<?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 Updates Archives - Blakistons</title>
	<atom:link href="https://blakistons.co.uk/category/legal-updates/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://blakistons.co.uk/category/legal-updates/</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>Analysis and Recommendations on CAP 3040 &#124; First Edition</title>
		<link>https://blakistons.co.uk/analysis-and-recommendations-on-cap-3040-first-edition/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[admin.richard]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Nov 2024 13:38:21 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Aviation Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) Operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Policies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Safety and Operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Drone Regulations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Analysis and Recommendations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legal Updates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Policy Development and Amendments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulatory Compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Technology and Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UK Aviation Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Atypical Air Environment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BVLOS Operations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CAP 3040]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Industry Impact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Industry Innovation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drone law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Lawyer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Operator Challenges]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Policy Amendments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Regulations UK]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drone Safety]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EASA PDRA03]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Innovation in Drone Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Policy Recommendations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regulatory compliance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Richard Ryan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[UAS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Unmanned Aircraft Systems]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://blakistons.co.uk/?p=2476</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[<p>Analysis and Recommendations on CAP 3040 &#124; First Edition 1. Executive Summary The CAA&#8217;s policy concept aims to enable Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) within an Atypical Air Environment (AAE). While the initiative is commendable for promoting innovation, the policy, as currently drafted, presents several challenges: &#8211; Ambiguity [&#8230;]</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk/analysis-and-recommendations-on-cap-3040-first-edition/">Analysis and Recommendations on CAP 3040 | First Edition</a> appeared first on <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk">Blakistons</a>.</p>
]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-medium wp-image-2477" src="https://blakistons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Picture3-Analysis-and-Recommendations-on-CAP-3040-First-Edition-300x256.png" alt="" width="300" height="256" srcset="https://blakistons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Picture3-Analysis-and-Recommendations-on-CAP-3040-First-Edition-300x256.png 300w, https://blakistons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Picture3-Analysis-and-Recommendations-on-CAP-3040-First-Edition-768x655.png 768w, https://blakistons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Picture3-Analysis-and-Recommendations-on-CAP-3040-First-Edition-600x512.png 600w, https://blakistons.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Picture3-Analysis-and-Recommendations-on-CAP-3040-First-Edition.png 787w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" /></p>
<p>Analysis and Recommendations on CAP 3040 | First Edition</p>
<p> 1. Executive Summary</p>
<p>The CAA&#8217;s policy concept aims to enable Beyond Visual Line of Sight (BVLOS) operations for Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) within an Atypical Air Environment (AAE). While the initiative is commendable for promoting innovation, the policy, as currently drafted, presents several challenges:<br />
&#8211; Ambiguity in Definitions: The lack of precise definitions for key terms like AAE may lead to inconsistent application and legal uncertainty.<br />
&#8211; Operational Burdens: Requirements such as pre-flight notifications, electronic conspicuity, and high-intensity lighting may impose significant burdens on operators, especially small and medium enterprises (SMEs).<br />
&#8211; Potential Stifling of Innovation: The cumulative effect of stringent requirements may deter new entrants and hinder technological advancement.<br />
&#8211; Legal Efficacy: For the policy to have legal effect, certain elements need to be codified into law or regulations.</p>
<p> 2. Issues for Drone Operators</p>
<p> a. Ambiguity in Definition of Atypical Air Environment (AAE)<br />
&#8211; Lack of Clarity: The document does not provide a clear, legal definition of an AAE, leading to potential inconsistencies in interpretation.<br />
&#8211; Examples vs. Definitions: Providing examples (e.g., within 100ft of a building) without a firm definition creates uncertainty for operators attempting to comply.</p>
<p> b. Operational Requirements<br />
