Inside GNSS Media & Research

JUL-AUG 2019

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 46 of 67 J U L Y / A U G U S T 2 0 1 9 Inside GNSS 47 Otherwise, further approval by the com- petent authority for certain changes may be required. e LUC may not be trans- ferred to another entity Continued Validity of Existing Licenses According to Article 21, authorizations granted to UAS operators, certificates of remote pilot competency and declara- tions made by UAS operators or equiva- lent documentation, issued on the basis of national law, shall remain valid until two years after the date of entry into force of the Implementing Regulation. is is expected this summer, so that the validity of recent documents would likely lapse in summer 2022. Until that date, member states are to convert exist- ing documents in accordance with the Implementing Regulation. e transi- tion period for operations conducted in the framework of model aircra clubs and associations runs for three years from the Implementing Regulation's entry into force, and therefore can be expected to lapse in summer 2023. Since any conversion has to follow the requirements of the Implementing Regulation, only those national autho- rizations a nd declarations ca n be expected to survive beyond the appli- cable periods that already comply with the new rules. Otherwise, additional requirements would have to be ful- filled or the authorization or license fully renewed. Continued Permission to Use Existing UAS The Delegated Regulation with the requirements for classifications of UAS will directly be applicable in the mem- ber states without providing for a tran- sition period. All UAS brought on the market following the Regulation's entry into force expected in summer 2019 will already have to comply with these requirements. Anyone buying a drone aer that date should therefore make sure that he is sold a model already compliant with the new Regulation. Companies which are still operat- ing "old drones" not in compliance with the new requirements will want to know if operation may be continued. e question only arises for "open" cat- egory operations, since operations in all other categories will be subject to specific authorizations requirements, anyhow. According to Article 20 of the Implementing Regulation, UAS types that do not comply with Delegated Regulation's requirements and that are not privately built are allowed to con- tinue operations when they have been placed on the market three years aer the date of entry into force of the Delegated Regulation, when subject to subcategory A1 and MTOM less than 250 grams or subcategory A3 with MTOM less than 25 kilograms. Harmonization Achieved? Referencing t he declaration on 28 Februar y 2019, it ca n be summa- rized that indeed another great step towards harmonization of UAS opera- tional rules in the EU has been made. The development has, however, not reached the finish line yet, and a num- ber of issues still need to be success- fully resolved for a "mission accom- plished " verdict. Ar t. 56(8) of t he Basic Regulation and recital (18) of the Implementing Regulation imply an opening for member states to lay down national rules covering public security, privacy protection or envi- ronmental concerns. Possibilities may range from prohibition to operational restrictions to use of equipment such as remote identification systems or geo awareness systems. Furthermore, many elements, such as the content of remote pilot competency requirements and the standards for the electronic registers to be created by member states, have to be defined. e complexity of these tasks should not be underestimated, not to mention the still unpublished standard scenarios that will form the backbone for the efficiency when apply- ing the "specific" category. It is there- fore not surprising that comments of industry stakeholders published on the Commission website support the overall aim of harmonization but also warn of national particularism that may yet contravene the effort. Analysis will continue concerning how the quite significant "white spots" in the frame- work of EU UAS regulations will be filled in the coming months. Authors Oliver Heinrich is co- founder and partner with BHO Legal, a boutique law firm based in Cologne, Germany, with a focus on aerospace and high-tech- nology projects. Oliver studied German and Anglo-American law at the Universities of Trier and Cologne. He wrote his doctoral thesis at the Institute of Air and Space Law at the University of Cologne on national and European research funding. Prior to working as an attorney, Oliver worked in the contracts department of the German Aerospace Centre, DLR, and then as DLR's project manager for the European Satellite Navigation System Galileo at DLR and legal manager for a joint venture of DLR, EADS Astrium (now Airbus DS), T-Systems and a Bavarian bank. Jan Helge Mey is a part- ner with BHO Legal. Jan studied in Cologne and Qingdao (PR China) and specialized in air and space law at McGill University in Montréal (Canada). He went on to work at the Institute of Air and Space Law of the University of Cologne. After completion of the legal traineeship that led him to the German Aerospace Center, Jan worked as lawyer, mainly in the field of public procurement, public commercial law, foreign trade law and public-private partnerships. BOTH THE UAS OPERATOR AND THE INDIVIDUAL REMOTE PILOT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIC NEED TO BE AWARE OF ALL LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE OPERATION. WITH REFERENCE TO PRIVACY AND DATA PROTECTION, THE AWARENESS EVEN HAS TO EXPAND TO THE PURPOSE OF THE OPERATION AND THE (LATER) PROCESSING OF THE DATA AS ALREADY INTENDED.

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

view archives of Inside GNSS Media & Research - JUL-AUG 2019