Please select Into the mobile phone version | Continue to access the computer ver.
European harmonisation of drone regulations 'en route' to the EC
12Next >
3203 63 2018-2-22
Uploading and Loding Picture ...(0/1)
o(^-^)o
LoSBoL
First Officer
Flight distance : 271650 ft
Netherlands
Offline

So, if you wanted to have a say in the proposal of new drone regulations for Europe, you're to late...
The proposal for the complete harmonisation for European drone regulations are off to the European Commission. If accorded, the only thing member states are going to have say about is the age of the operator required for each class.

In an nutshell, here is the proposal for the categorisation of operators and their unmaned aircrafts:
Europese-droneregelgeving-tabel.jpg
(Hmmm, I wander why the newest adition to DJI's fleet, the Mavic Air, has a maximum speed of 19 M/S ;) )

*Everyone who wants to fly drones above 250 grams need to get registered
*Flying drones between 250 and 900 grams need the operator to follow an e-learning and online test
*Flying drones more then 900 grams needs the operator to get certified
*Drones up to 900 grams are considered low enough risk to fly over people.


The complete opinion, which has been sent of the European Commision is available for download here. This opinion has been formed after the proposed new Basic Regulation was accorded on 22 december 2017 between the Council, the European Commission and the European Parliament, the competence of the EU has been extended to cover the regulation of all civil unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), regardless of their maximum take-off masses (MTOMs). which can be read here.
Happy readings ;)

So, what do you think of this shizzle, are you happy with this new set of regulations, categorization and harmonisation across the whole of Europe? Have a vote and discuss!


Single SelectVote, Total 52 people participate in voting

Voting has ended

88.46% (46)
11.54% (6)
Your user group with no voting privileges
2018-2-22
Use props
AAllali
Second Officer
Flight distance : 24974 ft
France
Offline

Thank you for this interesting info. Do you know how long it will take to be ratified ?
2018-2-22
Use props
Wachtberger
Captain
Flight distance : 261509 ft
Germany
Offline

Looks very good to me!
2018-2-22
Use props
hallmark007
Captain
Flight distance : 4199094 ft
  • >>>
Sweden
Offline

I took part in the harmonization of EU rules as part of an Irish delegation and there were many other associations throughout Europe who participated, I have to say there was much agreement in proposals put down by everyone and the whole operation of trying to have one set of rules that would allow drone professionals and enthusiasts to fly in Europe under the same set of rules was a very big undertaking.

EASA the body in charge of putting together the rules were in my opinion extremely conscientious in going about their task and have very much drone flyers interest at the core of their proposals. I believe this is and will be very positive for all in this hobby.

EASA are also working on future plans for a new airspace for drones in Europe it will be called U-Space and dedicated for flying drones and although still in the planning stages, it is very positive and exciting for all users of Drones.

The one clear impression I took away from these meetings was that EASA believe that there will be huge growth in the drone market both professional and hobbyists and they hope to be at the forefront of promoting safe flying of drones throughout Europe .
2018-2-22
Use props
LoSBoL
First Officer
Flight distance : 271650 ft
Netherlands
Offline

AAllali Posted at 2018-2-22 09:35
Thank you for this interesting info. Do you know how long it will take to be ratified ?

Complete ratification is sceduled for Q1 2019, after that, member states have 6 months to comply, with a further 3 months for operators to get themselves registerd.

Article 2.4.5 has some nice info on timelines after ratification.
2018-2-22
Use props
LoSBoL
First Officer
Flight distance : 271650 ft
Netherlands
Offline

hallmark007 Posted at 2018-2-22 09:53
I took part in the harmonization of EU rules as part of an Irish delegation and there were many other associations throughout Europe who participated, I have to say there was much agreement in proposals put down by everyone and the whole operation of trying to have one set of rules that would allow drone professionals and enthusiasts to fly in Europe under the same set of rules was a very big undertaking.

EASA the body in charge of putting together the rules were in my opinion extremely conscientious in going about their task and have very much drone flyers interest at the core of their proposals. I believe this is and will be very positive for all in this hobby.