&#8211; Pre-Tactical Flight Route Notification:<br />
  &#8211; Administrative Burden: Requiring Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs) for each operation may be impractical for frequent or short-duration flights.<br />
  &#8211; Coordination Complexity: Mandatory coordination with multiple stakeholders (e.g., military, emergency services) increases complexity.</p>
<p>&#8211; Electronic Conspicuity (EC):<br />
  &#8211; Equipment Availability: ADS-B equipment operating on 978 MHz UAT is not widely used in the UK, making compliance challenging.<br />
  &#8211; Licensing Issues: Reliance on OFCOM&#8217;s Innovation and Trial licensing procedures adds uncertainty and administrative hurdles and no doubt costs.</p>
<p>&#8211; High-Intensity Anti-Collision Lighting:<br />
  &#8211; Technical Challenges: The requirement may not be feasible for small UAS due to weight and power constraints.<br />
  &#8211; Cost Implications: Additional equipment increases operational costs, affecting profitability and competitiveness.</p>
<p>&#8211; Containment Solutions:<br />
  &#8211; Technical Barriers: Implementing robust geo-caging or equivalent systems may be technologically and financially prohibitive for some operators.</p>
<p> c. Application Process Limitations<br />
&#8211; Single Site Per Submission:<br />
  &#8211; Operational Inefficiency: Limiting applications to one site may slow down deployment and increase administrative overhead.</p>
<p> d. Evolving Policy and Regulatory Uncertainty<br />
&#8211; Continuous Review:<br />
  &#8211; Investment Risk: Operators may be hesitant to invest in compliance if policies are subject to change.<br />
&#8211; Lack of Legal Certainty:<br />
  &#8211; Enforceability Issues: As a policy concept rather than law, operators may face legal ambiguities in enforcement and compliance.</p>
<p> 3. Potential Impacts on the Drone Industry</p>
<p> a. Stifling Innovation and Market Entry<br />
&#8211; Barrier to Entry: Stringent requirements may discourage startups and SMEs from entering the market.<br />
&#8211; Reduced Experimentation: High compliance costs limit the ability to test new technologies and operational models.</p>
<p> b. Competitive Disadvantages<br />
&#8211; Favoring Large Operators: Well-resourced companies are better equipped to meet the requirements, potentially leading to market monopolisation.</p>
<p> c. International Disparities<br />
&#8211; Inconsistency with Global Standards: Reliance on U.S. standards (e.g., RTCA DO-282C) may create conflicts with other international regulations, affecting operators engaged in cross-border activities.</p>
<p> 4. Recommendations for Amendments</p>
<p> a. Clarify Definitions and Parameters<br />
&#8211; Precise Definition of AAE:<br />
  &#8211; Legal Clarity: Provide a clear, legally binding definition of AAE to reduce ambiguity.<br />
  &#8211; Criteria Establishment: Set specific parameters (e.g., exact distances, types of infrastructure) to qualify as an AAE.</p>
<p> b. Proportionality in Operational Requirements<br />
&#8211; Risk-Based Approach:<br />
  &#8211; Scaled Requirements: Tailor operational requirements based on the risk profile of the UAS operation (e.g., size, weight, location).<br />
&#8211; Exemptions for Low-Risk Operations:<br />
  &#8211; Simplify Compliance: Allow for exemptions or reduced requirements for operations posing minimal risk.</p>
<p> c. Streamline Application Process<br />
&#8211; Multiple Sites Per Application:<br />
  &#8211; Administrative Efficiency: Permit applications covering multiple sites where appropriate, reducing bureaucratic hurdles.<br />
&#8211; Standardised Procedures:<br />
  &#8211; Transparency: Develop clear guidelines and timelines for application processing.</p>
<p> d. Address Electronic Conspicuity Challenges<br />
&#8211; Equipment Standardisation:<br />
  &#8211; Market Availability: Collaborate with manufacturers to ensure ADS-B equipment is accessible and affordable.<br />
&#8211; Licensing Simplification:<br />
  &#8211; Permanent Licensing Arrangements: Work with OFCOM to establish permanent, streamlined licensing procedures for 978 MHz UAT.</p>
<p> e. Provide Flexibility in Mitigation Measures<br />
&#8211; Alternative Solutions:<br />
  &#8211; Innovation Encouragement: Allow operators to propose alternative methods to achieve safety outcomes.<br />
&#8211; Technology Neutrality:<br />
  &#8211; Avoid Prescriptive Requirements: Focus on performance outcomes rather than prescribing specific technologies.</p>
<p> f. Enhance Stakeholder Engagement<br />
&#8211; Consultation Processes:<br />
  &#8211; Inclusive Policy Development: Engage with a broad range of stakeholders, including SMEs and industry groups.<br />
&#8211; Support and Guidance:<br />
  &#8211; Educational Resources: Provide operators with clear guidance and training materials to aid compliance.</p>
<p> g. Align with UK Standards<br />
&#8211; Develop Domestic Standards:<br />
  &#8211; Consistency: Establish UK-specific standards for technical requirements like anti-collision lighting.<br />
&#8211; International Harmonisation:<br />
  &#8211; Global Compatibility: Ensure new standards are compatible with international regulations to facilitate cross-border operations.</p>
<p> 5. Legal Requirements for Effective Implementation</p>
<p> a. Codification into Law<br />
&#8211; Regulatory Framework:<br />
  &#8211; Statutory Instruments: Incorporate key policy elements into UK aviation law to provide legal enforceability.<br />
&#8211; Amendments to Existing Regulations:<br />
  &#8211; Regulation (EU) 2019/947 Adaptation: Modify existing regulations to accommodate AAE operations and associated requirements.</p>
<p> b. Legal Certainty and Enforcement<br />
&#8211; Clear Obligations:<br />
  &#8211; Operator Compliance: Define legal obligations clearly to ensure operators understand requirements.<br />
