Drone Compliance Archives - Blakistons

Navigating UK SORA: A Drone Lawyer’s Guide to CAA Decision No. 60

admin.richard — Mon, 06 Jul 2026 09:53:17 +0000

Drone Law | UK SORA | CAA Regulation | AI Governance

Summary: CAA Decision No. 60 marks a significant development in the regulation of Specific category drone operations in the UK. Coming into force on 1 October 2026, it updates the UK SORA framework and introduces clearer expectations around compliance evidence, ground-risk mitigation, containment, kinetic energy analysis and evidence retention. For operators, the message is clear: compliance is no longer just a narrative safety case. It must be evidenced, retained and auditable.

1. Why Decision No. 60 Matters

The UK’s lower airspace is becoming increasingly complex. Beyond Visual Line of Sight operations, drone delivery, infrastructure inspection, emergency services use, autonomous routing and higher-risk commercial UAS activity all require a more mature regulatory framework.

CAA Decision No. 60 updates the Acceptable Means of Compliance and Guidance Material for UK Regulation (EU) 2019/947. In practical terms, it strengthens the UK Specific Operation Risk Assessment, or UK SORA, for operators seeking authorisation in the Specific category.

The legal significance is that UK SORA is becoming a structured assurance methodology. Operators must not merely state that an operation is safe. They must demonstrate that the aircraft, procedures, people, operational volume, ground environment, airspace risks, mitigations and emergency arrangements meet the required level of safety.

2. UK SORA Is Not a Box-Ticking Exercise

UK SORA exists to support the operational risk assessment required for Specific category operations. It considers both ground risk and air risk, then applies mitigations and operational safety objectives according to the Specific Assurance and Integrity Level, or SAIL.

The updated framework is particularly important because it clarifies how operators must gather, present and retain compliance evidence. This is a move away from generalised operational assertions and towards aviation-grade documentation.

3. The Three Compliance Pathways

Decision No. 60 identifies three broad routes for demonstrating compliance.

Pathway	What It Means	Legal Significance
Declarative approach	The operator declares that it meets the relevant acceptable means of compliance.	Suitable for lower-risk requirements, but the declaration must still be accurate and supportable.
Agreed compliance basis	The operator and CAA agree in advance how compliance will be demonstrated.	Useful for novel or complex operations where evidence may include testing, analysis or design appraisal.
Compliance evidence approach	The operator submits both the compliance basis and the underlying evidence to the CAA.	The most rigorous route, likely to be required for higher-risk or technically complex operations.

Operators must also retain compliance evidence for the duration of the operational authorisation and for three years after operations under that authorisation cease. That evidence may become critical in a CAA audit, incident investigation, insurance dispute or civil claim.

4. Ground Risk: What Happens If the Drone Falls?

Ground risk is central to UK SORA. The law is concerned not only with whether the drone can fly, but with what happens if it fails. Decision No. 60 provides more detailed guidance on how operators may reduce ground risk.

Mitigation	Description	Key Legal Risk
M1A: Sheltering	Relying on people being inside structures.	The aircraft must not be capable of penetrating the relevant structures.
M1B: Operational restrictions	Operating at times or in areas where fewer uninvolved people are present.	Population assumptions must be evidenced and realistic.
M1C: Ground observation	Using observers or technical systems to detect uninvolved people.	Detection capability, observer competence and response procedures must be credible.
M2: Impact mitigation	Reducing impact energy through parachutes, flight termination or design features.	Deployment reliability, minimum altitude, failure modes and secondary hazards must be addressed.

5. Kinetic Energy and Penetration Risk

Decision No. 60 gives particular importance to kinetic energy. This matters because it converts safety claims into measurable injury-risk analysis.

Kinetic Energy	Risk Category	Operator Requirement
Up to 175 joules	Lower hazard	Generally less demanding penetration analysis, subject to the operational context.
175 to 7,000 joules	Medium hazard	Penetration analysis should be conducted against representative structures.
Over 7,000 joules	High hazard	More rigorous evidence is required, potentially including crashworthiness analysis and structural modelling.

Operators should not rely on generic manufacturer statements. They need platform-specific evidence: mass, velocity, terminal impact behaviour, parachute performance, battery fire risk and representative structural analysis.

6. Containment and Fly-Away Risk

Containment is a central pillar of the updated UK SORA framework. It asks whether the unmanned aircraft can be kept within its operational volume and ground risk buffer, even after failure or loss of control.