There is only one thing I can say for taking part, and that is thank you!
Its very nice to read some inside information, I'm very thankfull that there is a broad acceptance for drones and that their future is being cemented within these rules which would aply for the whole European Union.

2018-2-22
Use props
A CW
Captain
Flight distance : 11526437 ft
  • >>>
United Kingdom
Offline

Great info LosBoL - thanks for sharing. We have a concluded drone consultation going to parliament in May to include mandatory registration, on line testing and tougher penalties for flying illegally in the UK.
2018-2-22
Use props
LoSBoL
First Officer
Flight distance : 271650 ft
Netherlands
Offline

A CW Posted at 2018-2-22 10:45
Great info LosBoL - thanks for sharing. We have a concluded drone consultation going to parliament in May to include mandatory registration, on line testing and tougher penalties for flying illegally in the UK.

Your welcome   Same here in the Netherlands, we are waiting on new rulings to be efectuated, but I'd rather they wait on these European Rules.
Is the new UK regulation in line with the proposed European ones? And would they need to be efectuated aswell with the Brexit in mind?
2018-2-22
Use props
Lamplighter55
Captain
Flight distance : 538596 ft
United Kingdom
Offline

All well and good - but what exactly is defined as 'no sharp edges' given that props are exactly that when in flight? One thing I hope the legislation does not do, is stifle innovation - there are a lot of amazing things being developed in the drone sector and I can see these developments bumping up against too stringent a set of laws that define capabilities and modes of operation. For example we already have 'Waypoint autonomy' for flight control.
2018-2-22
Use props
Lamplighter55
Captain
Flight distance : 538596 ft
United Kingdom
Offline

LoSBoL Posted at 2018-2-22 11:04
Your welcome   Same here in the Netherlands, we are waiting on new rulings to be efectuated, but I'd rather they wait on these European Rules.
Is the new UK regulation in line with the proposed European ones? And would they need to be efectuated aswell with the Brexit in mind?

Ah that's one of those 'unknowns' ... the 'B' word so far only means 'something deep and special'. Joking aside, the UK will continue to adopt EU legislation until such time as the umbilical is fully cut - so possibly - end December 2021.
2018-2-22
Use props
hallmark007
Captain
Flight distance : 4199094 ft
  • >>>
Sweden
Offline

Lamplighter55 Posted at 2018-2-22 11:12
Ah that's one of those 'unknowns' ... the 'B' word so far only means 'something deep and special'. Joking aside, the UK will continue to adopt EU legislation until such time as the umbilical is fully cut - so possibly - end December 2021.

UK will be are included and were part of talks for these rules, EASA governs safety for all aviation bodies throughout Europe and by cuttings ties with the EU won’t mean Britain is going to go its separate way regarding safety in aviation .
2018-2-22
Use props
A CW
Captain
Flight distance : 11526437 ft
  • >>>
United Kingdom
Offline

LoSBoL Posted at 2018-2-22 11:04
Your welcome   Same here in the Netherlands, we are waiting on new rulings to be efectuated, but I'd rather they wait on these European Rules.
Is the new UK regulation in line with the proposed European ones? And would they need to be efectuated aswell with the Brexit in mind?

I was involved in the UK consultation and this was the report summary the UK Department of Transport emailed me: -

"Dear consultation respondent,

Many thanks for your response to our consultation entitled ‘Unlocking the UK’s high-tech economy: consultation on the safe use of drones in the UK’.
We are pleased to tell you that we have today published the Government’s response to this consultation, which summarises the responses received and sets out what measures the Government will take going forward. You can find the press release for this announcement here.
The Government’s response to the consultation can be found here, it details information on responses including the:
·         number of responses
·         types of bodies and person responding
·         overall results
It also gives the next steps to be taken by Government to:
implement a registration scheme and mandatory competency tests for all users of drones weighing 250 grams and above
bring forward work to create an authoritative source of UK airspace data, which will facilitate the implementation of geo-fencing and build greater awareness of airspace restrictions amongst drone users
explore further measures such as increasing penalties, creating new offences and reviewing the powers available to law enforcement agencies to enforce relevant law
You may also be interested in the outcomes of the Government’s safety research being published today, as it influenced the outcomes of this consultation. The safety research was sponsored by the Department for Transport, the Military Aviation Authority and BALPA, the pilots’ union. It examined the impact of a drone hitting helicopter and airliner windscreens. It showed that drones of 400g could critically damage helicopter windscreens. For airliners a drone of 2kg or more could critically damage the windscreen when the plane is flying at a high speed, not commonly flown for take-off or landing. A summary of the results can be found here.
Many thanks again for participating in our consultation!
The Drone Policy team"