&#8211; Enforcement Mechanisms:<br />
  &#8211; Penalties and Sanctions: Establish clear enforcement protocols for non-compliance to uphold safety standards.</p>
<p> 6. Additional Relevant Points for the CAA</p>
<p> a. Balancing Safety with Innovation<br />
&#8211; Proportional Regulation:<br />
  &#8211; Innovation Friendly: Ensure that safety regulations do not unnecessarily hinder technological advancement.<br />
&#8211; Risk Management:<br />
  &#8211; Data-Driven Policies: Use empirical data to inform policy adjustments, maintaining safety without over-regulation.</p>
<p> b. Data Privacy and Confidentiality<br />
&#8211; Data Handling Policies:<br />
  &#8211; Privacy Protection: Develop clear guidelines on data usage, storage, and sharing to protect operators&#8217; proprietary information.</p>
<p> c. Future-Proofing Regulations<br />
&#8211; Adaptive Frameworks:<br />
  &#8211; Technological Evolution: Design policies flexible enough to accommodate future technological developments.<br />
&#8211; Regular Reviews:<br />
  &#8211; Stakeholder Feedback: Implement mechanisms for ongoing consultation and policy refinement.</p>
<p> d. International Cooperation<br />
&#8211; Global Best Practices:<br />
  &#8211; Information Sharing: Engage with international aviation authorities to align policies and share lessons learned.<br />
&#8211; Cross-Border Operations:<br />
  &#8211; Harmonized Regulations: Facilitate international drone operations by harmonizing standards where possible.</p>
<p> 7. Conclusion</p>
<p>The CAA&#8217;s initiative to introduce the concept of Atypical Air Environment for BVLOS operations is a progressive step towards integrating UAS into the national airspace. However, without careful consideration and amendments, the policy may inadvertently stifle innovation and impose undue burdens on operators.<br />
By clarifying definitions, scaling operational requirements appropriately, streamlining processes, and codifying necessary elements into law, the CAA can foster a regulatory environment that promotes both safety and innovation. Collaboration with industry stakeholders, legal experts, and technology providers will be crucial in refining the policy to achieve its intended objectives.</p>
<p>Recommendations Summary:</p>
<p>1. Clarify Definitions: Provide precise legal definitions for AAE and other key terms.<br />
2. Proportional Requirements: Scale operational requirements based on risk assessments.<br />
3. Streamline Processes: Allow multiple sites per application and simplify procedures.<br />
4. Address EC Challenges: Ensure equipment availability and simplify licensing.<br />
5. Flexibility in Mitigations: Permit alternative safety solutions and avoid prescriptive technologies.<br />
6. Stakeholder Engagement: Enhance consultation and provide guidance resources.<br />
7. Align Standards: Develop UK-specific technical standards and harmonise internationally.<br />
8. Legal Codification: Incorporate essential policy elements into law for enforceability.<br />
9. Balance Safety and Innovation: Maintain safety without hindering technological progress.<br />
10. Protect Data Privacy: Establish clear data handling and confidentiality policies.<br />
By implementing these recommendations, the CAA can create a robust regulatory framework that ensures safety while encouraging the growth and innovation of the UK&#8217;s drone industry.</p>
<p> 8. Comparison with EASA PDRA03 and Lessons for the UK<br />
Comparing the CAA&#8217;s position with the European Union Aviation Safety Agency&#8217;s (EASA) Pre-Defined Risk Assessment number 03 (PDRA03) reveals both opportunities and challenges for UK drone regulation. EASA&#8217;s PDRA03 offers a structured, risk-based framework that allows operators to self-declare compliance with specific conditions, reducing administrative burdens and accelerating operational approvals. This approach supports drone operators by providing clear guidelines while fostering innovation through flexibility in operations such as autonomous flights, multi-UAV control, and operations beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) under certain conditions. In contrast, the CAA&#8217;s policy concept imposes more prescriptive requirements, such as mandatory NOTAM submissions for each operation and specific technical equipment like ADS-B transceivers, which may be unnecessary and bureaucratic for certain low-risk operations. The UK drone industry could benefit from adopting elements of the EASA PDRA03 by implementing a more proportionate, risk-based regulatory framework that emphasises operator declarations and standardised procedures. This would streamline the approval process, reduce administrative overheads, and encourage innovation while maintaining safety. Learning from the EU&#8217;s experience, the CAA can enhance its policies to better support the growth of the UK drone industry by embracing flexibility, reducing unnecessary bureaucratic requirements, and aligning more closely with international best practices.</p>
<p>Richard Ryan is an experienced drone lawyer specialising in unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) and aviation law. He provides expert legal guidance on regulatory compliance, licensing, and operational issues to clients navigating the complexities of drone technology.<br />
Disclaimer: This blog is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For legal counsel regarding specific situations, please consult a qualified drone lawyer.</p>
<p>The post <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk/analysis-and-recommendations-on-cap-3040-first-edition/">Analysis and Recommendations on CAP 3040 | First Edition</a> appeared first on <a href="https://blakistons.co.uk">Blakistons</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
