How AI and Automation are Shaping the Future of Drones: A Regulatory Perspective
By Richard Ryan, Drone Lawyer
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into unmanned aerial systems (UAS) is revolutionising the drone industry, pushing boundaries towards greater automation and autonomy. However, as outlined in the April 2024 edition of CAP 722, full autonomy remains aspirational due to the regulatory requirement for deterministic performance. This blog explores the distinctions between automation and autonomy, the regulatory challenges for drone operations, and the implications for drone pilots, operators, and companies.
________________________________________
Automation vs Autonomy: Clarifying the Concepts
CAP 722 (2024) defines autonomy as the “freedom from external control or influence,” but no current UAS meets this definition due to regulatory requirements for deterministic behaviour. ICAO Manual on RPAS Doc 10019 defines Autonomous aircraft as an unmanned aircraft that does not allow pilot intervention in the management of the flight. Instead, UAS technology is characterised by varying levels of automation, which can be categorised as:
• Highly Automated Systems: Require human inputs to initiate actions but perform them independently thereafter.
• High Authority Automated Systems: Evaluate data, select actions, and implement them without human input. Examples include flight control systems and detect-and-avoid systems.
True autonomy would involve systems capable of route planning, fault detection, and communication with air traffic controllers, all without human oversight—a standard not yet achievable under current regulatory frameworks. Hence, we often hear about human in the loop, human on the loop and human outside the loop.
________________________________________
Regulatory Challenges: Deterministic Systems and Safety
Under CAP 722, all UAS must operate deterministically, meaning their responses to any set of inputs must follow a pre-designed evaluation and output process. This ensures:
• Predictability: Systems respond consistently to the same data sets, maintaining operational safety.
• Accountability: Designers can demonstrate that all potential actions have been evaluated against safety standards like CS XX.1309 and CS XX.2510.
Additionally, human authority remains central to UAS operations, even in highly automated systems. Remote pilots are responsible for decision-making during critical scenarios or emergencies, underscoring the importance of robust training and procedural frameworks.
________________________________________
Opportunities and Implications for the Drone Industry
For drone pilots and companies, understanding the regulatory limits of automation and the trajectory toward autonomy is critical. Key takeaways include:
1. Incremental Advances: Innovations in automation, such as supervised and high-authority systems, are paving the way for more efficient operations while maintaining compliance with CAP 722.
2. Safety-Centric Design: Developers must prioritise secure communications, data integrity, and fallback mechanisms to align with regulatory expectations and ensure safe integration into airspace.
3. Collaborative Growth: The industry must work closely with regulators to address evolving technologies, including machine learning and non-deterministic systems, which remain under strict scrutiny.
As CAP 722 notes, the ultimate goal is for UAS to achieve the same safety standards as manned aircraft, requiring seamless integration into air traffic management and robust emergency-handling capabilities.
________________________________________
Conclusion
AI and automation are driving the evolution of UAS, but the regulatory framework outlined in CAP 722 (2024) underscores the importance of deterministic systems, human oversight, and rigorous safety protocols. While full autonomy is not yet a reality, the advancements in automation provide exciting opportunities for innovation and operational efficiency.
Drone pilots, operators, and manufacturers must remain proactive in navigating these regulations, ensuring that their systems not only comply but also contribute to the safe and sustainable growth of the drone industry.
About the Author
Richard Ryan is a UK-based drone lawyer specialising in regulatory compliance, operational safety, and legal challenges in the UAV industry. With over 20 years of experience, Richard Ryan is dedicated to helping drone pilots and companies navigate the complexities of CAP 722 and beyond, ensuring safe and innovative use of drone technologies.
Problem retrieving data from Twitter