And this is highlighted in the report: -

"The law applicable to the use of drones in the UK includes both aviation-specific and general law. Safety is the primary focus of the relevant aviation rules which differ depending on the weight of the drone which is being flown.
Currently, the safe use of drones weighing no more than 150kg is subject to UK aviation regulation only, in particular the Air Navigation Order 2016.
The safe use of drones weighing more than 150kg is regulated by European law set out in Regulation (EC) 216/2008 (known as the Basic Regulation) and its amending acts. This Regulation, which sets the mandate of the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), is currently being renegotiated, and the new proposal covers all drones, regardless of weight. The Government broadly supports the proposals of the European Commission and EASA to develop clear harmonised rules to ensure the safe operation of drones across Europe and particularly the UK.
On 23 June, the EU referendum took place and the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. Until exit negotiations are concluded, the UK remains a full member of the European Union and all the rights and obligations of EU membership remain in force. During this period the Government will continue to negotiate, implement and apply EU legislation. The outcome of these negotiations will determine what arrangements apply in relation to EU legislation in future once the UK has left the EU.
The Government is considering carefully all the potential implications arising for our aviation industry from the UK’s exit from the EU, including the implications for the continued participation in the EASA system. Until we leave, EU law will continue to apply to the UK, alongside national rules."

So we will follow the EASA rulings until we leave the EU by the look of it - scheduled for 29 March 2019 - which will be around the time these rulings are invoked anyway... Seems similar though.
2018-2-22
Use props
frankengels
Second Officer
Flight distance : 2273796 ft
Luxembourg
Offline

Not too bad..

Seems that I will have to be certified to fly my Phantom 3 than...
...and need to "find" serial numbers for my other drones which originally don't have serial numbers...
In addition I am guessing that a lot of 2nd hand Phantoms 3,4,(5) will be on sale as no interest to make the certification
2018-2-22
Use props
Montfrooij
Captain
Flight distance : 1684544 ft
Netherlands
Offline

hallmark007 Posted at 2018-2-22 09:53
I took part in the harmonization of EU rules as part of an Irish delegation and there were many other associations throughout Europe who participated, I have to say there was much agreement in proposals put down by everyone and the whole operation of trying to have one set of rules that would allow drone professionals and enthusiasts to fly in Europe under the same set of rules was a very big undertaking.

EASA the body in charge of putting together the rules were in my opinion extremely conscientious in going about their task and have very much drone flyers interest at the core of their proposals. I believe this is and will be very positive for all in this hobby.

Interesting
2018-2-22
Use props
Montfrooij
Captain
Flight distance : 1684544 ft
Netherlands
Offline

It certainly is nice there are some decent rules coming now.
2018-2-22
Use props
LoSBoL
First Officer
Flight distance : 271650 ft
Netherlands
Offline

Lamplighter55 Posted at 2018-2-22 11:07
All well and good - but what exactly is defined as 'no sharp edges' given that props are exactly that when in flight? One thing I hope the legislation does not do, is stifle innovation - there are a lot of amazing things being developed in the drone sector and I can see these developments bumping up against too stringent a set of laws that define capabilities and modes of operation. For example we already have 'Waypoint autonomy' for flight control.

Good point, no sharp edges might end into a mandatory use of prop guards?

As for future development, the first sentence publications adress this:
EASA proposal, released on May 5, 2017, has a clear objective: offering a unifying framework to safely operate drones in Europe while allowing the industry to remain agile and continue to grow.
The document reviews most of the main concerns of the drone industry as it is today.


But that's the theory offcourse,  member states can point out area's which are eleviated from registration and complience to these new regulations, for the sake of development and experiental purposes.