For lower-risk operations, containment may be assessed qualitatively through design appraisal and procedural evidence. For higher-risk operations, the CAA may expect quantitative probability targets, such as demonstrating that the probability of exiting the relevant volume or buffer is below specified thresholds per flight hour.

Containment evidence may include geo-caging, tethering, independent flight termination systems, lost-link logic, command-and-control resilience, navigation integrity, power-system independence and emergency procedures.

7. EU AI Act and UK AI Standards

Decision No. 60 is not an AI regulation. However, many modern drone operations increasingly rely on AI-enabled functions, including detect-and-avoid, automated route planning, computer vision, landing assistance, ground-person detection, predictive maintenance and autonomous contingency management.

The EU AI Act is relevant as a benchmark for risk management, technical documentation, record-keeping, transparency, human oversight, robustness and cybersecurity. The UK does not currently have a single equivalent UK AI Act. Instead, it follows a sector-led, principles-based model based on safety, security and robustness; transparency and explainability; fairness; accountability and governance; and contestability and redress.

UK SORA Issue	AI Governance Standard	Practical Evidence
Operational risk assessment	Lifecycle risk management	Hazard log, AI failure-mode analysis, operating design domain and residual-risk register.
Compliance evidence	Technical documentation	Version-controlled technical file, test reports, software release notes and design appraisals.
Ground observation	Accuracy and human oversight	Detection metrics, false-negative analysis, lighting limits and observer escalation procedures.
Containment	Robustness and cybersecurity	Geo-cage testing, lost-link logic, GNSS spoofing assessment and command-link resilience.
Evidence retention	Record-keeping and auditability	Flight logs, telemetry, AI outputs, incident reviews and corrective actions.

8. Data Protection and Surveillance Risk

Many Specific category operations involve cameras, thermal imaging, mapping payloads or AI-enabled object recognition. UK SORA primarily addresses safety, but operators must also consider privacy, data protection and surveillance risk.

If cameras or AI systems detect uninvolved persons, personal data may be captured, stored or analysed. Operators may need a data protection impact assessment, retention limits, access controls, privacy notices and clear rules on secondary use.

9. What Operators Should Do Before 1 October 2026

Operators should review their safety cases and evidence packs now. In particular, they should check:

Aircraft mass, speed, kinetic energy and terminal velocity;
Ground-risk assumptions and population-density evidence;
Sheltering, operational restriction and observation claims;
Parachute, flight termination and impact mitigation evidence;
Containment evidence, including geo-caging and lost-link logic;
AI-enabled functions, including detect-and-avoid and automated decision-support tools;
Evidence retention systems;
Supplier contracts for access to technical data.

10. Bottom Line

CAA Decision No. 60 marks a shift from descriptive drone safety cases to structured assurance. Operators must now be able to prove their safety claims through coherent, retained and auditable evidence.

The most important development is the convergence between aviation safety and AI governance. UK SORA asks whether the drone operation is safe. The EU AI Act and UK AI principles ask whether automated systems are risk-managed, documented, robust, explainable, secure and subject to human oversight. For modern drone operations, those are increasingly the same question.

Compliance is not what the operator says it does. Compliance is what the operator can prove.

About the Author

Richard Ryan is a barrister, Chartered Arbitrator and specialist in drone law, aviation regulation and artificial intelligence. He advises operators, manufacturers and public bodies on UK CAA regulation, UK SORA, BVLOS operations, AI governance and commercial drone operations. He is currently undertaking a PhD at Cranfield University researching the legal framework for autonomous aviation and future airspace integration.

This article is general legal commentary and does not constitute legal advice.

The post Navigating UK SORA: A Drone Lawyer’s Guide to CAA Decision No. 60 appeared first on Blakistons.

Rapid Briefing: “UK Drone Regulations and Net Risk” (PwC, Sept 2025) — Issues, Gaps, Opportunities

admin.richard — Tue, 28 Oct 2025 08:05:36 +0000

“`By Richard Ryan, barrister and drone lawyer

What the paper actually shows (evidence you can cite)

