Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Europe Agrees On Regulatory Drone Framework

Posted by Soulskill on from the american-regulators-still-arguing-about-what-email-is dept.

Hallie Siegel writes: Not a week goes by where some aspect of drone regulation fails to make the news. But for any regulated industry where technology is advancing faster than new rules can be agreed upon, it will undoubtedly cause a few headaches. This week closes with a very positive announcement from European stakeholders on the future of drones. During a two-day conference in Riga, the European aviation community found broad agreement on the main principles to guide a regulatory framework to allow drone operations throughout Europe from 2016 onward.

14 comments

  1. Helping clean up Airbus 320's sounds good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There must be some uses beyond that, of course.

  2. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drone regulates YOU.

  3. Wrong title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Regulatory Drone Framework = a framework of drones to do regulation.

    Isn't it

    Drone Regulatory Framework = a framework to regulate drones

    Or is it just me as a non-native english speaker who misunderstands?

    1. Re: Wrong title? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're right. A "regulatory drone framework" would be a the metal skeleton of a flying jaywalker-zapper.

  4. Item 1 is all I need to read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Drones need to be treated as new types of aircraft with proportionate rules based on the risk of each operation."

    Or in other words "fuck you CAA you don't need £3000+ of training to fly a £1000 1kg drone"

    1. Re:Item 1 is all I need to read by Danielsen · · Score: 2

      A 1 kg helicopter with a rotor spinning at 100m/s is dangerous in the wrong hands. In aviation safety is based on rules, and expensive certificates with rights that can be lost if rules are broken. The operators conducting the commercial aviation business need to document that they have processes (Quality system) to ensure that they have internal checks and balances, to ensure that people is qualified, and equipment is safe. The persons responsible for the processes need to have power to change unsafe behavior (Therefore need to refer directly to the CEO), and they need to have training with rights that can be lost if rules are broken. Drone operators/manufacturers/and maintainers must ensure that: - They don't endanger other aircraft. - They don't endanger other people - They don't invade privacy, and harass people.

    2. Re:Item 1 is all I need to read by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Or in other words "fuck you CAA you don't need £3000+ of training to fly a £1000 1kg drone"

      Ha. Given how Europe is a mess with fees on GA aircraft (flying in Europe is pricey if you want to do GA thanks to tons of taxes, levies, fees, etc. Europeans are jealous as to how much flying in North America is better because there is so much less burdens).

      You may not need UKP3000 in training, but I wouldn't be surprised if you're not hit with a UKP500/year license, a UKP100 take off and landing fee, airspace fees, etc. etc. etc.

    3. Re:Item 1 is all I need to read by Zedrick · · Score: 1

      > Europeans are jealous as to how much flying in North America is better because there is so much less burdens).

      I've never heard that before. Oh wait, we're playing the "make up random nonsense"-game? I'll play!

      > Europeans are jealous as to how much horseriding in Argentina is better because there is so much less burdens.

      > The Japanese are jealous as to how much swimming in Somalia is better because there is so much less burdens.

      > Iranians are jealous as to how much stampcollecting in Greenland is better because there is so much less burdens.

    4. Re:Item 1 is all I need to read by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Is it really? It probably varies a lot between countries. I was surprised though to learn (from Google) that an average PPL certification in the US is around $9000 or so, while I found similar courses here for €10.000 (and that includes 21% VAT). Not that different.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  5. Why do you think they want power? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    Well good. Let's play off governments around the world against each other, as the fear of lagging the other guy strikes sufficient terror into the hearts of elected politicians to overcome their proud accomplishment of the glacially inertial regulatory state, requiring a decade of "donations" to move things along.

    It's sad it has to come down to this.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  6. Quite to the contrary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quite to the contrary, they will find, through mishaps, that you do need that level of training to fly drones. There is a reason that the regulators in responsible states are moving slowly. Pall experience so far shows that achieving the target level of safety of manned aviation is unlikely with current technology, and impossible with the current polyannish attitudes about drones. In other words, the arrogant asshats (read capitalists) like you who Arne t thinking about safety have created a serious danger. If you don't believe me, show me one with a proper triple-string certified flight control system.

  7. Wrong first sentence also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think they were trying for something like "Not a week goes by without some aspect of drone regulation making the news".

  8. Amphiboly by sir1real · · Score: 1

    "Not a week goes by where some aspect of drone regulation fails to make the news."

    Therefore this article fills a much needed gap.