2018-2-22
Use props
LoSBoL
First Officer
Flight distance : 271650 ft
Netherlands
Offline

frankengels Posted at 2018-2-22 11:46
Not too bad..

Seems that I will have to be certified to fly my Phantom 3 than...

I don't know if drones, which are on the market today, will get legislated, or they end op in the A3 class....

We might all need to buy new drones?

What I did read in the opinion is that manufacturers have 2 years for all new drones to get certified.
2018-2-23
Use props
frankengels
Second Officer
Flight distance : 2273796 ft
Luxembourg
Offline

LoSBoL Posted at 2018-2-23 08:41
I don't know if drones, which are on the market today, will get legislated, or they end op in the A3 class....

We might all need to buy new drones?

Good Point.
Didn't read it this way..
I would keen to know the definition of No Sharp Edges

For the current drones than pretty much the same than today in most countries, like here in Lux. , with a bonus to go up to 25kg and not limited to 2kg like today
2018-2-23
Use props
LoSBoL
First Officer
Flight distance : 271650 ft
Netherlands
Offline

frankengels Posted at 2018-2-23 10:36
Good Point.
Didn't read it this way..
I would keen to know the definition of No Sharp Edges

I'll have to dig a little deeper, the transitional fase must be in one of those documents.

As for the sharp edges, must be in the risk assesments which are in the NPA 2017-5 B document

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites ... 17-05%20%28B%29.pdf


2018-2-24
Use props
A CW
Captain
Flight distance : 11526437 ft
  • >>>
United Kingdom
Offline

LoSBoL Posted at 2018-2-23 08:41
I don't know if drones, which are on the market today, will get legislated, or they end op in the A3 class....

We might all need to buy new drones?

Good point!     
2018-2-24
Use props
Wyke
Second Officer
Flight distance : 33166 ft
United Kingdom
Offline

LoSBoL Posted at 2018-2-24 01:23
I'll have to dig a little deeper, the transitional fase must be in one of those documents.

As for the sharp edges, must be in the risk assesments which are in the NPA 2017-5 B document

The only place I could find “sharp edges” mentioned in the document is the two instances in the table itself
2018-2-24
Use props
Landbo
First Officer
Flight distance : 502792 ft
Denmark
Offline

Wyke Posted at 2018-2-24 05:52
The only place I could find “sharp edges” mentioned in the document is the two instances in the table itself

I suppose a sharp edge is the same as an unprotected propeller.

Regards Leif.
2018-2-24
Use props
achim1989
lvl.3
Germany
Offline

I really wonder why they feel the need to distinguish between <250g and <900g UAVs...  except maybe that having to register your <250g drone would cut the profit of those toy drones and helicopters sellers by almost a 100%. Long live capitalism!
2018-2-24
Use props
rnrnrn
Second Officer
Flight distance : 430932 ft
Germany
Offline

I'd say like this - for a Mavic owner this is ok. Not perfect but ok. One single thing that troubles me is - insurance. It is specifically stated that there should be information about it within the product but nothing more throughout the regulation. This basically means - if you're in Germany you'll still need to insure your drone as if it were an Airbus, in accordance with the local regulations. Which is quite obviously stupid. And then? Somebody from another state - where insurance for toys is not required - comes over to Germany and... you see what happens. I'm really worried they skipped on this. Otherwise - this would be good to have on the whole continent.
2018-2-24
Use props
LoSBoL
First Officer
Flight distance : 271650 ft
Netherlands
Offline


I'm still digging threw all the documents, these documents keep referring in circles...
2018-2-24
Use props
LoSBoL
First Officer
Flight distance : 271650 ft
Netherlands
Offline

Wyke Posted at 2018-2-24 05:52
The only place I could find “sharp edges” mentioned in the document is the two instances in the table itself

Found this in 2017-05 A which would apply to C0, C1 and C2 according to the opinion:


(f) be designed without sharp edges that may constitute a danger to people on the ground;
(g) if equipped with  propellers, be designed in a way to limit any injury that may be inflicted by blades;


Looks like mandatory use of propeller guards to me
2018-2-24
Use props
A CW
Captain
Flight distance : 11526437 ft
  • >>>
United Kingdom
Offline

LoSBoL Posted at 2018-2-24 10:09
I'm still digging threw all the documents, these documents keep referring in circles...