Insurers say risk is intrinsically low; very few third-party injury claims; risk has reduced over the decade with better tech/training. (pp. 9–11)
UK’s ‘zero-risk + case-by-case’ stance hasn’t produced safer skies than more prescriptive/permissive regimes (US/EU/Canada/Singapore); it has delayed progress. (pp. 12–13)
Net-risk lens: drones remove more risk than they introduce (e.g., falls from height, confined spaces, helicopter exposure). (pp. 14–18)
BVLOS doesn’t materially increase risk where well-managed; biggest predictors are location and safety management. (pp. 10–11, 19–22)
Incident data 2022–24: commercial operations show zero fatalities across UK, US, EU, Canada, Singapore; only a handful of serious injuries. (Appendix + country sections, pp. 55–61)
SORA friction/cost: UK SORA application at SAIL II is £3,495; mitigations/AMC still qualitative ? “OSC-style” uncertainty persists. (p. 35)
“Picking winners”: five BVLOS priorities (emergency response, powerlines, maritime SAR, rail, crop spraying). (pp. 6, 25–33)
Policy levers: shift to digital PDRAs for repeatable, low-risk scenarios; reuse prior approvals; model on EU PDRAs/Canada’s lower-risk BVLOS. (pp. 36–37; Appendix 1)
Emergency services gap: the old standing exemption (E4506) lapsed; routine BVLOS now hard to get—BTP resorted to State Aircraft rules. (p. 27)
Comparative table (risk models, UTM status, Remote ID, scale-up reality) explains why the UK feels “high-friction”. (p. 52)

Regulatory & enforcement issues to flag (and build matters around)

Incoherent risk calibration: the UK treats many Specific-category ops as high-risk despite cross-market low incident severity and strong insurer data. (pp. 9–13, 55–57)
Process opacity & cost-burden: SORA mitigations/AMC are qualitative ? inconsistent asks; high fees despite narrow temporal/spatial grants. (p. 35)
Emergency-services capability gap: loss of E4506 creates avoidable delay/risk; forces work-arounds (State Aircraft) rather than transparent PDRA. (p. 27)
AAE not yet a permissioning tool: policy concept ? scalable authorisation path (contrast EU PDRA-G03 for linear infrastructure). (pp. 28–31, 36)
Net-risk inversions: requirements like “observer in a boat” for coastal EVLOS can increase system risk and cost vs. sensor-driven shore control. (p. 21)
Data transparency: the UK has many “record-only” entries; EU public access is patchy; hard for operators/insurers to benchmark safety cases publicly. (pp. 54–61)

Practical exposure points for stakeholders

Insurers: common declinature trip-wires—ops outside the authorisation envelope; poor log preservation; weak maintenance/firmware governance. (pp. 9–11, 35–36)
Operators/pilots: SORA drift, local land-use limitations, and fragmented permissions across linear corridors; evidence-pack discipline needed. (pp. 28–31, 35–36, 56–57)
Associations/community: need bilingual templates/FAQs and incident learning loops; emphasise the airspace vs land-use distinction to reduce friction. (inferred)
Public bodies (blue-light, MCA, NR, utilities): proven benefits blocked by bespoke approvals—strong case for sector PDRA playbooks. (pp. 26–33, 36)

What this means for drone pilots, operators, and companies

As a drone lawyer, my reading of the PwC paper is that the safety record increasingly supports predictable, rules-based authorisations, but the UK still applies bespoke processes that create delay, cost and legal uncertainty. The winners will be those who treat compliance as an operational capability, not a paperwork chore.

Implications for Drone Pilots

Documentation is defence: retain native telemetry, app/controller logs, and pre-flight risk assessments. These are crucial in insurer claims and any CAA inquiry.
VLOS/BVLOS discipline: be explicit about how VLOS was maintained (or the BVLOS mitigations used). Ambiguity here is a common enforcement and insurance pain point.
Privacy on site: where people are identifiable, prepare a simple lawful-basis note and signage plan; it reduces complaint/escalation risk significantly.

Implications for Operators

Align your OA/ops manual with SORA and AAE logic: show how mitigations reduce both air and ground risk. Clear mapping cuts questions and accelerates approvals.
Design for repeatability: build PDRA-ready evidence packs for your most common jobs (e.g., rail/powerline corridors) so each new mission is a variation, not a reinvention.
Insurance resilience: standardise maintenance/firmware baselines and battery care logs; many declinatures stem from gaps here, not from the incident itself.
Contracts that reflect reality: flowing down responsibilities to subcontractors (airworthiness, data protection, incident reporting) reduces exposure and smooths procurement.

Implications for Drone Companies & Enterprise Users

Board-level accountability: appoint a named senior responsible owner (SRO) for UAS operations with decision logs—critical if decisions are later examined in court or by regulators.
Data governance as an asset: implement DPIAs where warranted, role-based access to imagery, retention/deletion schedules, and breach protocols. This increases tender scores and reduces enforcement risk.
Public value narrative: quantify how drone tasks remove traditional risks (work at height, road possessions, helicopter hours). This “net-risk” case supports proportional, scalable permissions.

