-Courtroom-Building-a-Resilient-and-Modern-Drone-Fleet-image-300x171.webp" alt="" width="300" height="171" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-2515" srcset="https://blakistons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/241123_From-the-Battlefield-to-the-Courtroom-Building-a-Resilient-and-Modern-Drone-Fleet-image-300x171.webp 300w, https://blakistons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/241123_From-the-Battlefield-to-the-Courtroom-Building-a-Resilient-and-Modern-Drone-Fleet-image-1024x585.webp 1024w, https://blakistons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/241123_From-the-Battlefield-to-the-Courtroom-Building-a-Resilient-and-Modern-Drone-Fleet-image-768x439.webp 768w, https://blakistons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/241123_From-the-Battlefield-to-the-Courtroom-Building-a-Resilient-and-Modern-Drone-Fleet-image-1536x878.webp 1536w, https://blakistons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/241123_From-the-Battlefield-to-the-Courtroom-Building-a-Resilient-and-Modern-Drone-Fleet-image-600x343.webp 600w, https://blakistons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/241123_From-the-Battlefield-to-the-Courtroom-Building-a-Resilient-and-Modern-Drone-Fleet-image.webp 1792w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /></p>
<p><strong>From the Battlefield to the Courtroom: Building a Resilient and Modern Drone Fleet</strong></p>
<p><strong>By Richard Ryan, drone lawyer</strong></p>
<p>Recent announcements from John Healey, the UK Secretary of State for Defence, regarding cuts to the MOD&#8217;s fleets of ships, drones, and helicopters have sparked widespread debate. While some argue that these reductions undermine the UK&#8217;s defence capabilities, others see an opportunity to address long-standing issues with procurement inefficiencies and embrace more agile, cost-effective solutions.</p>
<p>As a drone lawyer with extensive experience in regulatory and operational challenges, I see this as a moment to recalibrate not just how we deploy drones but also how we legally and operationally future proof them. Resilience, as Healey noted, must be a watchword—not only on the battlefield but also in the courtroom.<br />
________________________________________<br />
<strong>Modern Drone Fleets: More Than Just Technology</strong></p>
<p>The blog post raises an essential question: What are the key requirements for a modern drone fleet? While operational capabilities like ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance) and resilience to environmental threats are crucial, I believe the answer must also encompass the legal frameworks underpinning these fleets. Without addressing these considerations, even the most advanced systems could falter under regulatory scrutiny or operational restrictions.</p>
<p>Here are four key areas where legal considerations play a pivotal role in building a resilient drone fleet:<br />
________________________________________<br />
1. Legal and Regulatory Compliance: Navigating Complex Airspace<br />
Modern UAS technology demands seamless integration into contested, urban, and international airspace. This involves:<br />
•	Airspace Management: Aligning operations with international standards such as ICAO guidelines and NATO protocols ensures interoperability with allied forces and manned systems.<br />
•	Data Protection: Advanced drones rely on high-resolution sensors and AI for analysis. This raises concerns about data sovereignty, especially when third-party software or hardware is involved. Contracts must safeguard sensitive military data to prevent exploitation.<br />
________________________________________<br />
2. Agile Procurement: Avoiding the Trap of Outdated Systems<br />
The Defence Secretary’s comments highlight the inefficiencies of long, rigid procurement processes that often lock the MOD into outdated technologies. From a legal perspective, embracing agile procurement could address this issue:<br />
•	Flexible Contracts: Including provisions for mid-term upgrades ensures that UAS technology can evolve alongside emerging threats.<br />
•	Modular Design: Contracts should require systems to support modular enhancements, reducing the risk of obsolescence.<br />
•	Innovative Financing: Leasing agreements or performance-based logistics contracts can lower initial costs while ensuring rapid scalability.<br />
However, these models come with legal complexities. For example, leasing agreements must clearly define ownership of intellectual property (IP) and establish mechanisms to avoid vendor lock-in.<br />
________________________________________<br />
3. Resilience to Legal Challenges in Conflict Zones<br />
Resilience is not just about withstanding extreme weather or jamming—it is also about surviving scrutiny under international humanitarian law (IHL). Modern drones must be:<br />
•	Legally Compliant: Operational transparency is essential to demonstrate adherence to the principles of distinction and proportionality under IHL.<br />
•	Accountable: Enhanced sensors not only improve battlefield performance but also create an audit trail for decision-making, reducing the risk of legal disputes or allegations of unlawful actions.<br />
________________________________________<br />
4. Liability and Risk Management<br />
Deploying smaller, more agile drones introduces new liability challenges. For example:<br />
•	Urban Operations: If a drone causes collateral damage during a mission, who bears responsibility—the MOD, the contractor, or the manufacturer?<br />
•	Coalition Forces: Legal frameworks must address accountability in joint operations with allied forces, where differing legal standards may apply.<br />
These questions demand robust legal agreements and clear operational protocols to mitigate risk.<br />
________________________________________<br />
<strong>The Path Forward: Legal Resilience as a Core Requirement</strong></p>
<p>For the UK to maintain a competitive edge in defence, its drone fleets must not only excel operationally but also withstand the scrutiny of legal and regulatory frameworks. A modern fleet must be:<br />
1.	Interoperable – Capable of integrating seamlessly with allied systems while adhering to international airspace laws.<br />
2.	Modular – Designed for upgrades to counter evolving threats and meet new legal standards.<br />
3.	Transparent – Equipped with sensors that provide clear evidence for operational decisions, enhancing accountability.<br />
4.	Compliant – Procured under contracts that mitigate risks of misuse, proliferation, or IP disputes.<br />
________________________________________<br />
<strong>Conclusion: Future-Proofing the UK’s Drone Strategy</strong></p>
<p>John Healey’s emphasis on resilience offers an opportunity for the UK to rethink its approach to defence procurement. By embracing agile contracting, robust regulatory frameworks, and a forward-looking legal strategy, the UK can build a drone fleet that is not just operationally superior but also legally and ethically unassailable.<br />
A truly modern military drone capability is one that is as resilient in the courtroom as it is in the field. The future of defence lies in aligning cutting-edge technology with agile, transparent, and robust legal strategies.<br />
________________________________________<br />
<strong>About the Author</strong></p>
<p>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.<br />
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.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk/from-the-battlefield-to-the-courtroom-building-a-resilient-and-modern-drone-fleet/">From the Battlefield to the Courtroom: Building a Resilient and Modern Drone Fleet</a> appeared first on <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk">Blakistons</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