Yeah, the UK consultation doc. is massive. Lots to read!
2018-2-24
Use props
LoSBoL
First Officer
Flight distance : 271650 ft
Netherlands
Offline

achim1989 Posted at 2018-2-24 07:50
I really wonder why they feel the need to distinguish between

I think because the risk assesment showed that drones <250 gram cause less risk, and maybe registrering kids would go a little to far. ;)
The drones in this category still need to be certified either as a toy, or within the C0's requirements and boundries, so there are still costs for the manufacturers.

The 50m heightlimit which was in the NPA 2017-5 for the C0 class got scrapped in the opinion so all classes would get the 120m height limit and therefore have less deviation in rules. The idea behind it was that the VLOS requirement would keep a <250 gram drone from going far anyway.

A big question would be if we will see a Spark II <250 gram

2018-2-24
Use props
achim1989
lvl.3
Germany
Offline

LoSBoL Posted at 2018-2-24 11:19
I think because the risk assesment showed that drones

Yeah, risk assessment as the most likely cause was what i thought too. but I still find the 250g a limit pretty arbitrary

And yeah, the most logical course DJI could take right now is to add a new member to the Spark family that weighs less than 250g. This plus foldability would probaly sell like hell
2018-2-24
Use props
LoSBoL
First Officer
Flight distance : 271650 ft
Netherlands
Offline

achim1989 Posted at 2018-2-24 13:21
Yeah, risk assessment as the most likely cause was what i thought too. but I still find the 250g a limit pretty arbitrary

And yeah, the most logical course DJI could take right now is to add a new member to the Spark family that weighs less than 250g. This plus foldability would probaly sell like hell

Found this also, no saftery risk, and no security risk with <250 gram drones and therefore no need for pilot registering.


During the meeting held with national security experts on unmanned aircraft, mentioned in paragraph 2.4, the DG Joint Research Centre (JRC) provided the results of a study on the
potential lethality of explosives carried by a UA21. The study showed that a UA with a mass of up to 250 g was not able to carry a payload that posed a significant risk. However, heavier UA may potentially pose a security risk. Therefore, a UA in class C1, even if it does not pose a safety risk, may still pose a security risk.  

During the same meeting, the national security authorities proposed to set the registration threshold to 250 g, and this request was found to be consistent with several comments received during the NPA commenting period.



The risks to privacy and data protection are essentially related to the availability on the UA of a camera or another sensor that is able to record personal information. Most of the UA available on the market, even if they are very small, are equipped with cameras. These vary from toys with very limited performance to nano-UAS that are able to carry high-resolution cameras. It was considered that a UA with a mass of less than 250 g is normally small and, therefore, in order to comply with the general requirement set in the ‘open’ category for the UA to remain in the VLOS, the UA would need to fly close to the remote pilot, and this should allow the pilot to be quickly identified. Operations conducted at a greater distance from the pilot will be classified in the ‘specific’ category, which requires the UAS operator to be registered.

At this stage, it was decided not to regulate the registration of UAS operators who use UA with masses below 250 g in order to remain proportionate, even if there is a residual risk to privacy. This situation will be monitored in the future to evaluate whether there is a need to change that decision.


These considerations led to the condition being set that UAS operators who use UA with MTOMs greater than 250 g need to be registered.





2018-2-25
Use props
rnrnrn
Second Officer
Flight distance : 430932 ft
Germany
Offline

LoSBoL Posted at 2018-2-24 10:14
Found this in 2017-05 A which would apply to C0, C1 and C2 according to the opinion:


This point should have been removed from the whole legal structure either way. It's senseless. Of course there are propellers and of course they move. Until somebody comes up with gravity drive or something like that it is unavoidable.