Where legal support helps, assists, and mitigates

Approvals & permissions: structuring SORA/AAE applications with proportional mitigations, re-using prior evidence, and narrowing scope to reduce fees and conditions.
Policy & appeals: challenging irrational or net-risk-increasing conditions; seeking clarifications; and preparing proportionate alternatives that the regulator can accept.
Privacy & data: lawful-basis memos, DPIAs, signage/LLN templates, and response playbooks for complaints or subject access requests.
Insurance & claims: coverage mapping, notification strategy, and evidence preservation to avoid declinature; subrogation prospects where third parties contributed to loss.
Contracts: allocating risk cleanly across clients, operators and subcontractors (indemnities, limitation, IP/data ownership, incident reporting).

Bottom line: the sector is safe and maturing. Those who can demonstrate their risk controls, evidence compliance, and standardise approvals will grow fastest—with fewer legal shocks along the way.

Talking points for meetings & panels

Same safety, slower UK growth: insurers and incident data show low intrinsic risk—authorisations should be predictable and prescriptive, not bespoke. (pp. 9–13, 36–37)
Digital PDRAs now: for repeatable BVLOS (powerlines/rail/SAR/maritime/agri)—reuse evidence from prior OSCs; mirror EU PDRA/Canada logic. (pp. 25–33, 36)
Emergency drones need an emergency rulebook: the E4506 gap is pushing forces into State Aircraft work-arounds. (p. 27)
Incident reality: zero fatalities in 2022–24 across major markets; claims are mainly minor property/equipment—calibrate conditions accordingly. (pp. 55–61; pp. 9–11)

“`

The post Rapid Briefing: “UK Drone Regulations and Net Risk” (PwC, Sept 2025) — Issues, Gaps, Opportunities appeared first on Blakistons.

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

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

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

By Richard Ryan, Drone Lawyer (UK)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soaring Ahead or Stuck in the Past? What the CAP 3040 Second Edition Means for Your Drone Operations

admin.richard — Wed, 11 Dec 2024 17:35:43 +0000

Soaring Ahead or Stuck in the Past? What the CAP 3040 Second Edition Means for Your Drone Operations

By Richard Ryan, Drone Lawyer

As a UK drone lawyer, I’ve seen firsthand how tricky it can be to navigate the ever-changing skies of unmanned aviation regulation. The Civil Aviation Authority’s (CAA) “Unmanned Aircraft Operations in an Atypical Air Environment (AAE): Policy Concept” (CAP 3040) is no exception. After the initial excitement of the First Edition, many in the drone community were eagerly awaiting the Second Edition, hoping for clarifications, improvements, and a more future-focused framework.

What’s New?
At a glance, the changes between the First and Second Editions might seem minimal—just a tweak to the reference for ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast) equipment, rolling back from RTCA DO-282C to the older DO-282B standard. But that’s not a small footnote. If you’ve been prepping your drone gear to meet DO-282C standards, you may now be left wondering why the rug’s been pulled from under you.

The Tech Twist:
DO-282B is an earlier standard for ADS-B performance, while DO-282C was supposed to reflect newer technology and real-world lessons learned. Reverting to an older standard could mean extra work or unexpected costs if you’ve already made purchases or adapted your systems for DO-282C. It also raises questions about whether the policy is truly forward-looking, or inadvertently stifling progress at a critical time in UK drone innovation.

Still Flying Through Foggy Regulations:
The Second Edition still leaves operators wrestling with a few nagging uncertainties:
1. Defining ‘Atypical Air Environment’: The document still lacks a crystal-clear definition of AAE. Without a firm legal baseline, you might struggle to know if your flight qualifies—adding confusion to your operations and potentially slowing down approvals.
2. Single Site Limitations: The CAA’s recommended approach of applying for just one site per Operational Authorisation (OA) remains. This can create unnecessary hurdles for those looking to scale up and serve multiple clients or routes.
3. Extra Admin, Less Innovation: Requirements like routine NOTAM submissions or intricate Electronic Conspicuity (EC) licensing haven’t been simplified. For many operators, these processes feel more bureaucratic than beneficial, potentially discouraging new entrants and curbing the industry’s growth.