And further to that - oh look officer, my propellers fold so if they hit someone they will fold back. So yet again up to interpretation, totally senseless.
2018-2-25
Use props
LoSBoL
First Officer
Flight distance : 271650 ft
Netherlands
Offline

rnrnrn Posted at 2018-2-24 08:53
I'd say like this - for a Mavic owner this is ok. Not perfect but ok. One single thing that troubles me is - insurance. It is specifically stated that there should be information about it within the product but nothing more throughout the regulation. This basically means - if you're in Germany you'll still need to insure your drone as if it were an Airbus, in accordance with the local regulations. Which is quite obviously stupid. And then? Somebody from another state - where insurance for toys is not required - comes over to Germany and... you see what happens. I'm really worried they skipped on this. Otherwise - this would be good to have on the whole continent.

I don't know how it is in other European countries, but over here in the Netherlands drone or model plane usage is covered by the standard private liability insurance.
The standard of what needs to be covered (which is just about everything excluding motorised vehicles) and the maximum costs are monitored by the government. This is done so that the threshold of getting a private liability insurance is low, which works here because 90% of the people here have this private liability insurance. You have your whole household covered for 60 Euro per year.
2018-2-25
Use props
LoSBoL
First Officer
Flight distance : 271650 ft
Netherlands
Offline

rnrnrn Posted at 2018-2-25 01:22
This point should have been removed from the whole legal structure either way. It's senseless. Of course there are propellers and of course they move. Until somebody comes up with gravity drive or something like that it is unavoidable.

And further to that - oh look officer, my propellers fold so if they hit someone they will fold back. So yet again up to interpretation, totally senseless.

I can understand why its in there though, certain bladedesigns could be very dangerous, so that they want to have some kind of check on that. It doesn't say that they shouldn't cause harm, but that the design itself isn't makeing it worse.
At least they are being mentioned sepparately from the 'no sharp edges in the design of the aircraft', acknowledging there is no way around blades being part of the aircraft.


How about this interpetation from the officer?  Props that fold are more dangerous, the inertia of spinning blades still applies for folding blades, and because of them folding, they make a slidding 'cutting' movement.


2018-2-25
Use props
frankengels
Second Officer
Flight distance : 2273796 ft
Luxembourg
Offline

LoSBoL Posted at 2018-2-24 10:14
Found this in 2017-05 A which would apply to C0, C1 and C2 according to the opinion:


That's what I am thinking also.
Will buy than the Mavic propeller cages as we have now on the DJI Drones the Electronic ID & Geo awarness
2018-2-25
Use props
LoSBoL
First Officer
Flight distance : 271650 ft
Netherlands
Offline

frankengels Posted at 2018-2-25 02:49
That's what I am thinking also.
Will buy than the Mavic propeller cages as we have now on the DJI Drones the Electronic ID & Geo awarness

Yes, you would say with the Mavic line we are good to go. >900 grams is where the issues start.
2018-2-25
Use props
achim1989
lvl.3
Germany
Offline

LoSBoL Posted at 2018-2-25 00:58
Found this also, no saftery risk, and no security risk with

That is pure theoretical b*******t The spark has a takeoff weight of about 300g which is barely 50g above the threshold. And when I switch it to sports mode it can do 50 kph. So if I fly someone into the face at full speed he or she will be injured severely! The 50g will make no difference there.
2018-2-25
Use props
A CW
Captain
Flight distance : 11526437 ft
  • >>>
United Kingdom
Offline

achim1989 Posted at 2018-2-25 08:47
That is pure theoretical b*******t The spark has a takeoff weight of about 300g which is barely 50g above the threshold. And when I switch it to sports mode it can do 50 kph. So if I fly someone into the face at full speed he or she will be injured severely! The 50g will make no difference there.

Amazingly the weight restrictions are tested against the impact on different manned aircraft rather than people on the ground.
2018-2-25
Use props
LoSBoL
First Officer
Flight distance : 271650 ft
Netherlands
Offline

A CW Posted at 2018-2-25 09:41
Amazingly the weight restrictions are tested against the impact on different manned aircraft rather than people on the ground.

Probably shy of volunteers ;)
2018-2-26
Use props
LoSBoL
First Officer
Flight distance : 271650 ft
Netherlands
Offline

achim1989 Posted at 2018-2-25 08:47
That is pure theoretical b*******t The spark has a takeoff weight of about 300g which is barely 50g above the threshold. And when I switch it to sports mode it can do 50 kph. So if I fly someone into the face at full speed he or she will be injured severely! The 50g will make no difference there.

You are right that in the wrong hands it could definately raise havoc, and it has been raised in the risk assessments.
The focus has been on blunt trauma from impact to the head. Flying someone in the face has been mentioned as 'not being likely' due to the fact that people tend to shift or cover themselves with their hands if a drone comes spearing at them.
The <900 classes are considered to have little risk of creating blunt trauma and therefore are considered to be safe to fly over uninvolved people occasionally. 900 grams is considered the threshold between blunt trauma or not.
The reason that <250 grams doesn't need to be registrerd is because they are not big enough to carry a payload in the case of terrorism.
Here is the blunt trauma risk assessment out of NPA 2017-05 B.

Rationale behind MTOM/energy thresholds for UAS Class C0 and C1
MTOM/energy thresholds are one of the criteria for the subcategorisation of UAS in the open category. These criteria are used together with others in order to define subcategories of operations and UAS classes. This paper intends to provide the rationale behind the masses and energy thresholds defined with regard to the risk posed by blunt-trauma injury (non-penetrating injury) inflicted on people by a UAS. It focuses on Subcategory A1, Classes C0 and C1:


Penetrating injuries should be prevented by a UAS design that does not expose uninvolved persons to the risk of injury inflicted by acuminated parts or cutting edges, for example, blade protection. But this aspect is not addressed by this paper.

Subcategory A1, Class C0
This UAS Subcategory and Class can be operated by minors, without any training required. Occasionally, UAS might fly over assemblies of people. In view of the above, a UAS of this Subcategory and Class must be intrinsically unable to harm people in case it collides with people due to remotepilot error or UA failure. The 250-g MTOM threshold is proposed as a conservative mass to prevent significant blunt trauma. This threshold is justified by the following:

— It has been adopted for the smallest proposed category by the FAA Micro ARC of the March 2016, aimed at making a recommendation for a future FAA rule for UA allowed to fly over people.
— It is the MTOM threshold identified by the FAA registration task force: UA with an MTOM of less than 250 g are not registered. To identify this MTOM, the risk equation was applied.
— Considering RCC studies-based estimates, it has been shown that a kinetic energy of 44 J impacting a human body, averaged on the body of a person standing, would result in a probability of fatality (PoF) of 1%. From a linearisation of the relationship between MTOM and terminal kinetic energy, valid for small rotorcraft, this equates to about 250 g. There is some evidence that RCC studies are overly conservative if applied to UAS collisions with people, however, given the scope of this Subcategory and Class, it is preferred to retain a very conservative value.


Subcategory A1, Class C1
In this case, a minimum age and a minimum level of knowledge would be required for operating the UA, and flying over crowds, even occasionally, would be prohibited; it would be allowed to fly the UA only over isolated people and at a safe distance. A kinetic-energy value was calculated based on experiments that better resemble the possible UAS impact on a person.

The impact scenario considered is that of a multi-rotor UA95 falling from the maximum allowed altitude and reaching a person’s head at a 45 ° angle with respect to the vertical. Among available data from literature, it is proposed to consider the Gurdjian experiments96 with real embalmed human heads being dropped from a certain height on a solid, not moving plate. 17 specimens were impacted on the anterior parietal zone, 10 on the posterior parietal zone. The frontal zone is not considered as people would normally spot a UAS approaching, with their frontal zone facing the UAS, and would either shift or cover themselves with their hands. Temporal data are not available.
From the reported terminal speeds, when the initial fracture was recorded, as well as from the weight of the specimens, it is possible to derive the kinetic energy at impact and take the overall average. The result is about 80 J.
A Monash University paper97 refers to computer simulation of head impacts on a flat rigid structure, yielding energy values between 80 and 95 J, to start seeing skull fractures. This information seems to conservatively confirm the 80 J identified through the Gurdjian experiments.
Other fracture experiments are also available in literature, where pressure was applied to various parts of the skull:


In some cases, recorded data include peak forces and accelerations, but the skulls seem to have been compressed on relatively smaller areas. It is believed that between the two kinds of experiments, those involving collision with a flat surface have a better resemblance with the blunt trauma resulting from a possible UAS impact.
In the Gurdjian experiments, the energy is fully transferred to the head as there is no deformation or movement of the surface impacted. In conclusion, the value of 80 J is retained as the threshold kinetic energy that the head of the average person would be able to absorb without the skull being fractured.