How to Navigate This Airspace Turbulence:
• Stay Agile: Keep tabs on CAA communications and industry forums. If the CAA shifts requirements again, you’ll want to pivot quickly.
• Ask for Clarity: Don’t hesitate to reach out to uavenquiries@caa.co.uk for guidance, especially if you’ve already invested in tech aligned with DO-282C.
• Industry Collaboration: Connect with fellow operators, manufacturers, and drone associations. Shared experiences help identify practical solutions and give your concerns more weight when approaching regulators.
• Professional Advice: A drone-focused legal expert can help you interpret the Second Edition’s nuances, reduce compliance guesswork, and ensure you’re not sinking costs into the wrong standards.

Charting a Better Flight Path: While the Second Edition’s updates may feel like a step back, there’s still hope. The CAA emphasizes that CAP 3040 is an evolving concept. By voicing concerns, sharing data, and staying engaged, the drone community can help steer policy revisions that balance safety, innovation, and economic growth.

The Bottom Line:
The CAP 3040 Second Edition is a reminder that regulatory frameworks are works in progress. This can be frustrating, yes—but it’s also an opportunity. Operators willing to adapt, learn, and advocate for sensible changes can help shape the UK’s drone landscape into one that truly welcomes innovation. Keep your engines running, your channels of communication open, and your ambitions high. Together, we can ensure that tomorrow’s regulations are as cutting-edge and future friendly as the drone technology they’re meant to guide.

About the Author
Richard Ryan is a direct access barrister at Blakiston’s Chambers, specialising in drone law and unmanned aircraft regulation. Leveraging extensive knowledge of emerging aviation technologies and the UK’s complex regulatory landscape, Richard Ryan provides pragmatic guidance that empowers clients to navigate compliance challenges, secure operational approvals, and seize opportunities in the rapidly evolving drone sector. Known for translating intricate legal frameworks into actionable strategies, Richard Ryan is dedicated to shaping the policies that will define the future of unmanned aviation in the UK.

The post Soaring Ahead or Stuck in the Past? What the CAP 3040 Second Edition Means for Your Drone Operations appeared first on Blakistons.

Drone Operators: Navigating the Legal Landscape of Trespass

zeroabove — Wed, 25 Sep 2024 11:38:53 +0000

With the growing use of drones in commercial operations, the recent Anglo International Upholland Ltd v Wainwright [2023] case sets an important legal precedent for drone operators. The High Court ruled that flying drones over private property can constitute trespass, especially when used to capture images that facilitate unlawful activity, such as trespass.

This case highlights the complexity of balancing Section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 with trespass laws. Section 76 offers protection when drones fly at a “reasonable height,” but this case found that using drones for unauthorised photography over a site nullified such protection. Additionally, the court ruled that the very act of flying drones for unlawful purposes could constitute trespass, even without exact evidence on flight height.

For drone operators, this ruling underlines the need for compliance with air navigation laws, obtaining property owner consent, and carefully considering the purpose and operation of drone flights. As the sector evolves, it’s crucial to stay updated with legal developments to avoid potential liability.

Key Takeaways:

Section 76 protections may not apply if drones are used for improper purposes.
The court is increasingly willing to view drone use in trespass contexts.

Drone operators should obtain permission for flights over private property and comply with regulations to mitigate legal risks.
A list of relevant questions for the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) in light of the Anglo International Upholland Ltd v Wainwright [2023] case:

How does the CAA interpret “reasonable height” under Section 76 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 for drone flights over private property?
Does the CAA plan to update its guidance on drone operations to address trespass concerns post- Wainwright*?
What steps should drone operators take to ensure compliance with both air navigation laws and property trespass rules
Will there be new regulations requiring landowner consent for drones flying over private property?
How does the CAA plan to enforce penalties for drones used unlawfully over private property?
Could the CAA clarify its position on privacy violations and trespass when drones capture images without consent?
What considerations are in place for determining unlawful drone use, even if the flight does not breach flight height limits?
Is there a possibility for the CAA to introduce more stringent guidelines for recreational versus commercial drone flights regarding private land?
How should drone operators document compliance to avoid liability under both CAA regulations and civil trespass claims?
Does the CAA foresee future collaborations with property law bodies to provide comprehensive guidance on airspace use above private land?

Let’s see if the UK CAA responds… Richard Ryan, barrister

Blakiston’s Chambers – “Leading the way in drone and counter-drone law, safeguarding airspace innovation and security.”

richard.ryan@blakistons.com

The post Drone Operators: Navigating the Legal Landscape of Trespass appeared first on Blakistons.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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