It is difficult to associate a PoF with this threshold, but there are reasons to consider the above estimate as conservative:
— the experiments with the skull specimens included several impacts before fracture; as a consequence, it may be assumed that the skulls could have been weakened before reaching the rupture threshold;

— a living person’s head should be more resistant than the embalmed heads used in the experiments; and
— the rupture of the skull does not necessarily lead to a fatality (although it would certainly be a major trauma).

This substantiates the 80-J threshold value of absorbed kinetic energy as an acceptable one for Class C1. In a collision with a UA, only a fraction of the UA kinetic energy would be transferred to the head. As described further in the text, the kinetic energy absorbed in average by a human head hit by a UA in free fall is estimated to be 46.5 % of the terminal kinetic energy of the UA, expressed as half of the aircraft MTOM multiplied by the square of its terminal velocity (reaching ground). This fractional value may have been conservatively calculated, and, given the uncertainties of collision dynamics, other assumptions may be possible.

A terminal kinetic energy under 80/0.465 = 172 J for the UA would be therefore allowed. Using a linear approximate relationship between terminal kinetic energy and MTOM (about 48 J for every 250 g of MTOM of relatively small multicopter currently available on the market), the 172-J threshold equates to an MTOM of approximately 900 g.

In conclusion, an MTOM of 900 g can be considered as a good threshold to allow a Class C1 UA to be flown over isolated people. UAS with a greater MTOM could also qualify if the manufacturer demonstrates that the kinetic energy transmitted to the head would be less than 80 J.

Note: on 28 April 2017, the final report of the FAA UAS Center of Excellence Task A4 ‘UAS Ground Collision Severity Evaluation’ was published98. This very detailed and rich in information report will be analysed by EASA during the public-consultation period of this NPA, to assess potential implications for the thresholds established above.

Considerations on the kinetic energy transferred to a human head during a collision with a vertically falling multicopter.
The most common mass-produced multicopter UA on the market, with an MTOM between 250 g and 2 kg, is the Phantom DJI. Its dimensions are approximately the ones provided in the following picture:
dji.jpg
In general, it is assumed that if the UA hits a person’s head with one of its arms, the UA would rotate away and a relatively small fraction (F1) of the impacting kinetic energy would be transferred during the impact. The fraction would be much higher (F2) if the collision would occur at the center of or within the square area of the 145-mm side in the example above. The following is an evaluation of those values (F1 and F2):

For value F1 and based on information presented during expert meetings on the subject of small UA and energy balances that could be considered during a collision, as well as on engineering judgment, it is considered that by hitting exactly in the centre, the UA would partially bend or be destroyed, absorbing in the process about 7 % of the impacting kinetic energy:
Kinetic energy transferred = 0.93 x impacting kinetic energy

As for value F2, if the UA would hit the head with its terminal part of the arm (tip), the transferred kinetic energy would tend to zero as the UA would most likely rotate away.

In order to simplify those two scenarios, a linear behaviour of the kinetic energy transferred to the person’s head between the following two extremes is assumed:
— impact at the centre: 0.93 x impacting kinetic energy; and

— impact at the tip: 0.

The average would therefore be (0.93 x impacting kinetic energy + 0)/2 = 0.465 x impacting kinetic energy.
The impacting kinetic energy of a UAS in free fall can be conservatively considered to be its terminal kinetic energy.


In conclusion, according to the above estimates, it is considered that the kinetic energy of a UA in free fall transmitted to a person’s head would be in average 46.5 % of the UA terminal kinetic energy.



2018-2-26
Use props
A CW
Captain
Flight distance : 11526437 ft
  • >>>
United Kingdom
Offline

LoSBoL Posted at 2018-2-26 04:13
Probably shy of volunteers ;)

Hahahaha - there is that I guess
2018-2-26
Use props
12Next >
Advanced
You need to log in before you can reply Login | Register now

Credit Rules